1976-04-12

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of increasing evidence of improper interference with normal tendering procedures relating to leases and concessions, which cannot be fully explored within the narrow confines of a police investigation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the government appoint forthwith an independent judicial inquiry into the awarding of the lease extension for Sky Shops and the operations of its duty free concessions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an urgent and important matter.
Considering that the Pepin Board has not seen fit to control interest rates, particularly debit and credit rates, considering that the gap now exceeds 4 per cent, which is the largest in recent years, and considering also that current interest rates are really very high, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to take every necessary step to bring back interest rates at the level they were when the economic development was quite satisfactory, that is a normal rate of 6 per cent, and to avoid that in future Canadians be forced to contract loans at current interest rates which is one of the first causes of inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


INCOME TAX
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that municipal property and school taxes keep increasing and have become a burden which is likely to discourage access to property, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That this House request the Minister of Finance to consider an amendment to the Income Tax Act providing for the deductibility of property taxes and that this be taken in account in the preparation of the next budget.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. 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.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, of which I have

April 12, 1976
Oral Questions
given notice. On Saturday Mr. Dennis McDermott, director of United Auto Workers, reversed the position he took in January and said that a general strike is a distinct possibility. However, he went on to warn against any rash action. In view of the fact that an illegal national strike might prove to be not only rash but in the long run work against labour's legitimate aspirations, can the minister tell the House, first, whether he or his officials now believe a national strike is a real possibility and, second, what steps if any the minister has taken to persuade the CLC to avoid this kind of confrontation, not just with the government but with the Canadian public?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the last part of the hon. member's question first, what we are doing is having ongoing discussions with labour bilaterally and with the national organization itself as well as with the Canadian public generally and the rank and file generally. As to whether I should conjecture with regard to a general strike being a possibility, I do not believe that would be particularly helpful at this time. I am convinced that the majority of the rank and file of the labour movement in this country are still satisfied it is in their best interests to support the anti-inflation program on the basis that run-away inflation has never been helpful to the rank and file in this country.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that approximately 175,000 federal public servants are affiliated with the CLC can the minister advise whether these public servants are prepared to support a general strike and if so what steps the government is prepared to take to prevent an illegal walkout or to prosecute those who take part in an illegal walkout?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe a significant element in the labour leadership in this country believe in obeying the law and I trust they will keep to that position.


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE TO MEET
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the primary concern of both labour and all members of parliament ought to be the public interest, would the minister support the establishment of an all party committee of members of parliament to meet with officials of the CLC in order to try to avoid the threatened general strike and to negotiate a basis for labour's return to the Canada Labour Relations Council and the Economic Council of Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, any technique would be helpful, but I wonder whether escalating the matter at this stage is a good thing in view of the fact that Mr. McDermott himself said it would be a rash action at this time.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO HAVE LABOUR REPRESENTATIVES RETURN TO ECONOMIC AND LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCILS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that it is important something be done in respect of bringing back the tripartite agency, would the minister indicate what he is doing to clarify this or is he just sitting there in the hope that there will be a pleasant outcome?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think labour was fully aware there were significant gains to be made under the tripartite relationship, and if at the present time they do not wish to participate in this way, the opportunity is there for them to participate with management to carry on some of the programs and I believe that aspect is being explored.


HALL REPORT-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON REACTION OF PARTIES
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the Hall report, which is in keeping with the questions we are asking, the minister on Wednesday, April 7, 1976 in response to a question put by the hon. member for Vancouver South indicated that he would be able to comment with more exactitude tomorrow on the length of time it would take to determine whether the conclusions of Mr. Justice E. Hall were acceptable. Now that the union committees have met has the minister received any indications from either side concerning the decision either side will take with regard to the report?


John Carr Munro: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can say that both sides are examining it very closely. There has been no rejection of this as yet. I might add that I asked Mr. Justice Hall, which is within my power under the code, to clarify one or two aspects which could lend themselves to an ambiguous interpretation. He is doing this now and I will be able to respond more specifically to the hon. member in a couple of days after I receive that clarification.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, apparently Mr. Justice Hall indicated that the unions had agreed to live within the spirit of the anti-inflation guidelines. Is this one of the matters of confusion which has been placed before Mr. Justice Hall, because apparently the union in question does not go along with that conclusion? Did the minister bring this to the attention of Mr. Justice Hall?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not one of the areas within the specific interpretation of some of the recommendations. If Mr. Justice Hall says that, my inclination would be to accept it because as we all know he has a high degree of credibility and accuracy in dealing with these matters.


NUCLEAR REACTORS-ALLEGED LICENSING NEGOTIATIONS WITH ITALY AND RUMANIA AND FOR SECOND UNITS IN ARGENTINA AND SOUTH KOREA
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Globe and Mail of March 30 reports Mr. G. T. Leaist, manager of nuclear power marketing at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited as having said:
We're in licensing negotiations with Italy and Rumania ...
There's the prospect of second units in Argentina and South Korea.
I ask the minister to confirm, first, if negotiations for licensing arrangements are under way with Italy and Rumania, and, if so, with which companies or government agencies are these negotiations being conducted; second, if negotiations for the sale of a second nuclear reactor to both Argentina and South Korea are under way?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with agencies and parties in Italy and Rumania. I do not have details as to what agencies these are, but will be pleased to provide the hon. member with that information. As to the second question, is AECL negotiating the sale of a second reactor to Argentina or Korea, I am unaware of such negotiations but am aware that both countries have expressed from time to time an interest in acquiring a second nuclear reactor.
Oral Questions
rather than telling us that safeguards are adequate, because safeguards for licensing have never been announced nor, so far as I know, even formulated.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I said our safeguards fully comprehend that eventuality. In other words, they provide for that kind of situation arising.


FINANCE
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Considering that the Pepin board has not seen fit to control interest rates, particularly debit and credit rates, considering that the gap now exceeds 4 per cent, which is the highest in recent years, considering also that current interest rates are really very high, could the minister provide the House with more information on that?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we indicated in the past that in a free money market, it was impossible to control interest rates in Canada. Rather we emphasized controlling profits of institutions such as banks and credit unions whose profits originate from loans, rather than controlling the level of interest of loan interests.


NUCLEAR REACTORS-SAFEGUARDS UNDER LICENSING AGREEMENT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister fully realizes what activities are being carried on by AECL without his knowledge. May I direct a supplementary question either to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs? Recognizing the difficulty of imposing adequate safeguards in cases where Canada makes a direct sale of a nuclear reactor, I ask how the government proposes to meet the much more complicated difficulty of imposing safeguards in cases where we licence a firm in another country to produce the CANDU reactor? What types of safeguards will the government impose in cases where licensing arrangements are entered into between AECL and a foreign country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, our safeguards fully comprehend that eventuality.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that our safeguards fully comprehend that eventuality. How does the minister propose to cover the contingency alluded to? Since the companies or agencies in foreign countries which will produce CANDU reactors under licensing arrangements with AECL will be under the sovereign jurisdiction of another government, will the agreement be with the company and with the sovereign government of the country in which the manufacturer manufacturing under licence is located? I am sure the minister can give the House some information


AUTHORITY OF ANTI-INFLATION BOARD TO REGULATE CREDIT
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary.
Since banks are allowed to generate credit 10 or 12 times higher than their customers' deposits, could the minister tell the House whether or not the Pepin board is authorized to rule over credit in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have published guidelines for banks and other financial institutions which indicate the method of controlling their profits.


U420)   ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-KNOWLEDGE OF PRIME MINISTER OF ROLE OF MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS IN GRANTING CONCESSIONS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. He will recall that last week he was going to be seeking a briefing from the RCMP. Has he now received that briefing and, as a result of it, can he assure the House that none of his ministers had any knowledge whatsoever of the activities of their personal ministerial staffs with regard to securing the extension of

April 12, 1976
Oral Questions
the Sky Shops lease, in direct contradiction with stated departmental policy in the Ministry of Transport?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I gave that assurance last week about ministerial knowledge or lack of knowledge. I am seeing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police this afternoon to ask them to tell me what they feel they can tell me about any involvement of ministers. I gave the assurance last week that I knew there was none because the police would have told me earlier if there had been. However, I am having this meeting to reassure the opposition since they thought it was important for me to see the police. I would appreciate from the hon. member or other members opposite what else they would like me to ask the police about any other minister or any other member of this House. I use this occasion to ask about questions hon. members would like me to put.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was not necessarily asking about ministers, but about their personal staffs. Perhaps the Prime Minister could take that subject up with the RCMP when he sees them. However, that gives rise to my supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has ever issued any directives to his ministers with regard to the conduct while in office and performing official duties of their personal staffs? If he has given such directives, is he prepared to table them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have given conflict of interest guidelines regarding personal staff. They were, I believe, made public in the House a couple of years ago. All these directives have been carried out in the sense that those members of staff who have knowledge of confidential or secret matters and who are in a position to advise on policy follow the conflict of interest guidelines and set up blind trusts or frozen trusts and so on, just as other members of the civil service. These guidelines have been issued. In so far as more general guidelines apply, the ones that Mr. Pearson issued in 1964 apply to ministerial staff.


Erik Nielsen: Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether he accepts the proposition that as a cardinal tenet of responsible government, ministers must ultimately answer for the conduct of their personal staff appointees who are not subject to any other form of accountability?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is, as the hon. member puts it, a cardinal principle. I think it has to be applied in the usual common sense way that a minister must be responsible for those he hires and keeps on his staff. However, this does not make him responsible in the same sense as a member of the staff involved in any wrongdoing. If in the course of any wrongdoing, it is discovered that it is a member of the staff, that member would either be chastised or fired, depending on the gravity of the offence.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Again, a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the now public admission in the matter of the extension of the Sky Shops lease that the then minister of DREE was allowed input into the question as Quebec leader, although this lease was not within his departmental jurisdiction, could the Prime Minister now tell the House whether the policy and practice of the government is that all contracts for the Province of Quebec, whatever their departmental origin, are currently vetted through the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as head of the Quebec Troika?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
sure what the hon. member is implying when he says there was input by the minister responsible for DREE. I think it has been quite clear from the minister that he was not involved in any way with the Sky Shops matter and therefore I think the hon. member, if he made that allegation, should be prepared to withdraw it or substantiate it.


Walter David Baker: I made no allegation with respect to the involvement of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Walter David Baker: I asked a simple question-whether with respect to the extension of the Sky Shops lease, the minister for DREE, as he then was, was allowed input into the matter and whether in terms of contracts of this nature or, indeed, of any nature in the Province of Quebec, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in his capacity as head of what I call the Quebec troika makes a similar input today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not that simple. I shall be subject to correction, of course, on reading the blues, but I thought the hon. member said it is now generally recognized that the minister did have input. This is something different again, and I am telling him, if it is now recognized I want to know by whom and on what he bases that recognition; and if he does not have any basis he should withdraw it.


Walter David Baker: I put a very simple question to the Prime Minister. Did the then minister for DREE make such input? I think the answer would either be yes, or no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member still has not withdrawn and I shall wait for him to do so.


REASON FOR WITHHOLDING AID TO OLYMPIAD FOR PHYSICALLY DISABLED
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare; it is one of which I have given him notice. Can he inform the House as to the reasons for withholding promised federal aid for the physically disabled Olympiad
April 12, 1976

scheduled to be held in Etobicoke this summer, thereby jeopardizing the dreams and hopes of some 2,000 kids in wheelchairs from around the world?


Hon. Marc Lialonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the explanation is quite simple: there is no reason whatsoever to jeopardize the hopes of all those taking part in the physically disabled Olympiad, except for the South African team. The government's policy has been very clearly established for many years regarding the apartheid policy in South Africa, and the government's position has been to withhold its financial aid to sporting events involving South Africa, because of its apartheid policy. I personally wrote to the president of the Olympiad asking him to assure me that South Africa will not be represented, and if such is the case, there will be no problem. Funds will be made available for the Olympiad, and I am sure it will be very successful.


REASON FOR ALLEGED DOUBLE STANDARD IN DEALING WITH SOUTH AFRICA
Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary to the Prime Minister. With the minister's answer in mind and bearing in mind, also, the fact that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce maintains at least two trade offices in South Africa, which makes it quite clear that the government of Canada does, indeed, recognize that state, at least as a trading partner, would the Prime Minister explain the obvious double standard the government is once again following, especially as South Africa has taken all necessary steps to eliminate any racial discrimination which might have existed in the past?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He means in sports.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid the hon. member is not well informed about the policy of South Africa.


Otto John Jelinek: A final supplementary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Might I remind him that in past years the Canadian government did, in fact, fund Canadian teams for the purpose of competing against teams from South Africa. In view of this situation, can the minister explain the reason for the inconsistent attitude adopted by his department?


Marc Lalonde: I would appreciate the hon. member giving me a particular instance and I will investigate it. The only answer I can give the House is that if it has ever occurred it was against the policy of the government and was without my knowledge. As far as instances brought to my knowledge are concerned, the officials have followed the guidelines established by the government. The federal government is not subsidizing sports events in which South Africa participates.
Oral Questions



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Pau Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. On March 25, as reported at page 12136 of Hansard, I inquired whether or not the Samson program office associated with his department had at any time indicated to Computing Devices that they did not need the terminals until September 1976, to which the minister replied on April 8 in a handwritten letter "No". I should like to inquire of the Minister of Supply and Services whether or not he knew that on Friday, January 30, 1976 a meeting took place between Computing Devices and officials of his department at which the officials of his department indicated that they had a minimum requirement of 45 units of which they did not need delivery until September 1976 and that they could have been supplied. In view of that, would he now reconsider the contract with Computing Devices?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, I think the answer I gave the hon. member was no; the details might have differed somewhat, but the substance of the answer is no.
With respect to the latter part of the question, namely whether I shall revise my decision to cancel our contract with Computer Devices Ltd., my answer is also no. I do not intend to revise my decision since it was based, as I indicated to the House, on the fact that the delivery was to be delayed. Second, while we had called for tenders and agreed on a firm price, the company wanted to revise its price and increase it substantially. Third, the project submitted included major deficiencies; therefore the client department, the Department of National Defence, did not accept the product.



TERMINALS FOR SAMSON PROJECT-POSSIBLE CONTRACT WITH UNITED STATES COMPANY RATHER THAN CANADIAN

Paul Wyatt Dick: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Supply and Services whether or not he has made alternate arrangements for getting the material requested and whether this has been done through the Teletype Corporation of the United States. If so, does that not breach the very objectives of the program which wanted Canadian manufactured goods?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, indeed we are going to deal with the company which filed the second lowest tender; it is an American company, but I do not believe that Canadians necessarily expect us to deal with Canadian companies, at any cost and under any circumstances. We must act intelligently and first try to get the product we need.
12712
April 12, 1976

Oral Questions


Paul Wyatt Dick: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the opening paragraph of the form says that the primary objective of this procurement is to obtain maximum benefit to the Canadian economy consistent with the objectives of the program, and in view of the fact that purchase of equipment from a U.S. firm would not be of any benefit to the Canadian economy, can the minister tell me whether delivery will be made by this secondary manufacturer, or could he not get an alternative from a Canadian producer just as quickly?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is no other fully Canadian supplier like the first one. It is indicated that we prefer to buy Canadian. It is fairly obvious that we would like to do so, but not at any cost. It is not to be expected that we will conclude agreements which will go against the interest of the customer department, that is getting the desired product of good quality.
As for the delivery date, I could not say when that will be but I will gladly look into it for the hon. member.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Can the minister indicate when she hopes to clear up the controversy concerning CBC television service to the community of Teslin in the Yukon Territory?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the controversy, if that is the way the hon. member chooses to put it, is over. An agreement has been reached between Telesat and the Yukon Territory on the question of a broadcasting station in Teslin. The problem has been solved to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, and this will allow the community to have six low-cost broadcasting stations of good quality and which allows for respect of the integrity of the system.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. On April 1 I raised a question to the President of the Treasury Board concerning the government's policy of hiring temporary secretarial and clerical help through private employment agencies which take a percentage of the worker's pay. There seems to have been some confusion in the answer given by the minister in that he referred not to temporary employees hired through private employment agencies but to casuals. Specifically referring to temporary employees hired through private employment agencies,

were these persons included in the government's austerity program which was to have limited growth in the civil service to 1.5 per cent this year?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I answered the other day that, under the guidelines, government casual employees must be included in the moneys already allocated to every department for the number of man-years that they are allowed. As fas as I am concerned, I will look whether there is a distinction between the words "casual" and "temporary", but I have not seen any as yet in Moliere's French.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can the minister tell the House whether, since the Ottawa-Quebec agreements were signed, the Quebec Minister of Transport presented a special project for study which would cover the problem of Montmagny-Isle-aux-Grues communications and access roads to the Montmagny wharf?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I know that proposals have been filed with my officials for discussion, but I am not in a position to give the hon. member specific details on those proposals. They are numerous and have been the subject of discussions for months, even before the agreement was signed last week. I could perhaps in a private interview give the hon. member additional information after I have looked into the matter.



POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF ALUMINUM PLANT ON SOUTH SHORE OF ST. LAWRENCE

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the minister advise the House whether or not a survey is being conducted by his department's officials and representatives of the Quebec government in view of setting up an aluminum plant on the south shore?


Marcel Lessard: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. So far as I know, this project which has been mentioned in the media has not, up to now, been discussed by my department.
April 12, 1976



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the extensive flooding of the Souris River on both sides of the border in recent days and the recommendation of the governor of the state of North Dakota regarding the terms of reference of the IJC investigation into the Garrison dam project, would the hon. gentleman when he meets with the U.S. ambassador tomorrow to discuss the Garrison dam project recommend to the ambassador the extension of the terms of reference to include flooding of the Souris River?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member was not here on Friday when I made a correction to Hansard to the effect that I was not meeting with the United States ambassador tomorrow but had met with him. I intend to meet with my American counterpart in the coming weeks, but I do not know exactly when. As fas as the Garrison diversion is concerned, this is in the hands of the IJC. I could very well look at the suggestion being made, but I know at this moment the problem is quite under control.



SOURIS RIVER AREA-POSSIBLE DECLARATION AS DISASTER AREA

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he received a request from the government of Manitoba to declare this area a disaster area, as has occurred on the United States side of the border?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any request from the government of Manitoba.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answers by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to questions about correspondence of the staff of the Department of Transport as recorded in Hansard at page 12609, will he now inform the House whether he is aware of those actions, as related to Sky Shops, taken by Mr. Andrew Chatwood, and will he report to the House on his findings?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said on Thursday. I indicated then I had been advised and made aware informally of the existence of this correspondence, but I have not seen it, nor do I know anything more about it than I mentioned at that time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think it is probably incumbent upon the minister to apprise himself of the circumstances relating to his personal staff. Since the minister has informed us that he knew nothing of Mr. Chat-wood's activities in this matter, can he inform the House whether he was even aware that a prolonged squabble had been going on for sometime regarding this particular lease extension and, if he was, what was his position vis-a-vis a non-tendered lease renewal for Sky Shops Export Limited?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I was aware of it. In any event, I question very much whether it would be appropriate for me at this point in time to go beyond the comment I made on Thursday. In terms of the substance of the question, so there will be no doubt that I am seeking to answer, at least to the limit the Chair would permit, I am not aware of any such squabble.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from a question I asked the hon. lady two or three weeks ago about arrangements for ratifying the United Nations Charter on Human rights. Have these procedures now been put in place with the provinces, or must we wait longer for the breakthrough to occur which we were promised on December 11?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer ready on my mind. I have not heard that we have formally ratified the international instruments mentioned by the hon. member, but I hope as he does that it will be done at any moment; I shall inquire at my department.



FINANCE


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Noting that tighter credit conditions are being felt by business as a result of higher interest rates and the Bank of Canada's efforts to control monetary expansion, will the minister undertake to ascertain whether the chartered banks are reducing lending activity under the Small
2 1804-43'/2

April 12, 1976
Oral Questions
Businesses Loans Act as a method of rationing funds to borrowers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it is always the little guy, whether an individual or a small businessman, who is hit the hardest by more stringent credit conditions, and who is unable to protect himself by such actions as borrowing abroad, will the minister tell the House whether the Governor of the Bank of Canada is prepared to use moral suasion in order to ensure that banks do not cut off small business?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to discuss that with the governor.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on our favourite subject, Crocus Foods. In view of the Manitoba government's recent decision not to go ahead with Crocus Foods, can the minister indicate whether the special provision that his department placed before the Manitoba government, namely, that the government should guarantee that the present milk processing plants would continue to receive the same milk supply at their present levels, was a condition the Manitoba government could not meet?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. member whether the conditions contained in the offer led the government to decide against going ahead with the project. I would be rather inclined to think instead that the overall situation influenced its decision. I could not say that it was one specific reason or another. Of course, there is the general state of the market; there are surpluses at the present time; perhaps there are other reasons the hon. member is probably aware of as well as I am, if not more so, which forced the government into the decision it took.



ALLEGED ABANDONMENT OF CROCUS FOODS' PLANT-POSSIBILITY OF NEW APPLICATION

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in view of the decision by the Manitoba government, has the DREE offer to Crocus Foods now lapsed, and if a new project were to be undertaken by the Manitoba government would an entirely new application have to be made to the department?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, there are legal technicalities involved, and I think that I shall refrain from making any

comments. Obviously, first we must wait for people directly informed or involved, that is to say the Manitoba Dairy Producers' Marketing Agency, who are supposed to communicate officially their decision to me. The information we have had to this date is that which was given by the Manitoba agriculture minister himself when he replied to a question in the legislative assembly of Manitoba about ten days ago. For my part, I have not received from the minister involved official confirmation that the project as such had been abandoned other than the information that he gave himself to the press and the legislative assembly. I must therefore wait to see what will happen next.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and in his absence, I would like to address it to his parliamentary secretary.
First, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs intend taking particular measures to protest against the arrest of two eminent professors of the United Nations University in Argentina, Dr. Emilio di Ipola and his wife, which arrest violated the International Bill of Rights and greatly disturbed French universities in Canada, especially in Quebec, where the two eminent professors have taught?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleague that the Department of External Affairs was informed of this matter by Canadians last Friday and that a note expressing our concern about an act apparently committed by terrorists against these people has been sent to the charge d'affaires for Argentina in Ottawa.



PRODUCTION OF SWINE 'FLU VACCINE IN CANADA- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, since Canada had representation at the meeting of influenza experts, convened by the World Health Organization in Geneva last Thursday, concerning swine flu, and in view of the fact the experts at the meeting indicated that vaccine would be available in some countries only in small quantities and in some countries not at all, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicate whether as a result he may be reconsidering his decision not to produce very much vaccine in Canada, and at least on moral grounds will he reverse that decision to produce in order to increase the world supply of this product?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have almost become desperate
April 12, 1976

about making my hon. friend understand the situation as it stands. I never took the position that Canada should not produce any such vaccine. That is a ridiculous statement.



SUGGESTED CONSIDERATION OF MEASURES OTHER THAN VACCINATION TO CONTROL SWINE 'FLU

Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the same meeting declared that vaccination alone would not prevent the spread of this disease, and that other measures must be considered, would the minister indicate whether Canada has prepared any contingency plan for adopting existing health services in the potentially exceptional situation?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have a priority at the moment, and it is to make sure that enough vaccines are available to meet the needs of all Canadians in the months ahead. If other steps are required, they will be announced in due time.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. The latest annual report of the Canadian Transportation Commission states that the CTC carried out a study at the request of the Ministry of Transport task force, namely, and I quote: "the regional development implications of the freight rate structure for movements of live cattle as against movements of beef". I should like to ask the minister if he is prepared now to table this study so that we may all see what is in that particular CTC study, and if he could outline very briefly to the House some of the general recommendations that came out of the study.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: I will certainly look favourably upon the first request, and I think that at that point it would be better if the member took a look at the study rather than if I outlined it.


Jack Burnett Murta: It was over a year ago, on January 28, 1975, that the minister said in the House of Commons that the freight rate equalization program would have the effect of reducing freight rates for dressed beef vis-a-vis live beef and that the government will in due course be putting forward the specific proposals they have for bringing about equity with regard to these matters. In view of the fact that there appears to be a study now tabled by the CTC, can the minister inform the House when he envisages introducing specific proposals to end this anomaly?


Otto Emil Lang: A number of measures are required, and one in particular would be required which calls for legislation.
Oral Questions
As was indicated in the House before, it is our hope to put that legislation before the House in the near future.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Each year, just when the local crops are ready for the market, the same kind of products manage to come across the border at prices below the cost of local production. These local farmers are almost facing extinction. Would the minister not concentrate on this problem long enough to work with the Department of Finance to raise the tariffs during the harvest season long enough to protect the local farmers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, these tariffs are generally agreed upon with the Canadian Horticultural Council which has always been the adviser to the government on the situation, in addition to what the members of parliament tell us. We have acted in the past when it was feasible to put on tariffs when the product is in production in Canada.


Benno Friesen: I recognize the fact that the minister negotiates with the Canadian Horticultural Council but that has to do with levels, not the timing.



FINANCE


Benno Friesen: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. He has received a letter from Royal City Foods Ltd., dated March 10, in which they say that products are coming in from the United States at prices reported to be lower than actual cost in the United States. They say that if protective action is not taken against distress selling of foreign products into our domestic markets, our industry will not survive. Has the minister taken any action on this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, action is provided for under the law. However, I will make a further investigation of the current status of the investigation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister

April 12, 1976
Oral Questions
of Labour. Is the minister in a position to report to the House on the talks which he said he would have with Air Canada regarding its labour relations with its finance branch employees, and in particular has he been able to persuade Air Canada to desist from the practice of farming out finance branch work looking toward a possible lockout of the employees of that branch?


John Carr Munro: The other day when I said I would be meeting with Air Canada officials I thought it would take place this morning. It will take place this afternoon. After I have had those meetings I will be in a better position to respond to the hon. member, perhaps tomorrow.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Under the present legislation maintenance costs as decreed by courts as a result of a family break up are tax deductible. However, if the court decreed a $100 maintenance cost and the husband pays $150, the $100 is tax deductible but the $50 is not. Would the minister agree that the government should be encouraged to support estranged families, even beyond court decrees rather than-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Paproski:: Ask the minister in caucus.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Would the minister agree that the government should encourage support for estranged families even beyond court decrees rather than penalizing them, and can the House expect a favourable response and attitude by the minister?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: We
administer it as it is handed to us. We will take the hon. member's suggestion to the Minister of Finance for his consideration.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Ever since last year the Minister of Agriculture has promised a program for the cow-calf operators. Since the first announcement of his intention many of these calves have become heifers capable of being bred. So far cattlemen know where the bull is-it is contained at this time. Since it will soon be time to turn the cattle loose on the pasture and turn the bull loose with them, would the minister do his part at this time and produce?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the bulls and the cows will do what is natural regardless of what I have to say.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am talking about the policy.



TOURISM


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Having regard for statistical information which indicates that in the area of the tourist industry which has traditionally enjoyed a trade balance in our favour, we are now experiencing a trade deficit of about $700 million annually, can the minister inform the House whether his department is aware of this fact and if any programs, promotional or incentive, are being planned which would alleviate or reverse this situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, quite a number. I undertook to make them available to the committee studying my estimates in detail. I will be glad to send them to the hon. member. They also involve encouraging Canadians to see more of their country because that helps the deficit, as well as encouraging more visitors to come here. But I will be glad to make the whole program available to the hon. member.



FINANCE


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the government is considering borrowing $300 million from our chartered banks for the purchase of the Orion and the fact that there are other reports of further government intentions to borrow from the commercial lending sector, can the minister tell the House what effect such government borrowings will have on interest rates and the effect such sizeable borrowings from commercial banks will have on the credit available to the private sector?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We
anticipate no difficulties in that regard.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Does he have an estimate of the total borrowings that the government will be requesting of the commercial banks to the end of 1978, and can the Minister of Finance explain why an organization with a $42 billion cash flow has to even consider borrowing from the commercial sector?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me that the government of Canada, like any other organization, should
April 12, 1976

take the best means possible to finance its continuing operation and go for a variety of forms of credit.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice, or perhaps one of their parliamentary secretaries who could take it as notice at least. It is a complicated question in that it concerns Mr. Eddie Haymour, the Canadian of Lebanese extraction who held a number of members of the staff of the Canadian embassy in Beirut hostage about six weeks ago. I am wondering whether the minister can say if legal action or medical sequestration is being contemplated against this individual for the crime he committed against the Canadian law on Canadian territory overseas?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice in order to check the facts.



IMMIGRATION


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, perhaps at the same time the parliamentary secretary could find out whether the person in question, Mr. Eddie Haymour, was under a court order in Lebanon before he left, and if so, how he managed to get into Canada without some sort of legal action being invoked.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I shall inquire and give an answer to the hon. member tomorrow, if necessary.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: for leave to introduce Bill C-434, respecting the conditions under which public servants may accept employment upon leaving the public service.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this bill ensures that retiring senior public servants are not able to take undue advantage of their former positions in obtaining new employment or acting as lobbyists. Guidelines are set forth to enable the governor in council to make the judgment as to when post-retirement employment of senior public servants with a particular firm or person is appropriate and when it is not.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,617, 4,951, 4,952, 4,991 and 5,007.


Mr. Matte: 1.	In 1975-76, did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation grant loans under the Student Housing Programme in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, in what amount?
2.	What (a) are the names of the municipalities and agencies who received such grants, (b) rate of interest was charged?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. CMHC did not make loans for student housing projects in Champlain County in 1975.
Note: The fiscal year of CMHC is the calendar year. Data on operations under the NHA are compiled by CMHC on the basis of municipal counties in Quebec, not on the basis of federal electoral constituencies.

April 12, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	Not Applicable.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	Was HMCS Bonaventure sold and, if so (a) on what date, (b) to whom, (c) at what cost?
2.	What are the names of (a) agents, (b) brokers, (c) lawyers who acted for the persons involved?
3.	Was a contract to tow the Bonaventure to its ultimate destination let and, if so (a) to whom, (b) on what date, (c) in what amount?
4.	(a) What was the route taken in delivering the Bonaventure to the purchaser, (b) what were the ports of call along such route?
5.	(a) What is the name of the dockyard where the Bonaventure was broken up, (b) on what date did it arrive at the dockyard, (c) on what date was the scrapping completed?
6.	(a) What was the date of the final refit of the Bonaventure, (b) what was the cost, (c) at what location was it refitted?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes; (a) August 17, 1970; (b) N.W. Kennedy Limited, Vancouver; (c) $851,700.
2.	(a) Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and N.W. Kennedy Limited; (b) none; (c) none.
3.	A condition of sale was that the preparation for departure and provision of any necessity required to move the vessel is the responsibility of the purchaser or his authorized agent.
4.	(a) and (b) The purchaser was responsible for accepting delivery of the vessel at the HMCS Dockyard, Halifax.
5.	(a) Kaohsiung Port; (b) March 15, 1971; (c) January 31, 1972.
6.	(a) Work commenced on the 25 April 1966 and was completed 1 September 1967; (b) $10,290,090; (c) Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., Lauzon, P.Q.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What is a description of the work done on the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonaventure in its final refit?
2.	Was new equipment installed and, if so (a) what is a description of such equipment, (b) what are the names and addresses of the suppliers?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. The description of the work done on the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonaventure was as described in the contract and in accordance with the specifications, drawings, material lists and documents pertaining to: (a) The maintenance and repair of the vessel, (b) The improvement of vessel systems, and (c) as amended during the life of the job. Generally it included: the repair, refit and maintenance of the vessel's hull, its machinery and equipment; changes to such systems and services as ventilation, heating, de-icing wiring, fuel and ballasting; updating the operational and fighting equipment; improvements in electronic equipment, e.g., the replacement of the existing medium range air warning radar, installation of a closed control and modulating radar set; replacement of outdated navigation and communication equipment; the standard of habitability was updated by re-arrangement of accommodations and improvements in domestic systems, laundry and sanitary facilities; improvements also included the re-arrange-

ment of the Action Information Office; updating NBCD arrangements and modifications to existing air-conditioning, lighting and aircraft landing systems.
2. Yes. (a) As described in the Contract and in accordance with the specifications, drawings, material lists and documents referred to in 1. (a), (b) and (c) above, (b) The department does not have the manpower required to carry out the lengthy research necessary to determine the names and addresses of suppliers. In this regard it should be noted that more than ten years have elapsed since the commencement of the project and that equipment and material was provided by a number of sources, i.e., by the contractor, Davie Shipbuilding, through direct purchases (sub-contracts); and by the Government from Supply Depot stocks or through DSS purchases on behalf of DND.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Do vacancies exist in the membership of the Canadian Tariff Board and, if so (a) what are they, (b) on what date did they become vacant, (c) for what reason?
2.	Will the vacancies be filled and, if so (a) on what date, (b) by whom?
3.	What are the rates of pay for the (a) Chairman, (b) First Vice Chairman, (c) Second Vice Chairman?
4.	What is the full membership of the Canadian Tariff Board and what are their names?


Hon.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: On the part of the Tariff Board: 1. Yes (a) Chairman, Second Vice-Chairman; (b) December 31, 1975, August 14, 1975; (c) retirement.
2.	Yes (a) As soon as possible; (b) Will be announced when appointments made.
3.	(a) $41,000 to $54,000; (b) $35,500 to $47,500; (c) $31,500 to $41,500.
4.	Five members: W. J. Landreth; R. Labelle Q.C.; G. Deachman; A. C. Kilbank; K. C. Martin.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the cost of maintaining the two train cars at the Ottawa Station for the use of the Governor General and the Prime Minister?
2.	Do any other persons have use of the cars?
3.	Are there any full-time employees whose exclusive duty it is to look after the two cars?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. April 1,
1974 to March 31, 1975, $56,850; April 1, 1975 to February 28, 1976, $56,100.
2.	The two car set assigned to the Governor General can be used only by the Governor General or visiting royalty. The car designated for use by the Prime Minister can be used by other Cabinet Ministers, on request by External Affairs for visiting foreign delegations and for business purposes by the Canadian Transport Commission.
3.	No. Stewards are assigned as required to any of the four rail cars under Transport Canada jurisdiction.
April 12, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 9, 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.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been here in recent days to follow the debate, but I have read Hansard most carefully. There are only two or three matters with which I should like to deal, because generally speaking the entire field has been canvassed and considered in part. That leads me to mention that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has done a particularly effective job in connection with this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He has a fine record at the bar. Moreover, it is appropriate today for me to point out that this is his sixtieth birthday, so he has a long time to go.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: On a matter as important as the variety of questions dealt with in this bill, it surprises me that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) are not present. However, that is not too surprising because it is just further evidence of the degree with which the members of this government treat the House of Commons with a contempt which I have not known in the years I have been here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fox:: Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), I should like to indicate that the Minister of Justice has been present for most of the debates in the House, and he certainly was here much more often than the hon. member who is now speaking. Such innuendoes are highly improper because, as most members know, both these ministers have participated fully in this particular debate.


Mr. Poulin:: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman indicated that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is not here today, but he spoke at some length in the House on this matter on Thursday. He has given this legislation great attention and has attended often in the House. Today he is attending to commitments, on behalf of the government, in Scarborough, Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Measures Against Crime


John George Diefenbaker: Only parliamentary secretaries could possibly give such an absurd reason as that just given under the guise of a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: This bill is either important, or it is not. The absence of the ministers would indicate that while they applied closure to force the end of the discussion, they really do not regard the opposition as capable of making suggestions which would make this legislation workable. Here we are, after 17 months of the present session of parliament, in the disgraceful situation of having this session continue since September 4, 1974. In other words, the government is trying to bring about legislation by exhaustion. Why does the government not bring in a Speech from the Throne and begin a new session?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are afraid.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not for me to ascribe lack of courage. It is simply a fact that the government does not know what to bring in, and therefore wants to delay starting a new session as long as possible.
This bill in its present form represents, to me, another step in misleading parliament as to the intentions of the government and in tightening the noose around the throat of freedom. The government brings in closure after interested parties have been denied the opportunity to present their views. The Canadian Wildlife Federation clearly set out its views in the representations it made in March. It said the following, which is particularly interesting:
Despite the fact that one of its main features would impose a licensing requirement on some two million Canadians, there has been no meaningful consultation with interested groups, and the over-all approach the government intended was a matter of mystery until the bill was tabled.
The CWF offered to explain its position. It offered to help in the collection of relevant information, but its offer was not even accepted. This is an organization which represents 200,000 Canadians. These people are sportsmen who believe in conservation and the preservation of our wildlife. They also believe in fairness and in justice under the law. It is of interest that this is the day of the week that was set aside, I believe in 1947, as Wildlife Week to honour, in particular, the memory of Jack Miner, that great conservationist who wrote the name of Canada all over the world by his contribution to the preservation of animal life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Why is this session being continued? Is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) trying to establish a record to compete with the despicable record of the long parliament in the reign of Charles I? Is it because this government hates parliament? I underline that. I have sat here under several prime ministers who, while we disagreed on the facts in respect of many matters of legislation, agreed-until the present administration-that parliament is supreme.
12720

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
I laughed when I read of the visitation in Cuba when the Prime Minister cuddled up to Castro. Having regard to the way in which parliament is being treated and controlled, I can only say that the Prime Minister of Canada would certainly be able to give some lessons to Castro, provided that gentleman ever set up a democratic government. We go on and on. Why is there the delay? It is simply because the government does not know what it is doing and does not have the legislation ready.
That brings me to the matter of the control of parliament. Today we had evidence of the endeavour to intimidate members of parliament. When members of the opposition ask a question which implies anything to which the government objects, the Prime Minister-as he did today-rises and says, "State a charge". The Prime Minister adds words to this effect, "Does the hon. member believe in what he has said, for unless he can establish it, his seat is in jeopardy." In other words, if one says anything critical of this government, then that is wrongdoing and in that case the member must resign.
Mr. Speaker, that is the greatest nonsense I have ever heard. It has no basis in the Parliament of Canada or in the Parliament of Great Britain, the mother of parliaments. It is merely an endeavour to intimidate by threat. If I say anything in the nature of a threat, I would be glad to be number one to come under the bat of the Prime Minister. Going on from there, the Prime Minister says that if anyone makes a statement in the nature of a charge, he must prove it. All I have to say about that is that naturally the matter would be submitted to a committee of the House with a majority of Liberal members. I would like to know what the result would be. I do not want to predict. Even with the integrity, knowledge and wisdom of Liberal members, I doubt whether they would vote exculpation, regardless of the evidence.
Before I went into the question of this childish, transparent endeavour to intimidate, I called the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He has sat in parliament for many, many years. He is recognized everywhere as an authority on parliamentary government and the rules. This morning I asked him whether I was correct in my assertion that this type of childish threat had no basis in our parliamentary system. Fortified by his view, I think the majority of the members of this House will now agree that this matter has been brushed aside and no longer requires to be acknowledged even by way of childish condemnation.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, did you ever see such a hodgepodge of legislation together in one bill? This is indeed an example of the degree to which the government brings together a number of subjects which are in no way joined one to the other. This legislation contains some subjects with which the opposition will agree, and others in respect of which the strongest argument can be made to the contrary. Yet we are placed in the position that unless the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North is accepted, we must vote on a bill that contains everything from alpha to omega, all joined together without regard to similarity or any other basic reason.
I will deal with one or two of these matters in an endeavour to bring some light out of the darkness that surrounds that composition. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will

agree with me that this is a wonderful government when it comes to covering up and concealing the truth. It is one of the most interesting phenomena that when members of this government produce their semi-truths and get caught, they fall over, they stumble, they get up and go on as if nothing had happened. That is the position they have adopted throughout. What is this legislation? What is the reason for it?
I have come to the conclusion it is a cover-up to divert the thinking of Canadians from matters such as the mess in which we find the economy, the waste and extravagance of this government which still continues unabated. There is the falling trade, to which reference was made this afternoon, the tremendous deficit in the balance of payments, the industrial anarchy which exists in this country with a government that does not want to act and a government which internationally is suspect all over the free world. In addition, there is the crime which is multiplying. One of the reasons for the dilettante manner in which crime has been treated by this government is the fact that it has been a continual lawbreaker ever since it brought in the legislation which divided murder into two types, noncapital and capital. The Prime Minister, the Solicitor General and others are opposed to capital punishment. They have made that clear.
I have strong views on the subject. When I was prime minister, if a verdict of guilty was rendered and there were no extenuating circumstances or a recommendation of mercy, then, much as I hated to sign what amounted to the death sentence, we followed the law. But this government continues to break the law. Showing the utmost cynicism, the Prime Minister the other day said something like this: "I guess we will have to hang somebody because of public opinion." Could any statement be more cynical?
How will the government implement the gun control sections? I say immediately that I am in entire agreement with the objective, reducing crime by gun. Anyone arguing to the contrary would not have much basis from which to argue. But the means whereby the objective is to be attained, as set out in the bill, indicates a wishy-washy attitude on the part of the government. This plan will not work, and cannot work. It will require a multitude of bureaucrats for registrations and considerations, almost judicial on the part of examining and licensing officers. They will need to discover if the applicant is an alcoholic, if his mind is not as it should be, and so on and so forth. Implementation will require a great deal of examination, and the government knows it.
On page 11 of the little booklet prepared by the combined intelligence of the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General we are told: "It is estimated there are about three million gun users in Canada. Because of this large number, it is intended to phase in the licensing scheme over a three-year period." Let us understand what that means. The government knows that it would take an army of bureaucrats to register. Mind you, thay are not registering guns; the government would not do that. The bureaucrats are to register the individual. The booklet goes on to say: "Various alternatives are being considered including implementation on a region by region basis." That is the first public recognition by this government of regional
April 12, 1976

disparity. Then we are told: "For example, the first year, could see the scheme implemented in Ontario." The registration scheme is to begin here, in Ontario, not in any other part of Canada.
Then we are told that in the following year the scheme will be implemented in western Canada and the territories. Clearly, there is to be open season for guns for a whole year in the western provinces and the territories until the gun law applies to those parts of the country. We are told that in the final year the scheme will be implemented in Quebec and the maritimes.
I have just referred to the last paragraph on page 11 of the "Peace and Security" booklet. Did you ever hear such nonsense? What will be a crime in Ontario in 1976 and part of 1977 will not be a crime elsewhere because the law will apply in Ontario but not to western Canada through to the Pacific coast. There will be no registration requirement there for the first year. There is to be one law for Ontario and a different law for all the other provinces and territories. The paragraph ends with these words:
This breakdown roughly divides the national population into three regional groups. Any implementation scheme would be subject to consultation with the provinces.
I have never seen a more asinine division of responsibility under law than that set out in the pamphlet purporting to deal with questions and answers regarding proposed gun control legislation. The government knows how costly this scheme will be. At first, 900 inspection officers will be needed. Who will pay for them?


An hon. Member:: Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: This is an imposition upon taxpayers and another way of imposing a tax. It is a way most indirect, yet it will directly affect all. The three million gun users must get licences. Sir, the government did not consult the Canadian game federations; they did not solicit the views of 200,000 members, decent, responsible Canadians who are anxious to support an effective law.
In this country there are ten million rifles and shotguns, 700,000 revolvers and pistols, and approximately 2,800,000 gun owners. How long will it take to register them and to secure that full information to which I have referred? This is a preposterous bureaucratic plan which cannot work. I have already said it will be brought in piecemeal. What is to happen to the man who carries a gun during the commission of an offence? That is where the government should strike. We are after the criminal who carries a gun. That is the man we are trying to go after. How will the gun law affect thugs? In February, 1975, I tried to bring before the House a bill to amend the Criminal Code. It was a simple bill and provided in proposed section 83.1 of the Criminal Code as follows:
Every one who carries or has in his possession a firearm for the purpose of or while committing an indictable offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for not less than five years.
That provision would suffice. Wherever similar provisions were brought in, the "gunsters" ran for cover-except the desperate ones; they are in a different category. The sort of plan now before the House has not worked in New York. Decent people register, but do you think thugs are going to register the gun and give names of two respon-
Measures Against Crime
sible citizens as references? Does that not show how ridiculous this proposal is? When I brought my proposal to the attention of the then minister of justice, who has since been promoted to a higher sphere as Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), he brushed it aside. It shocked his finer sensibilities. I point out that under my bill the five-year sentence would not be subject to parole. But the government would not accept that idea; they would not borrow it because that would have been taking an idea from the opposition.
If you let thugs know that they are going to get five years on top of any other sentence they may get, you will strike terror into their hearts.


An hon. Member:: Remember what the Law Reform Commission said?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Are you for the thugs?


Mrs. Holt:: Don't forget what the Law Reform Commission said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am not interfering with any of the hon. gentlemen's friends. Thugs fear punishment.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: What does the bill say? Read the bill.


Stanley James Korchinski: You had better read it in both languages.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I have never seen so many on the Liberal side of the House protecting the wrongdoer. Such solicitude deserves special mention.


Simma Holt: You obviously don't know the bill.


An hon. Member:: Simmer down, Simma.


John George Diefenbaker: The cost of the scheme will be tremendous. Do you know what the government has provided? It says that if you carry a gun in the commission of an offence, or attempted offence, you will be liable for from one year to ten in prison.


An hon. Member:: Fourteen.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, make it 20. But one year is the minimum. What terror that will strike in the hearts of wrongdoers! They would get a year. What is that in a life? Why does the government not act directly in accordance with the recommendation of game associations and also the experience in the United States that that type of legislation is ineffective?
I go from there to summarize this bill. I am not going into detail because I have already said that it has been well covered. I repeat, it will not work. It is an additional tax. It
7 1804-44'/:!

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
will not get the thugs. Has it any support from the mounted police and those in authority? I have spoken to one after the other, and I did not do it by dialling policemen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Without exception, including former RCMP commissioner Nicholson, they are all agreed that it is simply a joke. It is designed to allay public fear that crime is multiplying, and at the same time it brings in a system that cannot be effective. One may ask what can be done. The Fish and Game Association made a very reasonable and responsible presentation. This is general across the country of that great organization. I quote:
The policy of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation as regards to firearms legislation, is to:
1.	Oppose legislative programs that prohibit or unnecessarily discourage the ownership and use of firearms by responsible citizens.
2.	Support legislative programs that provide stringent and mandatory punishment for the criminal misuse of firearms.
3.	Encourage the development of programs concerned with gun safety and with legitimate recreational uses of firearms.
Going on from there, we come to the next phase dealing with the legalization of provincial crime commissions. The Quebec crime commission has done the most effective work that I have ever known, on the part of any commission, to meet the problem. What happened? The authority of the province of Quebec to set up the commission was challenged and it went to the Supreme Court. Where did the Government of Canada stand? Where did the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice stand? They joined with the thugs in arguing in the Supreme Court of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: They argued that what was done was not within the jurisdiction of the provincial government or the legislature of Quebec. A howl went up. It did not take long. The government then said it would bring in legislation to legalize that which it said was beyond the legislative authority of the province. In the meantime, the Quebec crime commission has virtually been made inert. This is not the first time they have done that. I have never known a government that can argue one way in the House of Commons and a different way in the Supreme Court of Canada. The first example was in the Drybones case. An order was made. Drybones had been discriminated against by that wonderful judge in the Yukon who is now about to retire.


Erik Nielsen: Northwest Territories.


John George Diefenbaker: The Northwest Territories judge. The government said it did not believe in discrimination. Lo and behold, when the case came to the Supreme Court of Canada the lawyers for the government of Canada argued that what had taked place was not discrimination and that in any event it did not come within the purview of the Bill of Rights. What manner of nonsense is this?


An hon. Member:: Liberal nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: Liberal nonsense? It is no longer a Liberal government; it is a Trudeau government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It is tremendously interesting to see what stand the government took with reference to women. This has been women's year, when they were showing their best-and I am referring to the government. A woman in Alberta had worked for years building up for her husband a very tidy amount of land, cash and the like. She was foisted out. When she asked for a fair share, where did the Government of Canada stand? They argued in that case that she was not entitled because, constitutionally, it was not appropriate or proper. Where are we going, is the question I ask.
I have other things I could deal with, but I am not going to deal with them except to say this. No one of responsibility that I know in the Mounted Police is for this gun legislation in its present form. Goodness knows, this government does not like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I know that argument will not gain any sentimental support because they tried to get rid of "Royal Canadian". When I raised this last year and said they were removing it, the Prime Minister said that was all wrong, they had never even thought of it. When it was pointed out by tens of thousands of people all across the country that mounted police barracks, detachments and the like had "Royal Canadian" removed, then even the government could see. They then decided that they would not remove the words "Royal Canadian".
However, there are still some ministers opposite who do not have that affection for the mounted police which one would expect. I think of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand) when he was minister without protfolio last November. He has gone from transition to transition. After saying he was sure that the RCMP tipped off the press in advance that they would be meeting with him on Thursday-


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the House that we are debating Bill C-83. The hon. member is discussing quite a different matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are none as blind as those who cannot see.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. member really wants a recommendation to be a minister, I will give it to him, because he has all the qualifications of many others around him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said, last November:
The RCMP are using public opinion to get a strength they would not get otherwise ...
I do not want to see another CIA (the US. Central Ingelligence Agency) in Canada.
That shows the attitude of some ministers of this government. To the credit of the Solicitor General, the next day he said, "My cabinet colleague was unfair and unjust in his allegations about the RCMP." But they do not like the RCMP-and that applies to quite a few who sit opposite. They are really deeply disturbed by Sky Shops and other
April 12, 1976

shops of that kind. They do not like the RCMP, and that applies especially to two of the ministers; each of them is showing an interest in something else at the moment.
I have nothing more to add. I have tried to show that this legislation is wrong in its present form. I have not dealt with wire tapping. What happened there is that they smuggled in this wiretapping section. I could not find it in my search at first. Everything else has a heading. That wiretapping thing was turned down in 1974. We said it was wrong. The then minister of justice, now Minister of Transport, fought bitterly to have it included. He did not get away with it, so they brought it in along with the other stuff.


An hon. Member:: Under the table.


John George Diefenbaker: From under the table, where it was hidden away, they produced this. As long as that provision is there, you have the danger of a police state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The point was well covered by my hon. friend from Calgary North who I understand has an amendment he intends to bring forward to make the proposal acceptable. But, on the face of it, what colossal impertinence on the part of a government to put all this stuff together with no relationship between one thing and another, and to say to us, "You must vote for it because you believe in certain parts of it." Not at all. This should have been divided up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I will say no more other than that I fear for my country when you have a government which so cavalierly tries to restrict the rights and freedoms of individuals. They will not put the noose around the neck of a criminal who is guilty of premeditated murder, but they are putting the noose around freedom whenever they have an opportunity.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, today is the last day under the provisions of Standing Order 75C allocated to the discussion of Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime. This legislation deals of course with the registration of firearms. Similar legislation has been enacted in several countries throughout the world, yet without bringing about any real change in the situation regarding crime. In North America, for example, one could read the following not so long ago, and I quote:

"The new Boston gun control law has little effect".

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of Bill C-83 is to have us swallow the next bill, Bill C-84. It is an attempt to convince the people that gun control will prevent or stop crime which is becoming more and more serious in Canada. If they can get enough citizens and members to agree on gun control, then they will have them swallow the aboli-
Measures Against Crime
tion of capital punishment through the adoption of Bill C-84.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill C-83 does not surprise me. Two ministers are needed to support this bill, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand). They act in collusion to have us believe that crime will be reduced if revolvers, guns, ",22's" and ",303's" are registered. It may be. However, Mr. Speaker, are we to believe that thieves and criminals will register their weapons before committing their crimes?
Recently, when the Brink's truck was attacked in Montreal by gangsters armed with a machine-gun, do you think they informed Brink's of the licence number of the machine-gun before stealing $2,800,000? As late as last night, murders were committed in Montreal. Are we to believe that bandits will register their weapons to put an end to crime? Those who will laugh at the government measures and the ministers involved in this bill are the bandits who do not care the least about the government and the ministers. For instance, if an honest man keeps a shot-gun in his car trunk, whether it be a ".22" a ".300", a " 303" or a ".410", a bandit will not go and get a licence before stealing it. He steals the gun and then uses it against honest people or to commit a crime, perhaps a murder.
We all have received numerous letters from the province of Quebec and from all the provinces that strongly oppose the passage of Bill C-83. I received letters from British Columbia, from the constituency of my good friend from-


An hon. Member:: Kenora.


David Réal Caouette: Kenora, that is in Ontario; I have also received some from there. I also received several from the Windsor and St. Catherine areas and from the Quebec City area. I should like to quote a few of the letters I received, including one from the Quebec Wildlife Federation, Quebec region, as well as a copy of a letter sent to the Prime Minister, copy of which has been sent to every party leader in this House. The leader of the official opposition, the two ministers concerned, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice, the leader of the New Democratic Party, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and myself also received this letter. It is signed by Raymond Pelletier, the acting secretary of this association, the Quebec Wildlife Federation.
During the regular meeting, the executive of the Quebec Wildlife Federation (Quebec area) which represents 26 associations with a membership of about 25,000 unanimously adopted the following resolution:
Considering that the amazing increase in crime in the country is due more to a bad administration of the law than to a lack of legislation;
Considering that a forty year old legislation requiring the registration of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is not implemented, Mr. Allmand having stated a year ago that 40 per cent of these guns were not registered in the country;
Considering that it would be better to amend the act in order to remove criminals from society instead of worrying a whole group of sportsmen;
It seems to me that this makes a lot of sense. Criminals should be removed from society, but not by registering guns, revolvers, pistols and so on. Come on! The Solicitor

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
General (Mr. Allmand) never net any sportsmen or knows nothing about the use of firearms. Do you think a criminal will care about Bill C-83? He keeps on laughing while we discuss it here, and murders are committed in Montreal and all across the country. So instead of eliminating criminals they try to bother a whole group of sportsmen, not only sportsmen but honest people to boot.
Considering that we should never lay the blame on the object, but on the one who uses it;
This is what is important. The guy who uses it is the very one we should catch. The object in itself, registered or not, does not change anything much.
I resume the quotation:
We propose that the highest authorities in the land be asked to see to it that all bills introduced by Messrs. Ron Basford and Warren Allmand be withdrawn which are designed to amend the Criminal Code of Canada in such a way that all owners of sporting guns and rifles be required to have a permit to keep them, that said permit be renewed every five years, that to obtain a permit the applicant be required to produce the statement of two guarantors, that persons of less than 18 years be required to have a special permit signed by two guarantors, or otherwise, to restrict hunters and sportsmen generally.
The association recommends that those things be deleted in the bill.
In the hope that you will act to implement our recommendations, I am
Yours truly,
Acting Secretary Quebec Wildlife Federation Raymond Pelletier
I do not know whether the right hon. Prime Minister has replied to that letter, but I feel the letter is entirely proper and logical. The adoption is recommended of an act that would not create problems for sportsmen, hunters and other honest people, but would instead be designed to keep criminals out of circulation.
When one sees how justice applies to criminals today, one wonders. Fellows appeared before the Commission of Enquiry into Organized Crime, whose constitutionality has just been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, bandits, in Montreal, guys who admitted having killed. At one point, they were released on bail, they were allowed to go about freely in Montreal, to everybody's knowledge. Is that justice? We wonder then-
At any rate when I hear the Solicitor General declare that there are other ways to protect our society than capital punishment, I ask which are they? Is Bill C-83 supposed to reassure the public? The head of the Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime, Justice Dutil, has even been heard tell witnesses: Do not worry, do not be afraid, you are protected by the commission. We shall protect you against any aggressor. Since that time, at least half a dozen people have been assaulted and killed, even though Justice Dutil had promised them the protection of justice.
The Solicitor General is an inconsistent dreamer who does not understand anything about the problems of public security. The people are shocked and rising against the irresponsibility of the Solicitor General of Canada. He has to hide to shun police associations as well as other groups of citizens who want justice to prevail. The Solicitor General declared: Before I give up, I shall resign. I held an

inquiry in my riding recently, I have data which were made available last week end. On Bill C-83, as on other legislation regarding capital punishment, out of 813 answers from all kinds of people, Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, Social Crediters, 706 out of 813 favour restoring capital punishment and 87 are against.
Not too long ago on television, I watched on CBC or a private station an interview with the hon. member whose name of the riding I ignore, the one containing Mirabel not far from Montreal, Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes I believe, who said that the whole population there was in favour of maintaining capital punishment, but that he was against it. It is his business to be against, but when you represent a population, I think you must take into consideration the feeling of that population-


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member is giving his own summary of what I said, but they are not my exact words. If by any chance he was interested in receiving the complete account of the proceedings at the Liberal convention, maybe he could be invited in the future. I will take pleasure in sending it to him. His ideas might be broadened, and the report itself might tell him exactly what took place at that time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member's word but I saw him being interviewed on television. People were being questioned on the street, voters of his riding who were categorically in favour of maintaining the death penalty. And, I saw the hon. member reply on the air that he was personally in favour of abolishing the death penalty and that he was going to vote according to his conscience and not that of the voters of his riding. That is what I heard.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out once again to the hon. member that I am very glad to see that he listens to me with so much attention when I speak. That is very nice; perhaps I should tell him that I personally made a survey and that on this side of the House we have members as hard working and valiant I think as those who follow the leadership of the hon. member and that in my riding the question that was asked was whether people were in favour of replacing the death penalty by a minimum term of imprisonment of 25 years. In my riding and several others, to the question put in that way, the percentage of people in favour of the death penalty was little over 50 per cent.


David Réal Caouette: The parliamentary secretary might let me finish my speech and then say the trifle things he just used to suggest that he does not say what he is but admits nevertheless that a majority of people in his riding are in favour of maintaining it. We are outside the subject, and I will come back when we discuss Bill C-84. Mr. Speaker, I am out of order now because we are discussing Bill C-83, but I simply want to draw your attention to the fact that the registration of firearms does not bother me at all. It is mainly a harassment for honest people, those who practice a sport or those who may use a gun or a firearm, for instance, in self-defence. These people may be bothered.
But the criminal, as I say, will not be upset in any way. When a thug is determined to kill somebody, no need to
April 12, 1976

worry-by the way, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) recognizes there will still be criminals, since he wants to register firearms under the pretence of protecting society. What a nice way of protecting society! That is why Canadians are opposing this government's legislation.
I have another letter from a professional engineer, Lee G. Morrison, from Calgary, Alberta. I was astonished at receiving a letter in perfect French from Calgary; that is quite remarkable.


An hon. Member:: This shows what the Liberals' policy is!


David Réal Caouette: No, it is rather our policy, that of the Social Credit Party. We have been advocating this way of understanding one another throughout the country for a long time.
Mr. Morrison stated in his letter, and I quote:
Dear Sir:
Though you are not my member of Parliament, I am writing to you in the hope, perhaps ingenuous, that the matter of gun control will be subject to a free vote following a rational debate, regardless of the political affiliation of each of you.
The proposal to give bureaucrats the authority to determine who may or may not possess a firearm is an alarming example of the philosophy that "all that is not compulsory must be prohitited." If this measure is to become law, it is not difficult to predict that within a few years firearms in Canada will be restricted to a privileged few and that these arms will all be registered with their serial number. Subsequently it would be easy for a megalomaniac government to seize all rifles under the pretence of emergency measures and therefore secure the submissiveness of the people. If you think that the present government's policy is indeed very moderate and my fears exaggerated and unjustified, or even paranoiac, let me remind you that facism is like cancer: if they are not restrained from the very beginning, they can completely destroy our system.
I do not want to suggest that this government is already on the way to dictatorship, however each time we take one more step towards a larger control by the government we are going towards a future where our children will have no hope.
There is no proof that firearm control can effectively reduce the rate of crime except in a totalitarian state. Of course, with a total lack of freedom and with the support of relentless police forces there is not much violent crime but having lived and worked in some of those peaceful paradises I do not hesitate to take the moderate risks and responsibilities involved in living in a free society even if it is armed.
In its Ottawa Report dated June 20, 1975, the hon. Otto Lang said clearly that

It would be a mistake ... to initiate any legislation ... which would impose unnecessary red-tape upon the law-abiding citizens.

If we force, without logical reason, three of four million Canadians to obtain firearm licences it will merely cause more red tape. In the same report, Mr. Lang admits that the registration of guns will not prevent criminals from obtaining one and will not save the life of those that could be murdered by people who, in the past, have demonstrated no criminal tendency. It seems that the hon. Warren Allmand also accepts such a reality. If the registration of firearms is not beneficial to law and order how, in the name of reason, could the issuance of licences to firearm owners help us? What is the government trying to prove?
I have not had a gun or a rifle for many years but I find it comforting to know that I can buy one as easily as a boy scout hatchet. If my government is not afraid of me, in return I will have no reason to fear that same government. If this moderately repressive measure becomes a law, I will begin getting afraid.
This letter is signed by Mr. Lee Morrison.
Measures Against Crime
Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one here who has received statements of this kind. I repeat, almost all members of this House have received strong protests against that bill from fish and game associations. The government knows so well that I am right that it has to resort to Standing Order 75C to accelarate the passing of this bill because there are many other members who would have liked to debate this iniquitous bill which does not respect the population's views. In my constituency, for instance, I have received views from the Fish and Game Association of Temiscamingue of which Jean Routhier of Ville-Marie is the president. I quote:
The Temiscamingue's Fish and Game Association is anxious to tell you of its dissapproval of the new bill, that is registration of hunting guns and we invite all other organizations in this area to assist us in sending a petition to Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
We would like you to support us yourself if possible.
Of course, I support Canadians of all parts of the country who object to Bill C-83 being passed.
In my opinion, the government is making a mistake and the ministers do not take requests and people's opinions into account. It is time for the government to take its responsibilities. Once again, I say that if this bill convinced us that it would reduce the crime rate and eliminate murderers, bandits and criminals, then not one member of Parliament would vote against Bill C-83. But we are convinced that this bill will not prevent a single criminal, a single murderer from committing his offenses, and his crimes because it would seem that he has it in him, and then, be will gain even greater satisfaction out of the fact that he can steal duly registered weapons and use them to continue his destructive or criminal actions.
Mr. Speaker, if according to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), registration can ensure greater protection for society, if there are other methods to protect the population, I am convinced that it is not this method that will protect people in Montreal, people who want peace, justice and order. The vast majority of the people want this. Instead of becoming softer, instead of having a marshmallow backbone, Mr. Speaker, I believe that crime legislation should be stricter. We say: Instead of condemning this man to death, we shall put him in prison for 25 years. He will cost the country from $15,000 to $20,000 a year for 25 or 20 years, after which he will be released on the pretext that he will be rehabilitated. At that time, because nearly all the doors will be closed to him, he will have only one thing to do, the same thing that he did 25 years earlier.
When a minister or a government cannot clearly understand this issue, they should go where such things happen and they will see that criminals can rehabilitated in certain cases. But there are hardened criminals who will not be afraid and who do not fear Bill C-83. They will certainly enjoy stealing nice guns, duly registered with the registrar of firearms or with the mounted police and then, the criminal will not be bothered with the serial number. When someone holds up a bank, does the cashier ask him: "Show me your registration certificate." Nobody even asks him what kind of a handgun he has or what type of .22 he is using. All you can do is give up the contents of the drawer, and you shake like a leaf because you are afraid of being killed. Some holdups ended with murder, that is the point.

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
Then, Mr. Speaker, the government must take its responsibilities, it must stop beating about the bush, it must stop playing like a fool with bills such as this one. It must start devising for Canada a system which will respect justice and order, protect security but with individual liberty. And to secure all this, we must get rid of all the criminals in our country, in order, first, to promote justice, and then order, which is closely associated with justice.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome very much the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-83. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who took part in the debate earlier this afternoon was at his parliamentary and political best. I would only comment on one reference he made to the effect there has not been consultation with the Wildlife Federation and other groups representing gun owners. The fact is, there has been input from the Wildlife Federation and other groups in respect of this bill. The question is, how much.
We all know very well that consultation today has taken on a somewhat different meaning, depending on who is using the word and what he is speaking about. What most groups are talking about when they say there has been no consultation, or inadequate consultation, is that the group, or whoever it is, has not talked long enough with the government to get it to agree with exactly that group s point of view. If that has not happened, then the charge, of course, is no consultation or inadequate consultation. As I say, that statement of implication by the hon. member was an incorrect one in the sense that there has been consultation, even though the legislation before us may nor coincide with the feelings or the express wishes of the wildlife people. As a matter of fact, in many respects there is not very much difference between the principle put forward by many of the wildlife groups, and others, and that of the government as expressed in this bill.
A great deal has been said-I will probably fall heir to that, too-and many good suggestions have been put forward in this debate. I think the interest displayed, not only by members of the House but as shown in the volume of mail that many of us are receiving from across the country, is indicative of the concern and interest of Canadians in the criminal justice system.
Much of the criticism which has been directed at the bill has been on two fronts: criticism for what is not in the bill, and criticism of some of the provisions that are in the bill, in this case the gun control provisions. The bill has been criticized because it does not deal with drug or alcohol abuse, television violence and half a dozen other fields of genuine concern to a good number of people. On the other hand, it has been criticized because of the seemingly restrictive, all-inclusive nature of some of the provisions relating to gun control. This bill is one of a package put forward by the government to try to meet the very legitimate expressions of concern by Canadians all across the country. In this respect the incidence of crime and violence in this country which, although not as great as, for example, in the United States, is certainly a matter of concern.

The government is not using the fact that our crime rate is below that of the United States and other countries as an inducement for taking no action to meet the concerns of the vast majority of Canadians.
I think Bill C-83 contains some new approaches which our courts and law enforcement people may employ, for example, in dealing with dangerous offenders. I think the legal people in the House and elsewhere can deal with these provisions and, indeed, have dealt with them better than I can, but it seems to me that this is a new approach well worth the consideration and support of members of the House.
I am sure that my constituents are no different from Canadians in other parts of the country in that they are concerned about their own safety and security and that of their families and communities. Generally speaking, their knowledge of the workings of the criminal justice system in this country is based upon local experiences and what they hear and read in the news media as reported from other parts of this country. Here they only hear of the failures of the system. Successes are not reported because they do not make news. For example, the bail system was referred to by the hon. member who preceded me, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). I think the bail system we have in this country is a good case in point, although I realize that this bill does not deal specifically with it. The vast majority of people charged and subsequently released on bail live up to their commitment. They show up for their trial and stay out of trouble in the meantime. It is the 1 per cent or 2 per cent of people who do not which generates apprehension and concern about the entire system in the eyes of the great majority of the public.
In this respect, I am sure many hon. members noted with interest last week a question raised in the House by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). His complaint-quite a legitimate one-related to a constituent of his being held in a Mexican jail without bail for some weeks before his case was even brought to trial. That is the other side of the coin, the other system under which there is no bail at all. Surely it is a much simpler system from the point of view of administration, but it does not constitute what we in Canada consider to be justice. Certainly, human judgment as well as the law itself is very much part of our system. Not only juries, but judges, prosecutors, psychologists and others are continually making personal judgments, not only in sentencing but in granting parole, in rehabilitation of accused persons, as well as in dealing with those already convicted. There are bound to be some errors.
There is a feeling, certainly among my constituents-and in this respect I think they are no different from Canadians elsewhere-that in order to ensure fair treatment of the individual charged with a criminal offence, and even of those convicted, the entire system over the last few years has leaned too far in the direction of protecting the rights of the accused as opposed of the rights of citizens, innocent victims, families thereof, law-abiding citizens, and so on. On the surface, they would appear to be correct in that assumption. I am no lawyer or sociologist, but in listening to and reading reports of people with more experience in crime control, I did not find that I was able to judge
April 12, 1976

whether indeed that is the case. But, as I say, it is a very widely held view that the system does not pay enough attention to the victims of crime.
We have heard in this debate, also, that all we really need is stricter enforcement and application of the present laws. I do not accept that premise in its entirety. I believe, for example, that some of the changes contained in this bill are good and necessary. For example, the parole provisions, the strengthening of the Parole Board, the abolition of statutory parole, the inclusion of local people on the Parole Board when dealing with specific cases, and the inclusion of two people from the community where the offence was committed are good measures and ones that are long overdue.
The wiretapping provisions represent an effort by the government to try to combat organized crime that all of us talk about and all of us lament about; but on the other hand, none of us can really come forward with any specific answers. I am aware of the fact that opinion is divided on the question of expanding the wiretapping provisions, but it seems to me that the essential part here is that strong safeguards be maintained to protect the personal privacy of individuals in this electronic age. I believe that the bill provides that particular assurance.
Provisions dealing with guns have undoubtedly been the subject of greatest controversy. All the present sections of the act dealing with guns and gun control have been written and revised with major new additions in principle. What are the main provisions and principles with which we are dealing in this bill? On the other hand, what are the main concerns that have been expressed to me and other members by the majority of gun owners who are law-abiding citizens?
In his remarks, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) outlined the main provisions of the bill. Firstly, I believe everyone can support higher maximum sentences for most crimes involving guns. Secondly, a mandatory additional sentence of from one to fourteen years for those convicted of using an offensive weapon. I oppose the suggestion put forward earlier by the right hon. member for Prince Albert that a rigid, mandatory five-year sentence be imposed in all cases. I think that one to fourteen years, or two fourteen years-all owing some flexibility-is certainly desirable in a measure of this kind.
Third, the proposal that police have authority to seize weapons without a warrant in an imminently threatening situation deserves the support of all of us. Fourth, the list of prohibited weapons will be enlarged to include such things as sawed-off shotguns. Fifth, there will be a tightening of the present laws with regard to the registration of hand-guns, which we have had for many years. Hand-guns are known as restricted weapons. Sixth, a licensing system is proposed for gun owners which is similar to driver's licences, hunting licences and trapper's licences, which we have had for many years, except that in this case there will have to be two local guarantors, as is now the case with passport applications.
There are provisions and measures in the gun control section of this bill which need to be changed in committee. There are clauses which need to be clarified and clauses
Measures Against Crime
which need to be narrowed in their scope, and their broad application needs to be much more limited. I do not wish at this time to deal with all the clauses which require amendment, but I do not want to touch on some of them.
My major personal criticism of the bill is its structure. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient flexibility in the bill to acknowledge the different traditions which exist in various parts of this country. In this bill dealing with gun control which we will be, and should be, legislating is an umbrella type of law which can be adapted to the traditions which have been established throughout the years in different parts of Canada. It will take two or three years before some of these provisions will be implemented. I suggest that we should give the minister, his staff, provincial attorneys general and others adequate time for provincial and local involvement in the development of regulations which are sensible for every area of the country. In this respect, I suppose we are faced with the age-old and usual Canadian dilemma, namely, developing a bill which fits all areas of our country fairly, a bill which can be tailored to regional and local needs, and a bill which fits not only the north and the south but also the east and west and the rural and urban areas.
The people of my constituency and my province appreciate and understand the need for stricter controls, especially in large urban centres. That is true whether it be in Toronto, Vancouver or Regina. In many respects, guns are too easily accessible; so how do we go about the problem of screening out irresponsible gun owners or those who should not be allowed to buy guns? As hon. members from the province of Saskatchewan are aware, in rural Saskatchewan gun ownership has been part of the country since it was opened up before confederation, just as was the right to own land, to break it and to farm it. These were some of the main reasons many people came to that province from all over the world and from all over the rest of this country. Owning guns has been part of that tradi-dion, whether they were owned for shooting coyotes, gophers, or the old herd bull-to which the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) referred today-with a broken leg out in the pasture. Guns were, and are, part of the normal tools of the trade, just as are plows, saddles and other equipment.
The people in my province and constituency want that tradition maintained. I, personally, believe that the principle of issuing a licence to a gun owner will give him the opportunity to maintain that tradition. In the same way that drivers' licences set out minimum requirements for operating a motor vehicle, surely this system and the principle embodied therein can be made to work. It must be made to work. I agree with the points made by many hon. members of this House, on both sides, that it must be made to work without any great additional bureaucracy and without any great additional expense. In this respect, I feel that the expense should not be borne only by gun owners. We are implementing this provision for the benefit of society as a whole, and all Canadians should help pay for it.
We need some assurances with respect to a number of the clauses in this bill. We need specific answers as to how some of these proposals will be applied. Modifications are

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
required to ensure that some of the legitimate concerns of sportsmen and others are recognized and satisfied.
I should like to take a few minutes to point out that representations from gun owners and sportsmen's groups in this country have not all been entirely critical of this bill. Many have been quite constructive. The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation is an example of such a group. It is a large, representative and widely dispersed group of gun owners and sportsmen from that province. It is a responsible organization and has already done a great deal to promote safety and training courses in hunting. It has worked to promote greater responsibility in the handling of firearms generally and in training youngsters. They work to promote good conservation practices and good land owner-hunter relationships.
The Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation has examined this bill and enumerated a number of specific objections. I should like to touch on the main ones. First, the federation objects to the licensing system largely because of the great possibility of red-tape. I believe the government can accommodate them in this respect. Second, the federation objects to granting wide powers to the governor in council. Third, with regard to the provision with respect to possible fines or sentences for careless storage and handling of firearms or ammunition, the federation is concerned about the implications and application of this particular clause.
Fourth, it objects to a clause which makes reference to the fact that citizens are bound, under penalty of up to five years, to turn in a report to the police or the local firearms' registrar upon finding an empty cartridge abandoned in a field. If there ever was a nonsense provision in a bill, this has to be it. If there ever was a provision in a bill which would make people uneasy about government bureaucrats, it would be this kind of provision. Certainly, changes must be made.
The fifth point raised by the federation is that under this bill we will not be able to teach or instruct youngsters the basics of gun safety until they are 14 years of age. It will be illegal for anyone under the age of 14 to handle a firearm under any circumstances. I sincerely believe that that limit should be lowered to at least 12 years of age. The 12-year limit is now applied in Saskatchewan and in other provinces. I have a son who took that course three years ago. For the past two years he has been taking cadet courses in this city. He will be 14 this month. It seems to me that we are being unduly restrictive. I support the federation in their objections.
At the same time, to demonstrate their responsibility and concern in the field of gun handling and gun controls, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation also spelled out its ideas of what would constitute a good, sensible gun control program. It has put forward alternatives to some of the provisions which are in this bill. I ask hon. members to note carefully the great similarity of principle in the points made by the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation and the points aimed for in Bill C-83.
What are the alternatives? The federation suggests the following steps; first, that all persons convicted of violent crime be placed under a lengthy order of prohibition barring them from possessing any firearm; second, that all persons who pose an identifiable threat due to mental instability or alcoholism be placed under a similar order of

prohibition; third, that persons on bail or suspended sentence following arrest or conviction for any violent crime should be prohibited from carrying a firearm, while a person on parole after imprisonment for such a crime might have a similar prohibition imposed as a condition of parole; fourth, that all new hunters and marksmen pass a provincial competence and knowledge test; fifth, that gun dealers be required to keep a record of firearms' sales and open it for police inspection.
The sixth recommendation is that any licensing system designed to cover the sale of firearms and ammunition should be a provincial system with authority to license business operations and sale and purchase transactions. The seventh recommendation is as follows:
That firearms or ammunition be sold, loaned, given, etc., only to a person in possession of either:
(a)	a valid hunting or trapping licence, with several years experience, and competency in firearm's handling or
(b)	a certificate of competency from a recognized firearms' safety course; or
(c)	a membership card from a recognized marksmen's club, or
(d)	a special police permit for a valid requirement not covered by (a), (b), or (c) above;
(e)	land owners.
When one looks at the variety of membership cards and licences referred to there, it seems to me that in the seventh point put forward by the federation one of the alternatives may be some kind of a simplified, universal uniform type of licence.
There are features of this bill which this organization very much supports, such as the banning of fully automatic firearms, increased penalties for the illegal use of firearms, and extended authority to the courts and the police to seize firearms in the interest of safety when serious incidents arise from domestic trouble or mental instability. As I say, this is the kind of constructive criticism we receive from responsible sports and gun clubs in the country.
The Wildlife Federation of Saskatchewan does oppose Bill C-83 in its present form. I support the federation in most of its concerns. Yet it should be obvious to anyone who examines the government's objectives, the federation's objectives and the alternatives, that there really is not that much difference in principle. It is in the method of implementation of those principles that the differences occur. I think the bill has had ample time for debate at the second reading stage.


Stanley James Korchinski: You are kidding.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Further study can certainly be handled at the committee stage: my hon. friend is well aware of that. I accept the minister's word that he is prepared to consider amendments at the committee stage. For that reason, I will certainly support the bill at second reading stage.
One final point in respect of this bill which I would like to repeat again is that we need flexibility in respect of the proclamation of the sections relating to the kind of licensing provisions. The proclamation should be on a provincial basis, despite the fun the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made of that this afternoon.
April 12, 1976

They should be proclaimed in each province when the provincial, municipal and other governments within each province have indicated their readiness, and that full and adequate consultation has taken place with the interested groups to ensure that these provisions are adaptive to the best interests of the people of that particular province.
I think that in general Bill C-83 deserves the support of members and should be sent to the committee where further details can be studied and further very necessary amendments can be made to the several clauses of the bill which require consideration.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, the strictest security failed to save the lives of several United States presidents, writes Frank Arnie from Preeceville, Saskatchewan, a constituent of mine. I think he summarizes in one little sentence what many of us think. I have followed this debate very carefully in this House.
The bulk of the concern in respect of Bill C-83 is with reference to the gun legislation. This is the particular section about which I am concerned. I would like to separate the other sections so far as surveillance is concerned. The people who live in rural areas know all about surveillance, having party lines. In many parts of my area the people do not even have a telephone; they still use the radio to communicate from one community to another, and everybody listens in.
This legislation which has been drafted by a bunch of city slickers for the conditions in the cities will do nothing but harass the rural areas. It may be valid in respect of the metropolitan areas of Toronto and Montreal. As my friend from the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said, "My God; do I ever see a need for it in Montreal!" We must understand the real danger in trying to apply a set of laws drafted by city people who have probably never lived outside the city limits and who have no idea what rural life is like.
I think the government has lost its credibility in respect of running this country. It does not have the pulse of the nation; it does not know what the people really want. As the member who just spoke said, this is umbrella-type legislation. I know that time will never allow me to say the many things I want to say in objection to this piece of legislation, particularly as it applies to gun control.
As I said, I have listened to this debate very intently. I listened to the speech of the Creditiste member, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau). When he made his remarks, I said to myself that I could endorse what he had to say. His concern had to do with the registration of guns and the affect this had had in central Europe and Cuba where governments have been overthrown because of the confiscation of weapons and because of registration. Perhaps I should also mention Russia, because I have been to Russia and I could tell a story that would make your hair stand on end about how I was treated by the bureaucracy there. Mr. Speaker, one might say that that cannot happen here. I know the type of concern the people have, because I have been to Russia. The local registrar could become the local commissar. This is the kind of thing I am concerned about because of my own personal experience, not because I have read it.
I have referred to the speech of the hon. member for Shefford. Now I should like to refer to the speech made by
Measures Against Crime
the member of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). I wish to endorse entirely his comments. My area adjoins his territory. I have northern people in my riding; I have northern Indian settlements. The situation in my area is entirely different from the situation in the cities. I have trappers and I have fishermen. In the middle of the winter, if one goes ice-fishing one carries a gun.
Now I should like to go to the government side of the House and say that I endorse almost entirely the speech made by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) except for the one point where he came to the conclusion that perhaps this type of restriction would help curb the incidence of crime. I understand the situation in respect of the sad case we had here in Ottawa. I know the people of Ottawa are now pretty well convinced that gun control is required in order to prevent similar instances.
From a reading of the brief presented by the Alberta Wildlife Federation, I understand that that poor lad in his sad frame of mind broke at least four firearms' laws which presently are on the books. Will additional laws solve the problem? I tell you, in all sincerity, that additional laws would not have prevented that tragic incident. I mention it because the government emphasizes too much what additional laws may achieve.
This second reading debate is to end with closure. Why are the gun provisions wrong, Mr. Speaker? We have heard that you have to be a chairman, president, active or retired, to be considered. I tell you, not many farmers belong to gun clubs. Not many trappers belong to gun clubs. For them, the gun is an essential tool. You must distinguish between the man who uses his gun occasionally for pleasure and the man who needs it as a tool. Some people might take their guns out once a year to go trap-shooting. In my area we do not go trap-shooting; we shoot muskrat. Our youngsters learn how to use guns. I first used a gun when I was about 12. I was much younger than my counterparts in the city who might use guns. Occasionally I brought home supper, partridges or jackrabbits. Occasionally we had rabbit stew. I carried a gun when I was 12. Our youngsters learn to respect a gun. I earned my first 15 cents when I went into the bush near our pasture to shoot some bush rabbits. They were fetching five cents each. I walked four miles into town to make 15 cents. The situation in our rural parts is not the same as in the city.
The same bunch who drafted this bill will be responsible for drafting regulations. And do not tell me you can change a bill in committee. I remember what the former minister of Justice, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, did to some proposals I brought forward. I proposed some amendments in the agriculture committee and they were acceptable to the committee, but the minister who accepted them reversed his position. He would not accept the amendments I proposed in committee and they were voted down in the House. Therefore, do not tell me his committee members reverse themselves. How easy it is to change a bill in committee!
This situation reminds me of a child at table. The mother says, "Eat your borsch," and the child says, "But, momma, I don't like the beans." If the mother allowed the child to

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
separate the beans from the rest of the soup, all would be well. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is saying just that. He is saying, "We like the soup, but don't like the beans. Why do you not let us put the beans to one side?" He wants the beans to be separated from the soup. In the case of the child, if the mother agrees and the beans are taken out, the child can eat the soup and absorb the nourishment. If she does not agree and makes the child swallow the beans, the child can bring up, and it will be pretty messy.
The government is trying to create a mess. We can eat beans, of course, but not everything is digested. We absorb what is good. We shall absorb the good parts of this bill and you will hear no more about it. But after we eat, there is some excretion. If I know this government, it will either leave it alone, or flush it down. This legislation reminds me of the digestive process, because just as hydrochloric acid does not break down all foods ingested, so the committee system as now set up will not enable us to extract from the bill what is bad and unnecessary. This little parable is meant to show you that it is impossible to refine; you will not end up with good legislation.
As I said before, the hon. member for Shefford made a fine speech. He was concerned about the registration program. All must register, but nobody knows the regulations. Nobody seems to be much worried about them. The government merely says, "Register." That brings to mind my experience in Russia. I could tell you stories that would make your hair stand on end. I was holed up in a little hotel in a small village. They had an administration there, and I was dragged before a kangaroo court. They tried to hold me there. That was all part of the workings of bureaucracy. Then the army was alerted at the railway station and soldiers ran up to my compartment with fixed bayonets. Yes, this all happened to me. I am not telling you something I heard; it actually happened to me.
I have a friend in Endeavour, Saskatchewan, by the name of A. J. Kobe. In May of this year he sent me a document which reads in part as follows:
In May of 1919 at Dusseldorf, Germany, the allied forces obtained a copy of some of the 'Communist Rules for Revolution.' Nearly 50 years later, the reds are still following them. After reading the list, stop after each item and think about the present day situation where you live- and all around our nation-
The first item on the list is this:
A.	Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex-
Television is doing a good job in that area. I continue:
B.	Get control of all means of publicity, thereby:
1.	Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention
on athletics ...
2.	Divide the people into hostile groups ...
3.	Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders ...
4.	Always preach true democracy ...
6. Incite unnecessary strikes ... encourage civil disorders-
I draw attention particularly to paragraph C, which says:
Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscating them and leaving the population helpless.
That document came to light in 1919. Deny that what it recommends could not happen here. Will any say it could not happen here? Do you remember what happened in the

Quebec crisis? All who owned guns were willing to give them up. All would have been willing to register if there had been provisions for registration. We were told there was an apprehended insurrection. Then we discovered that the trouble-makers were few in number and most of them ended up in Cuba. That is the place our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) visited recently and, boy, was he ever chummy with Castro. He was so close to Castro that you did not know which was the one with natural hair or which was the one who wished he had some. That shows how chummy they were. And you say it couldn't happen here!
I remember when the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) acted in a different capacity. He set up what was later referred to as the Goyer goon squad: he set up what amounted to a parallel police force. I know that the Prime Minister, despite the protests of the former minister of finance, set up a sort of parallel government. People tell me, "Watch this man." I am saying this because I have watched him and drawn my own conclusions. Yes, people tell me, "Watch this man; he is dangerous." Now the government wants a central registry of guns. I say, watch it! They say it could not happen here. Remember what happened in central Europe, Russia and Cuba? When I was in Europe I thought it was sad to have soldiers standing in front of public buildings. I thought, "Thank God I live in a better country." Several years later I found the same situation in this country. Ministers were being protected by military men with guns. Given the right set of circumstances, it can happen here.
My time is rapidly moving on. There are many things I would like to say. I will, however, make this proposal. If registration is necessary, it should be by enabling legislation, enabling each province to register. The provinces should be given that right. I know that provinces have given some rights to the federal government, the federal government has given certain rights to them, and so on. Therefore, it is possible to give the provinces the right to register. In that way there would at least not be a central registry. Even though there is a daily erosion, the preservation of democracy is important. By having registration in the various provinces it will be up to them to draw their own regulations and apply them as conditions warrant. Segregate the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Some of those people have had certain freedoms provided to them over the years.
The explanatory note is a farce; it is phony. It makes me sick to think that people are being led to believe there will be a measure of protection. For the record, I think the explanation should read as follows:
A bill to provide for registration and confiscation of guns; the provisions for a licence for murder; the creation of a bureaucracy and for greater protection of the government;
Further, to provide the illusion of security and the removal of certain freedom to natives provided under the Treaty of Paris;
The implementation of certain laws to equate the law-abiding citizen with the criminal element;
The implementation of laws which will guarantee an increase in lawbreakers.
That is the way the explanatory note should read, because that will be net effect. I have mentioned the
April 12, 1976

Creditistes and the NDP. I endorse the speech made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) as well as that made by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) with regard to the absurdity that will exist if this type of regulation is put into effect.
If you start with the wrong principle, I do not see how in the world it can then be improved by sending it to committee. I am going to have to make a decision with regard to this bill. I feel very strongly about it. In so doing, I want to remind every newspaper man and commentator in this country that I am not opposing my party. My party does not have anything to do with this bill. I am opposing a stupid piece of legislation. I want to be able to separate the beans from the rest. I have that right. As Richard Lovelace said:
Stone walls do not a prison make,
Nor irons bars a cage;
Minds innocent and quiet take That for an hermitage;
My party does not inhibit me. That is the kind of thing that happens. Too many times there is a wrong answer by the wrong person on the wrong thing. Given the power of their persuasion in the media, they often make a big thing out of nothing, and nothing out of a big thing.
I said that this bill was drafted by a bunch of city slickers for city conditions. In all the years I have walked the streets of the city, outside of a police officer I have never seen a man carrying a gun. However, I have seen a lot of people in rural areas carrying guns. I have never seen a patrol car in the city stopping a series of cars, but in the rural areas they stop you to check your driver's licence, brakes, lights and that sort of thing. The only time that is done in the city is when there is a traffic violation. Therefore, you can see where the harassment will be. The cities want this legislation. It is the rural people who will be harassed by it.
I will sum up in a few words what I think is going to happen. I could draw several parallels. No one thinks that a gun is a necessary tool for the farmer. A gun is required for humane slaughter. City slickers have never seen a pig being slaughtered; they would not know how it is done. You take careful aim with a .22 and fire a shot at the middle of the pig's forehead. That stuns it. You can then proceed to slaughter. You leave your gun while slaughtering. You do not have time to carry the gun to relative safety. After 1 Vi or 2 hours you are finished a with a good job. You then go in to wash up. If a police officer had come along and seen the gun and the shells, in the course of his duty he would have had to charge the farmer because the gun was not carefully stored.
Measures Against Crime



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Labour Conditions-Proposed resumption of negotiations between Air Canada and finance branch employees at Winnipeg; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-External Affairs- Canadian position on involvement of Cuba in Africa; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Royal Mounted Police-Sky Shops investigation-Role of officials of Department of Transport in granting lease.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the House leaders it has been agreed that with consent private members' business might be dispensed with today so that we may proceed with the debate. We are moved, as well, by the eloquence of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski).


Steve Eugene Paproski: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: There seems to be unanimous consent. The hon. member who had the floor may continue.



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 violent and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity to continue. I was illustrating the kind of situation that could be found in a rural area and why it is absolutely essential to have a gun for humane slaughter.
I now wish to deal with another situation. If any kind of a licence is to be granted, it should be a family licence because at one time or another every member of the family will be expected to use that gun. Suppose the father owns the gun and you give him a licence. You don't give the father the right to murder everybody else, and you don't give the others an equal chance. He's got to have the key. A gun on a farm is a tool.

Measures Against Crime
I don't know whether members have ever seen what happens when a fox or coyote walks in among a flock of turkeys or hens. He doesn't grab one and run off with it, as city fellows might think. He grabs one and jumps the next one, and cripples the next one and goes to 15 or 20 of them, crippling them. Then, having crippled them, knowing they cannot get away from him he proceeds to haul them out one by one and he buries them. That is something a lot of these city slickers don't know.
You've got to keep a gun handy. You need a gun on a farm, and every member of the family has to be able to use that gun at any time. Suppose an animal is crippled and the father who has the gun is away. He may be away and he is the only one who has the right to buy any shells. If you have an animal, a horse or a cow with a broken leg, nobody dare go into town and get any shells. First of all, it is illegal; you cannot buy shells if you haven't got a licence, nor should the store operator sell them.
Why shouldn't everybody have a licence? After all, it is a family gun. It is a possession necessary for the entire family. What do you do in a situation such as I have described? Do you let the animal suffer, or do you break the law? Obviously, you are going to break the law and there is an invitation to break the law.
A whole lot of farmers and ranchers travel from one farm to the other; their land is scattered all over the place and they carry their .22 in a half-ton truck. They do so because they know that coyotes have been known to attack calves. Then, again, our country is bear country and bears are known to carry off calves. That is why a gun is always carried around. There are predators. A skunk could get into a chicken-run. All kinds of situations could develop. I can visualize a situation in which a farmer, having made his rounds, goes home and sits down to eat dinner. He is in a hurry-farmers are always in a hurry because there is always work to do. While he is there, the hired man comes in and says, "There is a breakdown somewhere." The farmers says, "Take the truck quick and drive into town to get the parts. The hired man dashes into the truck and heads out. On the way to town he meets a patrol car with a bubble-gum machine on top. The officers stop him and asks to see his licence. They want to check his brakes. While looking around the truck, they see the gun. The following conversation takes place, "Can we see your licence for that gun?" "I do not have one". "Oh, you haven't got a licence." Trouble, trouble! Mr. Speaker, the people who drafted this legislation have no idea what rural life is like.
Have you ever seen a trapper come off the trap lines? Have you ever seen the fishermen come off the ice in winter after fishing? They carry their guns. The kids carry their guns. What is a trapper going to do? He carries his gear in, dumps it into one corner, and there is the gun. Do you think the first thing he does before he even shakes the snow from his back is to lock up that gun? How ridiculous can we be? You have to go into these rural areas to understand. The people who drew up this legislation have no idea what it is like. How are we going to improve on this sort of thing in committee, when it is all based on the wrong premise? You are drawing up legislation oblivious of the fact that there is a rural part of Canada.

I say, Oh, my gosh, you can do that in the city areas, "though I don't know what good it is. "If you want it in the cities, you can have it. But don't tamper with us, don't tamper with our work." The Indian has a right, under the Treaty of Paris, to have that gun. The white man has done it once again-gone out there and tampered with his rights and freedom.
I shall go on to something else which ought to be considered. The Indian population of this country is 1.37 per cent of the whole, yet the percentage of the Indian population incarcerated in our jails is 8.37 per cent. Obviously, this is some sort of record. But what kind of prison record will make it impossible under this legislation for a man to own a gun? In many cases the sentences involved here are short sentences. We have to bear in mind that a large percentage of the native population is in and out of jail. Is the minister telling me, then, that he intends to deny the right of every one of those men to own a gun because of some sort of prison record? I don't know. Nothing is spelled out in the bill as we see it before us. How much leeway have we got? You ask us to buy a pig in a poke, or a cat in a bag-whatever it is-and then you turn around and say, "It is good, because for the sake of political propaganda this is what we are going to do."
I want to go on to one other thing. I said this bill will set up a bureaucracy. It seems to me that if you want to register guns, it ought not to be necessary to go back and do it again five years later. The only reason I can see for that is the need to pay for this bureaucracy once it has been set up. I am told it might cost as much as $30 for a gun licence; that is one estimate that has been made. Can you imagine a father with two sons having to pay $90 between them for these licences?
My .22 only cost me $11 to begin with. One of my constituents wrote to me saying that his father bought his .22 for $4.95. To pay licence fees at this level is ridiculous. Obviously, there have to be exemptions here. After five years, you have to go back to the same official to re-register. Why? What happens if you have one gun and three members of a family, for example, the father and two sons, register; or, for that matter, a mother, if she is inclined to shoot at all? Nothing is spelled out. Where do you draw the line? Suppose there is one member of a family who is unstable? Is that family barred from having a gun? I don't know. Nothing is indicated in the bill. The only justification I can see for going back after five years is that the government, having set up a huge bureaucracy, must somehow raise the money to pay for it. Of course, we all know who is going to pay for it. It is the gun owner-it doesn't matter if the gun only cost $5 to buy originally.
Mr. Speaker, I am told by my whip that I have only about one minute left. I wish I had more time. I can only say one thing. In the words of the Alberta Wildlife Federation, Bill C-83 is "One Basford of a bill".


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was speaking this afternoon he congratulated the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), who is the justice critic recently appointed by the new leader of his party and was also the justice
April 12, 1976

critic of his party under the former leader, on his sixtieth birthday. Might I also add my congratulations. I have always found him to be co-operative and helpful when as chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs from time to time over a period of many months we were organizing the appearance of witnesses before the committee.
The hon. member for Calgary North, relatively recently-I believe on May 30, 1975-in a question directed to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) asked when the government was going to bring forth for examination a bill to restrict the ownership of certain guns and control others. This bill has been brought forth by the government as part of its peace and security package at the request not only of the hon. member and others but of attorneys general across Canada. Hon. members will remember that very recently the attorney general of the province of Ontario indicated that if legislation to restrict and control the ownership of guns in this country was not brought forward by this government, he intended to do so himself.
When speaking earlier today, the right hon. gentleman also complained of lack of consultation with certain important groups in this country before the legislation was brought forward. He mentioned the former commissioner of the RCMP, who I believe is now associated with the Canadian Wildlife Federation. As a matter of fact, the former commissioner, Mr. Nicholson, was consulted in detail when he presented a brief last June to the Solicitor General and to other interested parties at the time this legislation was being drafted. My understanding is that some 80 per cent of the matters raised by Mr. Nicholson on behalf of the Canadian Wildlife Federation were considered and in fact included in the legislation.
The justice committee has always been receptive to the representations of all parties who have interested positions to present on legislation before it. I would commend, as do many members on this side of the House, that we move this bill into committee for in-depth and detailed study of all its clauses.
As the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) said-and as is so obvious-there are, of course, differences in respect of controlling and using guns between rural areas of Canada and urban areas. I agree with the Canadian Wildlife Federation, other groups interested in the use and control of firearms and with the point of view of other members of the House that the committee could entertain, if the hon. member would so submit, the type of amendment that he feels would satisfy the complaints he made regarding certain incidents, such as having one gun in the family and perhaps five people having access to it in order to protect their assets on the farm, animals and so on. Such an amendment ought to be considered by the committee.
The minister also indicated that he is prepared to listen to any representations in connection with amendments which are put forward with reason and logic, so we can show that we can provide Canadians with some degree of protection against the misuse of firearms, not only the use of firearms to commit criminal offences but also in regard to the tragic accidents that have been occurring, in some cases through lack of understanding and knowledge of proper storage.
Measures Against Crime
Unlike the hon. member for Mackenzie who has had the good fortune to live in the country, these people have had no training in the use of weapons. To the hon. member for Mackenzie these weapons are like any other tool that is used on the farm and in farming communities. People who live in cities and move to the country do not have this kind of familiarization with weapons. In their hands, they sometimes become very dangerous, not because of any intention on their part to commit crime but because of their lack of understanding of their use. Indeed, they have probably never had an opportunity to use a firearm.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert also said there were some on this side, though he did not name them, who do not like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In my years in parliament, Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to detect any such feeling. In fact, I have detected, on the contrary, a great sense of pride and, yes, sense of security that we have in our Royal Canadian Mounted Police force, one of the most efficient police forces in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: I suggest they are one of the most respected international police forces. I would point out to the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert that an indication of this is the fact that the former commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is now president of Interpol. To indicate, or by innuendo suggest that there are some on this side who do not like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is to cast an unfair shadow on the great work and integrity of that force, from their senior officers right down through the ranks, and I think that ought not to go unanswered.
I believe the Solicitor General-it is an honour for me to work with him-has a mandate to work on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in parliament and he has been doing that job effectively and well. I know he considers the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in representing them in this House and in committees of the House, second to none and places them before many of his other concerns. One of the reasons for this is, of course, this peace and security package that is now before the House.
Several hon. members have spoken in the debate so far and made points to which I should like briefly to refer. For example, in his speech in this debate the hon. member for New Wesminster (Mr. Leggatt) made several important points about the causes of crime. One point which he stressed concerned the disproportionate number of native Canadians who are presently incarcerated in Canada. He went on to state that it is essential to approach the problem of crime at its roots in order to make progress toward preventing such an intolerable situation from persisting into the future. I cannot agree more with the hon. member. That is why certain initiatives have been taken by the federal government outside the context of this bill to approach the very problem which he mentioned.
In order to meet this problem, a major conference of native leaders and federal and provincial ministers was held in Edmonton just over a year ago. This conference of native people and the law explored the problem which was touched on by the hon. member and determined that a follow-up structure should be established in order to pursue solutions to these problems. The federal govern-

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
ment is now moving ahead with the native advisory councils created as a result of that conference.
Just a few weeks ago in Montreal a meeting of the Canadian advisory council on native people and the law was held. This council consists of representatives of the federal and provincial governments and provincial governments and the leaders of the six major native organizations across the country. One specific project, which deals with the concerns expressed by the hon. member for New Westminster, is the program of the federal advisory council on native people and the law to work very closely with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to develop training programs for all recruits to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in order that a more effective approach to the policing of native communities in Canada can be implemented.
Within the ministry of the Solicitor General it is recognized that more native people are required within the criminal justice system and, as a result of that, a study has recently been completed examining ways in which this can be implemented. Within the penitentiaries we have expanded the use of native liaison officers and also made great progress in utilizing native service programs in order to help our native inmates. Furthermore, recommendations flowing from the Edmonton conference concerning the creation of work camps and the transfer of native inmates to provincial institutions closer to their homes have been pursued and will continue to be followed up.
Programs by other departments designed to get at the very roots of the criminal problem in our native communities have also been established. One of the important programs of this type is the joint program of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and National Health and Welfare. I am referring to the National native alcohol abuse program which has been funded at a level of $13 million over the next three years and is aimed at getting at the very roots of crime which so often are related to alcohol abuse among our native people.
In concluding then, Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure you that the government recognizes that the concerns expressed by the hon. member for New Westminster are very real and very important, and that the government is taking action designed to get at the problems which are the source of these concerns. If there are no specific amendments to this bill, that does not mean the federal government is inactive in this field.
As many authorities point out, including the Law Reform Commission, real changes in the criminal justice system do not necessarily come from changes in law alone but also from improvements in programs, training, administration, and so on. I think some of the examples I have mentioned show that the federal government is deeply concerned and is in fact actively pursuing solutions in this area.
The legislation has also been questioned by hon. members on the grounds that it does not contain specific provisions to deal with the hard drug problem in this country. The government fully appreciates the seriousness of this problem and places a high priority on it. It was pointed out that there is a strong statistical relationship between the

traffic in hard drugs and violent crime in Canada. I agree with this. But it would be a mistake to look at the measures now before us for the ultimate solution to this serious and complex problem. The legislation cannot be expected to solve all problems of crime.
Strict provisions for dealing with illegal importation and traffic in hard drugs are in the Narcotic Control Act. The RCMP and other police forces across the country have placed a high priority on enforcing these provisions. When we discuss the treatment of heroin addicts, however, we begin to see the enormous complexities and the difficulties which must be faced. As hon. members know, the government did not implement the Le Dain commission's recommendation for compulsory treatment. Hon. members are surely aware, however, the recommendation concerning treatment was not directed at the federal government but at the provinces who are responsible for programs of this sort. The federal government has an important role to play in supporting and faciliting changes that might be introduced, but I think it is significant that no provincial authority has yet advocated the adoption of the commission's proposal.
On the question of a national drug maintenance system for addicts, which was also mentioned, a federal maintenance program designed to ensure the most effective use for methadone in the treatment of opiate dependence has been in operation for over four years now. In the Ministry of the Solicitor General funds are provided to assist community rehabilitation centres working in this field as well. No less than two chapters of the Le Dain commission's final report were devoted to this problem and the government has taken the benefit of much of the commission's advice in this respect.
Experience with deprivation of liberty as a means of facilitating treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts has not been encouraging. The experience with treatment in prison settings has been definitely unsatisfactory, with virtually all studies demonstrating a very high rate of relapse and recidivism. In response to this awareness, the proportion of persons found in illegal possession of heroin who have been placed on probation in the community on condition of compliance with a treatment program increased from 10 per cent in 1969 to 29 per cent in 1974. In many cases a condition of probation has been that the offender participate in and co-operate with a federally-approved methadone maintenance program. In this respect the government and the courts have been involved in the implementation of the Le Dain commission's recommendation for increased use of probation for heroin addicts on condition that they comply with an approved treatment program.
I have dealt at some length with these matters to show not only that the government shares the concern about these problems but also that it is moving on several united fronts to deal with them. Again, however, it is important that we separate the problems associated with the traffic in drugs and the treatment of drug addicts from the specific problems dealt with in the legislation now before us.
In this debate on the crime prevention bill, I could sum up my position in the following way. The government is proposing measures in this bill, and in another bill which will shortly be considered by the House, in order to further
April 12, 1976

the goal in affording a better measure of protection for the Canadian public against crime and to make our laws more equitable and humane. The government is taking the approach that certain parts of the criminal law can be tightened up in order to effect that goal. At the same time, however, other proposals of a legislative, regulatory and administrative nature in this package, some of which have been touched on today and other days, help to humanize the criminal justice system. I am referring specifically to the measure to introduce more due process into parole matters, to widen the community input into the parole process, and so on. A central theme in all this is the stress that must be put on the "front-end" of the criminal justice system; on efforts to prevent crime from occurring in the first place. Our goal is the establishment of measures which will be more effective in protecting the public.
It is my contention that each and very one of the measures presented in this bill, and in the peace and security package generally, can stand on its own feet and can meet the test of effectiveness which has been proposed as the benchmark against which the peace and security package should be measured. Furthermore, it is most important that the House understand that this bill and the peace and security package as a whole be considered as part of an ongoing process.
I believe that this crime prevention bill presented by my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), is a worthy next step to the one taken by this House in passing Bill C-71, and that the bill currently before us should be seen in this light. It is also important to remind ourselves that efforts continue on other problems as well. I refer to the examination of the Law Reform Commission's reports on criminal justice matters and the current series of nationwide consultations upon new legislation affecting young offenders.
The measures in this bill and in the peace and security package as a whole are also the product of a lengthy process of study within the federal government and of consultation with the provinces and private groups. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has chaired two full-scale federal-provincial conferences on corrections, one in December, 1973, in Ottawa and the other in May, 1975, in Victoria. The Minister of Justice also meets regularly with his provincial counterparts, and he and the Solicitor General met with attorneys general and provincial ministers of justice on two occasions last fall alone. In addition, there has been set up a continuing committee of deputy ministers on corrections which has met on several occasions in the recent past. The latest meeting of deputy attorneys general was held here in Ottawa a few weeks ago.
In outlining these continuing forums for consultation, I should also mention other meetings such as the meeting of firearms' registrars last June, the conference and follow-up meetings on native people and the law held in the past year, and continuing discussions with private groups such as the Canadian Criminology and Corrections Association and the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies. From this you can see that the federal government is most serious about consultation with other authorities responsible for the criminal justice system in Canada.
Some of the important measures proposed in this bill are the amendments with respect to electronic surveillance.
Measures Against Crime
The police experience since the bill was passed in 1974, the Protection of Privacy Act, is that each and every one of these proposed amendments is necessary in order to provide the police with the most up to date and modern methods to be used in detecting and combating crime and organized criminals. The bill provides that rather than those enumerated now, all indictable offences will be subject to wiretapping in the event a court order is obtained.
Also, the act, if these provisions are accepted by parliament, will be generally amended to provide and act which will be almost identical to those introduced by the government in 1973. The amendments which were advocated by hon. members opposite at that time, and which were adopted, I believe have been shown through police experience to be a mistake. By notifying the person whose conversation has been intercepted within 90 days after the tapping has been completed we are not doing anything to tamper with the civil liberties of individuals. What we are doing in a positive way is to place an alarm bell in the offices of individuals implicated in organized crime telling them that the police of this country, who have obtained a warrant to detect them in this manner, know where they are and what their operations are, but have not yet been successful in obtaining enough evidence to carry a case on to prosecution.
The ordinary, small time criminal will not be very impressed with the notification that his telephone was bugged, if information was obtained although there was not sufficient information to lay a charge, but people involved in organized crime look upon such an alarm bell placed in their office as a tremendous bonus to each of them in all their endeavours.
If this bill is accepted, the return of evidence, directly or indirectly obtained is, I believe, a proper restoration of the common law procedure which we have used in this country based on the English common law system that, if evidence is admissible in a court, evidence which indicates the truth of a series of actions, it ought to be admitted so that the jury and the judge will have all the credible evidence before them in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the prosecuted party. This is a proper step. If there is any illegality in obtaining that evidence, or any other evidence that is usually submitted to a court, appropriate action can be taken with regard to anyone who would resort to such a method to get evidence for a trial.
In closing I should like to commend to the House the bill before us as a reasonable piece of legislation and a necessary and effective step in ensuring that our criminal justice system is made a more responsive, more adaptive, and more effective tool to improve the quality of Canadian life. I would also like to stress again the words of the Minister of Justice when opening this debate when he made it clear he was open to proposals for improvements in the bill.
I think it is clear to all who have studied the criminal justice system that the criminal law is really only one of the control mechanisms in our society, and the criminal justice system is only one of several systems. But in its widest definition, the criminal justice system includes everyone in our society, and it is also a reflection of what we are and what we value.

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
Because this implies more than just law enforcement or crime prevention, the quality of the criminal justice system, which we all understand cannot be perfect, depends upon the quality of the individual and the quality of the community-upon the degree or integrity, selfrespect, and the sense of public responsibility for which we all must strive. For this reason I am convinced that answers to the important problems of crime in our society will not be found by experts alone, and that it is the business and even the duty of all law abiding Canadians to bring their contribution to bear on this formidable task.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to you and my colleagues, and to my whip-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: -for this opportunity to participate in the second reading debate on principle of Bill C-83, "an act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime," particularly since the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has seen fit to impose closure on this debate on principle.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Why closure on the debate on principle of the bill? They know this is a bad piece of legislative writing. They know that they are playing a sinister and irresponsible game of politics with one of the most important issues facing Canadian society today-law and order-peace and security-issues that need attention if we are to preserve and improve the quality of life in Canadian society for its law abiding citizens.


An hon. Member:: Then why don't you support it?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Sit there and smile. It is not our shame but yours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Where in this Bill C-83 do we see any measure that would remove the cause of 70 per cent of our violent crime by taking measures to eliminate the profit motive that is inherent in the narcotic malaise so prevalent in Canada and that causes so much misery and violent crime? I ask in all sincerity: is it callous indifference to the slavery, the suffering, the misery and the crime surrounding this evil? Is it a way of softening the strength of Canadian society for the imposition of a more totalitarian form of government that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) keeps hinting at?


Mr. Faulkner:: You are a disgrace.
April 12, 1976


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am not. Why don't you do something about the LeDain Commission recommendations?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member please address the Chair.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Hon. members opposite are the ones who have to answer, not me. I am in the opposition. Is this illicit activity, which this Liberal government allows to grow like poppies in Turkey, an excuse for a larger and larger law enforcement bureaucracy? More bureaucracy on bureaucracy, and I ask, why doesn't an act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime include legislation for the registration of narcotic addicts and remove from society those addicts who will not accept and abide by a proper, just, sensible, and humane rehabilitative program? This would remove the profit motive which is behind 70 per cent of all crime in Canada, instead of fooling around with this malaise of nonsense we have in Bill C-83. Nothing would make a more meaningful contribution to peace and security in Canada than legislation in this area of need.
In introducing this bill the Minister of Justice stated that "the central objective of Bill C-83, the government's peace and security program, can be simply stated-it is to counter rising violence in our society without resort to violence itself in response, this to the end that law abiding citizens will know a greater degree of security and safety while still preserving that critical balance in the scales of justice."
There are clauses in Bill C-83 which in fact, attempt to serve the central objectives stated by the Minister of Justice. I do not have the benefit of a formal education in law but I am from the street and have a concern which is shared by many out there.
There are five or six aspects of this bill which I favour, and in saying this I am perfectly content to entrust the examination and improvement of these aspects to the wisdom of my colleagues in the committee.
One of the aspects I refer to is the dangerous offenders category which repeals the existing section of the Criminal Code dealing with habitual criminals and dangerous sexual offenders. I welcome this new provision which will allow the courts to impose indeterminate sentences of imprisonment of dangerous offenders.
The second provision which I am in favour of is the maximum penalty for escape or attempted escape, and I particularly favour the repeal of statutory remission, which is to be replaced with earned remission.
The third provision I favour is that provinces will be given the authority to create special commissions of inquiry into organized crime which will give the provinces the legal power to call witnesses and documents from other provinces.
The fourth provision for which I have sympathy is the extension of wiretapping authority from the present 30 days to 60 days. I believe this is a valuable aid to law enforcement because statistics show that the average period of need has been 54.1 days. Most breaks in major
Measures Against Crime
crime, and particularly in narcotic distribution, have been through this valuable law enforcement aid.
A fifth aspect, which on the surface appears to go in the right direction, is the provision for the management of parole services to be transferred to the Commission of Corrections and for the number of board members to be increased to 26 permanent members. I am hopeful that the committee will give full consideration to allowing the sentencing judge discretion in the assessment of individual parole cases.
I am also sympathetic to the search and seizure provisions because I feel that the time is past for legislators to consider safety and other factors affecting the morale of law enforcement officers. It is my opinion that these six initiatives carried in Bill C-83 are valuable, and I have no difficulty agreeing with them in principle. As I stated, I leave their perfection and improvement to the wisdom of my colleagues who are trained in this regard.
This brings me to the point of concern and mistrust I have for the authors of this legislation. Rather than move forward with meaningful measures to correct our law and assist our law enforcement agencies, they turn this very serious subject into a three ring political circus by devoting 39 of 73 pages to the highly emotional subject of gun control.
Gun control is a subject which deserves full and open debate on its own, and that is why I urge hon. members on the government side to support the very wise amendment which was allowed to be put by Mr. Speaker to the second reading motion of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Just in case hon. members opposite do not understand the amendment, I will read it. It proposes that:
Bill C-83 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the purpose of considering a more proper legislative division thereof.
According to the Minister of Justice, the gun control measures proposed in Bill C-83 are of a "comprehensive nature directed both to those who would use guns for criminal purposes and to others who, in using them for legitimate ends, must learn to do so with greater respect and care." Yet the minister immediately tries to clarify the matter for us by saying that, "for those who use firearms as tools of their criminal trade no registration and licensing system will effectively curb continued access to and use of weapons." The minister admits that gun controls will not affect the availability of weapons to the criminal elements of society but instead will compel law abiding citizens to create another bureaucracy so that those who own guns can be licensed and their names kept on a list. For what purpose? It is not the gun which kills, it is the will behind the gun.
We have all been inundated with statistics, but I offer a few which show that anti-gun laws do not get at the real problem and do not affect homicide rates. One example is Switzerland where every man over 18 is trained and required to possess and maintain a firearm in his home. In 1968 the homicide rate in Switzerland was 0.7 per 100,000

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
population. On the other hand, in Japan, which prohibits civilian ownership of firearms, the homicide rate was 2.3 in 1968. It is interesting to note that in Switzerland there is a mandatory weapon sentence to be served consecutively with sentences for crimes. In addition, Swiss correctional institutions are self supporting, and when you are a visitor in them, you work.
Does licensing work? The same statistics, provided by the government, point out that 68.4 per cent of all firearm murders resulting from criminal acts are committed with handguns, and handguns are licensed under present laws. The fact is that crimes of violence will continue to be committed, with or without firearms. From 1961 to 1974, 44.2 per cent of all victims were murdered by firearms, and 55.8 per cent were murdered by other means.
It is my contention that crimes of passion will continue to be committed, because they are usually committed by people who are not chronic criminals. If guns are not available, other means will be used. It is my belief that many of the people involved in this class of tragedy would not have trouble being registered or licensed because before the event many would be considered normal citizens. Crime cannot and will not be controlled by placing undue restrictions on law abiding citizens, as the gun control measures in Bill C-83 attempt to do.
Why this new legislation when our present law, if enforced, would do the job? For instance, under the present code section 83 makes it an indictable offence liable to imprisonment for five years to carry a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, or for the purpose of committing an indictable offence. Surely people committing crimes while in possession of a firearm can also be charged with that, in addition to the offence committed under this section of the code. Why is it not being enforced? If there are problems of interpretation, why do we not amend this section?
Section 85 of the present code makes it an indictable offence, liable to imprisonment for five years, to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. What person who is going to commit a crime would not conceal his weapon, and how many of these weapons are actually registered? Again the person who has committed a crime while in possession of a weapon could also be charged under this section of the code. To my knowledge this is not being done. If it is being done, it is not being done consistently.
Under section 86 of the Criminal Code any one who, "without lawful excuse, points at another person a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or uses, carries or possesses any firearm or ammunition in a manner dangerous to the safety of other persons, is guilty of an indictable offence" and liable to two years' imprisonment or is guilty of on offence punishable on summary conviction.
Any person committing a crime while in possession of a firearm could be considered possessing a firearm in a manner dangerous to the safety of other persons. Why are criminals who are that the new proposed gun control measures are redundant and are merely duplicating the functions of the aforementioned sections of the Criminal Code. It is convenient, conventional wisdom that a multitude of unenforced statutes of the law leads to a disrespect

of the law by the public, and that is one of the gun problems we have in Canada today.
It is my understanding that directives need only be sent to Crown prosecutors across Canada informing them that people found in possession of a weapon while having committed an offence should also be charged under either sectons 83, 84 or 86 of the present Criminal Code. Whether the sentence is served consecutively or concurrently will be left to the discretion of the judge. That is under the present law. If this does not work, then an amendment need only be made to those sections making the sentence mandatory.
One can only assume, from the lax and tolerant attitude of our present government to the present Criminal Code and from its past practice of not enforcing the laws therein, that any new legislation will be treated in the same manner, because during this debate over and over again we have heard that this bill will make law breakers out of many present law abiding citizens.
There are some points made in the paper submitted by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police on gun control laws which I think are worthy of consideration during my participation in this debate. They point out that any improper type of legislation may cause more harm than good by imposing unnecessary restrictions on society. Years and years ago during the war I was told never to write a law that I was not prepared to enforce because, if I did so, I would have trouble on my hands. This is the best wisdom I was ever given, and I have carried it right through my life.
This paper lists three categories with which firearms are more and more frequently identified. The first is the sociopolitical movement which cannot be disregarded, and which historically has been associated with the manifestation of anti-establishment thinking that has accompanied the short or long drawn out process of government change. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, this is a major concern to many people in Canada today no matter what the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) says.
The second category deals with an element of society which will always choose to live off the avails of normal appetites but in a carrion fashion, with minimum personal effort and with total disregard of its effects toward society. This is the category of "crime for profit."
Then we come to the third category which is the crime passionel, that crime of violence which is committed in a moment of passion or temporary insanity.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in their paper on gun control point out that in any of these categories those dedicated to crime will not or cannot submit to any law, and already disregard existing legislation. I agree with this statement and analogy. The problem at hand is the high incidence of crime and the search for methods to reduce it. If this can be achieved by the elimination of a weapon, 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.
The Association of Chiefs of Police also say that "the causes of crime must be sought elsewhere-in the greed, hatred, jealousy and general moral depravity-and the remedy, if there be any, is more likely to be found in
April 12, 1976

morals and education, in improved police methods of detection", and I should like to add, in improved police methods of prevention. They conclude with the statement that "the prompt and certain imposition of punishment" is absolutely necessary. That is another thing we are not getting in Canadian society today.
I note with some astonishment that in both of these trade-off companion bills, C-83 and C-84, after years of the swinging door syndrome and permissive experiments in rehabilitation, we are now to enter an era of longer sentences. I ask: are our correction institutions now to become "vegetable farms"?
In this debate on principle where do we get a chance to review the very tragic and sad state of policy and management in our detention facilities?
The correctional services budget in 1960 was $19 million to $20 million, with a headquarters' staff of 50 people supervising a total penitentiaries' staff of 3,000 in Canada, overseeing over 6,000 inmates. The correctional services budget for 1975, according to the Blue Book, is over $230 million with a headquarters' staff and regional headquarters' staff of 620 people supervising a total penitentiaries staff in Canada of 7,000 people, looking after 8,800 inmates.
The measure of success in penal reform is the recidivism rate. In spite of the prolific growth in staff from 3,050 to 7,620 in 15 years, and in spite of the 1,100 per cent increase in expenditures in this service, the recidivism rate is still constant. Of all persons admitted to the penitentiaries in one year, about 80 per cent have had previous penal institutional experience, and 42 per cent to 45 per cent have had previous penitentiary experience. Where are the separate training facilities that are absolutely necessary if we are to start having proper rehabilitation measures in this area of first offenders? It is in this area that emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation programs.
I believe that for the objects stated by the Minister of Justice to be achieved, a rearrangement of priorities within this bill is needed. A separation of the gun control subject matter in this bill from the other aspects pertaining to peace and security would give this Thirtieth Parliament a chance to work up very meaningful legislation in this very important area of community need. When a government plays shallow political games with a subject as important as that covered by this bill, I guess it has no option but to hide its shame behind closure. I urge all members to support the important amendment of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock I now leave the chair until eight o'clock later this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the subject with which Bill C-83 deals, the protection of society against crime, especially
Measures Against Crime
violent crime, is of paramount importance. The measures set out in the bill are part of a complex of measures the government has in mind for strengthening our criminal justice system. I believe, as one of the last speakers on the government side, that it is necessary to clarify a number of apparent misunderstandings about the measures we are putting forward.
The rationale for this bill, and for the other measures the government intends to introduce, is the need for a strong but reasoned response to the threat to our society posed by a pattern of constantly rising crime, in particular crimes of violence. There can be little doubt of the need for such a response. Between the first quarters of 1974 and 1975, for example, the incidence of robbery involving the use of firearms rose a staggering 74 per cent. Firearms are now used in 50 per cent of all murders; this proportion has been steadily increasing since the 1960's and is still growing. It is apparent that, to maintain and improve control of the situation, new initiatives such as those contained in the bill brought forward by the government are required.
The measures we are proposing in Bill C-83 are comprehensive. They affect dangerous offenders, special crime inquiries, changes in parole, changes in the penitentiaries and reformatories acts, protection of privacy, and measures to regulate firearms. These measures will receive searching examination in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and constructive commentary from the many organizations that have studied our measures. Both the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) will welcome their constructive submissions and suggestions. Before these measures are referred to that forum. Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a number of concerns that members raised in debate or that arose elsewhere.
I begin, Mr. Speaker, by reminding members who criticized the bill for being too comprehensive and including too many subjects that the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1969 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1975-76, Bill C-71, were also omnibus bills providing amendments to many different sections of the Criminal Code. Bill C-71, as members may remember, dealt among other matters with, drinking and driving, conspiracy, laundering money, protection of foreign diplomats, and cattle rustling. Omnibus bills of amendments provide a convenient and wholly appropriate method of keeping our laws relevant and consistent with changes in society, a method which this House has found acceptable before now.
Some members argue that Bill C-83 leaves too much to regulations and does not include sufficient legislative detail. It should be apparent that we cannot have bills both ways, both simple and complex at the same time. We believe Bill C-83 strikes the proper balance between statute and regulation, and that the regulations provided for in Bill C-83 are useful and necessary for lending flexibility to the implementation of some of the new measures put forward in the bill.
Other hon. members criticized the bill for omitting specific measures to deal with the hard drug problem and other causes of crime in this country. I fully agree with those hon. members; these are problems with which a minister of justice should be concerned and I trust that in the not too distant future the government will present the

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
House with the fruits of its long consideration of these matters. Meanwhile I call the attention of those hon. members to the fact that specific measures of the bill, such as the special sentencing provisions for the use of guns in the course of crime, and the strengthening of police powers with respect to electronic surveillance designed to strike more effectively at the crime bosses who control hard drug trafficking, are intended to attack the manifestations of some of the problems they raised.
As these and other measures demonstrate, the basic aim of Bill C-83 is to maintain control in the face of rising violence in our society, to help to restore to Canadians a sense of security and safety while preserving a delicate balance in the scales of justice between society's right to security and the rights of the individual. Let me now turn to its specific measures, Mr. Speaker, with a view to clarifying some of the misunderstandings that have arisen over the last ten days.
There were those, for example, who mistakenly criticized the government for introducing measures to register all rifles and shotguns, and those who attacked the bill for being ineffective in taking firearms away from criminals. Let me remind those members that two thirds of the murders in Canada take place between friends and acquaintances, not in the commission of other criminal acts, and that two thirds of the murders in Canada involving firearms are committed with rifles and shotguns. These facts demonstrate very clearly that there is a basic and overwhelming need for legislation in the area of firearms control such as we are proposing.
The government believes that the measures for the control of firearms contained in Bill C-83 will go a long way toward reducing gun related violence in Canada. They are an inter-connected and interdependent package that, taken together, as a whole, will grapple successfully, we think, with the major issues of misuse and abuse of firearms in Canada.
First, there is a licensing system, not for the weapons themselves, but for owners, a system in which all who want to own a rifle or shotgun will be required to demonstrate their fitness to own one. In adopting this measure the government rejected harsh solutions, such as a total ban on all weapons, the setting up of repositories where guns would be locked up when not in use, and registration of every rifle and shotgun. These were rejected because the costs outweighed any expected benefits and because, in the case of the first option, the government recognized that there are legitimate reasons for gun ownership, such as target shooting, hunting for sport or food, or for the joys of collectorship. As gun users themselves have pointed out, it is the person who kills, the gun is only the instrument.
What the government is proposing, Mr. Speaker, is no more and no less than the measures already in effect in respect to other dangerous instruments, whose possession is nevertheless legitimate and even necessary, such as automobiles. The government proposes simply to require individuals who wish to purchase or use firearms or ammunition to obtain a licence first, like an automobile driver. One licence, valid for five years, will cover any

number of rifles and shotguns, and any amount of ammunition. The sole test is fitness to possess a weapon.
Firearms will continue to be available to all responsible persons for all legitimate purposes, but persons with a history of violent behaviour or drug of alcohol abuse will be screened out. Surely members cannot object to that. Surely members cannot, as the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) stated the other day, endorse the present system whereby someone just released from prison or a mental hospital, or an individual in a sudden burst of emotion, can just walk into a store and buy a high powered rifle or shotgun, no questions asked.
That is one set of provisions of this bill, Mr. Speaker. The bill also contains stiffer penalties for criminals using guns while committing any indictable crime. Such a criminal will receive a mandatory, consecutive sentence ranging from one to 14 years in addition to any other penalty he may receive. Furthermore, he may be prohibited, by court order, from carrying or having in his possession any firearms or ammunition for any period of time specified.
As a further measure to deal with gun-related violence, Bill C-83 also provides greater police powers to search and seize firearms of all types wherever it is apparent that a crime is about to be committed, or that a person with a gun is a danger to himself and to others. This provision is primarily aimed at what the law euphemistically calls domestic quarrels.
We should bear in mind that two thirds of all murders in Canada arise from these household spats. They are the greatest source of danger to a police officer in the course of his or her duties. Common sense alone would seem to dictate that if a police officer is required to intervene, then that officer should be empowered to impound any weapon that presents a danger.
Finally, Bill C-83 tightens restrictions on importing and manufacturing weapons, adding Saturday night specials, sawed off rifles and shotguns, and all fully automatic weapons to the list of weapons forbidden in Canada. The bill also requires permits issued by the office of the Commissioner of the RCMP for the manufacture, wholesaling, and importing of firearms.
These then are the main provisions of our approach to the gun problem, a comprehensive approach including tighter regulations on private use to encourage private responsibility, more power to police to stop potentially dangerous situations before they develop, and the use of special additional prison sentences as a deterrent against armed crime.
In the near future, as a further measure, the government plans to complement the provisions restricting the general availability of guns by introducing across Canada a voluntary "turn-in-your-weapon program". There are more than ten million guns estimated to be in circulation in Canada at the moment. Although we rarely admit the fact, we have one of the highest per capita gun populations of any country in the world. Many of these weapons are not being used. Many are in all probability improperly stored in a closet or garage and represent a hazard. Brampton, Ottawa-the tragic shootings there prompted citizens to turn in their weapons by the hundreds. We are hoping to
April 12, 1976

persuade many other Canadians to do the same, and so lessen the potential for such tragedies in other localities.
During the debate some hon. members called attention to the fact that Bill C-83 contains no provision for mandatory testing or safety courses. In considering the question of firearms handling competence, one should be clear that while fitness to own a weapon is no guarantee that it will be properly handled, competence in its use-even a high degree of competence-is no guarantee of fitness. However, the bill does recognize the importance of considering firearms handling competence, and authorizes the Solicitor General to enter into agreements with the provinces to co-ordinate the administration of our provisions with their programs encouraging hunting and firearms safety training. We hope to include competency tests through this arrangement and, as the bill moves through the standing committee, the minister will be interested in hearing representations and further suggestions on this point.
Another hon. member raised the somewhat technical question of vicarious criminal liability. In other words, if someone steals your gun and shoots someone, could you be charged with murder? This is a question also raised by responsible hunting associations like the Canadian Wildlife Federation which, I should point out after some of the references this afternoon, endorses some of the proposals in Bill C-83, such as the ban on automatic weapons and increased police powers to seize firearms in the interests of safety. The answer to the question is, no. If there is any doubt implied in the wording of the bill, I am certain we shall want to correct this in committee.
What Bill C-83 does in this regard is to make you liable to be charged with careless handling and storage if it could be shown that the weapon was carelessly stored and that reasonable precautions for the safety of others had not been taken. Someone, for example, who leaves a loaded rifle on the front porch could be convicted and, if so, become liable to a penalty ranging from a suspended sentence to five years. The actual definition of carelessness will be for the courts to decide in each case. The courts have been required for a long time to assess carelessness, careless driving, for example, and should have no difficulty adjusting to this requirement.
Other comments pinpointed some necessary areas of revision in the bill; questions of minors' rights to shoot, the definition of ammunition, the provisions regarding gun collectors, and the effect of the bill on certain native groups. In the light of members' and others' comments and representations, the government is considering amendments in these areas and these will be pursued in committee.
Other measures in Bill C-83 include reforms of the detention system, about which the Solicitor General has already spoken, and measures concerning special crime inquiries, dangerous offenders and protection of privacy. With regard to special crime inquiries, I should like to say we are still reviewing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Di Iorio case which upheld the rights of provinces to hold inquiries into organized crime. We will be re-examining the provisions of Bill C-83 in the light of that decision and the Minister of Justice will have more to say on this during the committee hearings.
Measures Against Crime
I should like to point out, while on the subject of crime inquiries, that our only interest here is to ensure that provincial governments have the adequate constitutional authority to proceed with those inquiries. As the bill indicates, our primary concern is to ensure that such investigation can be carried to completion. That is why our initial proposals give to the inquiring authority greater powers than a provincial authority could confer. As for the dangerous offenders sections of the bill, hon. members are aware that these provisions reflect the considered judgment of two committees, as expressed in the report of the Canadian Committee on Correction, known as the Ouimet report in 1969, and the Senate report on parole in Canada in 1974.
Both reports recommended changes in the criminal law so that criminals whose records of crimes of violence mark them out as constituting a serious and continuing threat to the physical safety of other people could be separated from society on a long-term basis. Indeterminate sentencing for offences of this kind is widely used in many countries whose penal practice is recognized around the world as progressive and enlightened. It provides an appropriate mechanism to protect society against dangerous criminals where it is virtually impossible at the point of sentencing to determine an appropriate length of sentence. The advantage of the indeterminate sentence lies in the fact that it postpones the decision on a release date to the point where authorities can more accurately judge the readiness of the dangerous offender to resume a normal life in the community without constituting a continuing threat to the safety and well-being of others.
Because of the gravity of this type of sentencing, the government has been careful to surround the provision with safeguards for the offender. The application for a sentence of indeterminate detention may be made by the Crown attorney only with the consent of the provincial attorney general. The offender can call any relevant evidence, including that of a psychiatrist, psychologist, or criminologist. The court may seek additional evidence by remanding the offender for medical observation for a limited period. Further, the indeterminate sentence must be reviewed within three years of the sentence, and every two years thereafter, by the National Parole Board.
I come now to the provisions that relate to the use of electronic surveillance. These provisions have raised concern on both sides of the House as to whether the bill strikes a proper balance between the need to provide effective protection for society and the need to safeguard the rights of the individual. The need for changes in this law to enhance our capability to attack the carefully protected bosses of organized crime in particular is evident, not least from the Solicitor General's report of 1975. In that report the Solicitor General explained that many of those convicted in the Quebec meat scandal might be free today if the present law had been in effect when the inquiry began.
The Minister of Justice also has the responsibility of protecting and upholding civil liberties in Canada, and he has welcomed the comments of civil liberties associations and other responsible groups and observers concerned with this area. The minister will wish to listen carefully to their proposals for change, notwithstanding that Bill C-83 pres-

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
ently includes a number of safeguards protecting civil liberties.
The changes in the Protection of Privacy Act that are proposed leave in place the already existing powerful guarantees against abuse of electronic surveillance. Judicial authorization continues to be a requirement. Unauthorized communications are themselves inadmissible in evidence. The act of illegal eavesdropping is punishable as a criminal offence. Full and free reporting of proceedings in open court is expressly permitted, thus ensuring the public right to keep fully informed of the way prosecutions are conducted and the way these investigative measures are being used. While we must ensure that the safeguards are adequate, we must not prevent our police forces from using the latest available technology in the fight against organized crime. Quite clearly, as long as the fundamental guarantees remain in place, the danger to the citizen is greater if we tie our hands needlessly in the fight against organized crime.
I should like to point out to hon. members that the proposed amendments carry the unanimous support of the provincial attorneys general who daily face the task of fighting criminals.
Admission of evidence derived from an unlawful surveillance is a similar problem, and its solution requires a similar perspective, Mr. Speaker. By deciding to admit such evidence and by repealing the suppression doctrine we have had in force, we are bringing wire tap laws into line with existing law on search warrants and more closely into line with our traditions of the common law. Some have argued that the measure rewards illegal conduct. In fact this is a narrow view of the issues involved.
As Wigmore, the great American authority on evidence, has noted, the exclusionary rule makes justice inefficient and coddles criminals by serving neither to protect potential victims nor to punish the offending officer. Rather, it punishes society by the release of criminals into our midst. Obviously, the solution to dealing with a case in which believable evidence has been illegally obtained by means of an unlawful wiretap lies in applying the existing legal sanctions rather than excluding the evidence. That is the balance that best protects the public and individual alike.
The measures contained in Bill C-83 comprise an over-all approach and they are part of a series of changes the government intends to introduce in the criminal justice system. Some commentators have mistakenly suggested that the proposals in the bill violate the spirit of the Law Reform Commission's recommendations. It is true that there are some specific items in the bill which differ from certain specific proposals of the commission, but the basic intent of our proposals is consistent with the commission's analysis of the underlying purpose of our common law. Indeed the latest report of the commission, which deals with this very subject, provides sound philosophical underpinning for that legislation.
Members of the House, particularly those who are also members of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, may recall the remarks of the former head of the Law Reform Commission, Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: An old classmate of mine.


Francis Fox: Then perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) will enjoy reading the remarks of Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt, who pointed out that there is no basic inconsistency between the approach of this bill and the principles the commission has tried to set out for the criminal law.
The influence of the careful studies and reports of the Law Reform Commission will also be apparent when the government brings forward, as it intends, measures to overcome the bottlenecks in the courts system, and measures to overhaul the laws of evidence and the system of sentencing. These are now being readied for presentation. This is a time for action. The public is ready for change. The public is insisting upon an updating of the law so that it more closely and adequately meshes with contemporary Canadian reality. Bill C-83 is an important step toward that goal.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to this debate on Bill C-83, but I have to ask myself right at the outset whether or not this is really a debate. Webster's dictionary says that to debate a subject is to discuss it by considering the opposing arguments, so it could hardly be called debate when the government has already made up its mind what it is going to do about the proposals in this bill.
The irony of this so-called debate is compounded by the government's determination to limit discussion on this extremely important and far-reaching legislation by bringing in closure, thereby disallowing the rights of many members to air their views. As you know, Mr. Speakers, the bill before us complicates the issue even further by dealing with so many different facets of crime, such as wiretap proposals, parole, prison breaks, changes in sentencing provisions, and other matters, some of which may have merit if they were dealt with on an individual basis. Instead we see them pooled together in an obvious effort to hide the inadequacies which exist in some of the individual proposals.
Because of the time restriction I will dwell on the one aspect of this bill that seems to be the prime concern of Canadians from coast to coast, and certainly a big concern of constituents in my riding, and that is the specific subject of the proposed firearms restrictions, registrations, and regulations, more commonly known as gun controls. We have seen clearly that the government is as totally disinterested in the weight of public opposition to the gun registration proposals in this bill as it is to capital punishment and other important issues.
I believe that it would be safe to say that every member of this House, including every member on the government benches, has received a great volume of mail on the subject of gun registration. I believe that it would be equally safe to say that the mail received by every single member has been overwhelmingly against the gun control provisions in this bill as they are written.


An hon. Member:: What did you say, Simma?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 12, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) has the floor.


An hon. Member:: $218 a minute.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the hon. members opposite-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley will please address the Chair.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad hon. members-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member will please address the Chair.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I stated "hon. members opposite" obviously have not been listening to the majority of their constituents. They should remember that they were put here in the House of Commons by a majority of those people, and they should abide by the wishes of their constituents.


An hon. Member:: You are here by 200.


Otto John Jelinek: And that's better than losing by one.
To continue my speech, Mr. Speaker, that is not to say that the Canadian people are against gun registration of any kind, or that they are against control of the sale, use and storage of weapons. More than anything else, it means that the Canadian people are completely fed up with the manner in which the government attempts to legislate. In practically every instance when the government tables legislation to deal with a real or imagined problem, it resorts to over-kill. There is no doubt whatever, Mr. Speaker, that the gun control section in this bill is over-kill, pure and simple.
Let me make it clear at the outset that as an individual who is horrified at the continuing increase of crime around us while the government allows known killers to walk our streets only to kill again, I would more than welcome and certainly support any legislation which would attempt to deal with the problems of law and order which we are faced with on a daily basis. Unfortunately, I see no way in which this bill as it now reads will effect a reduction in crime, particularly that part which pertains to gun control.
I was interested in the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), in respect of the government's contention that registered guns will not be used to kill people. I cannot draw any other conclusion from the statements of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford) that we can curtail deaths in Canada caused by long guns by the simple expedient of registering the owners of rifles and shotguns. So many analogies have been used to illustrate the fallacy of such an argument that I will not relate them all here. However, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that a high percentage of homocides in this country are committed by handguns, which have been controlled for 50 years.
In all of the cases of long guns referred to by the government supporters of this legislation, every one of the persons involved in the deaths would have qualified for
Measures Against Crime
registration certificates for the guns. Yet the government has the gall to include in this hodge podge legislation a type of gun control proposal that is only known to the deteriorating police states around the world. Let us not be so naive as not to realize that if a gangster is determined to commit a crime he will not need to register his firearm but rather obtain it through other devious ways and means which will exist even if these gun control proposals do become law.
Just think of the cost of administrating these controls on law abiding citizens. It will become a bureaucratic nightmare in more ways than one.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that any bureaucrat reviewing applications for gun registration could look into the future and, on the basis of what might happen, reject an application from an otherwise stable and law-abiding citizen. I will suggest to the hon. members of this House, though, that if we place too much authority in the hands of appointed bureaucrats to decide who can or cannot own a gun, it is going to lead almost automatically to abuse and, more than that, it is going to encourage the government, and its appointed bureaucrats, to extend this type of authority into other areas of lawful activity of Canadian citizens.
I would not pretend that I know more about what life is like in a controlled society, Mr. Speaker, but I at least know what it is like from personal experience. I know how easy it is for people in a society to accept the view that what a government is doing to them is for their own good. That is the way it happens. A government that is determined to assume control over a society that has known freedom will always adopt the manner of the great protector. "What we are doing is really for your own good, and it would be in your best interests to accept a certain amount of control in order to obtain long term benefits", it will say. Such governments are always the champions of human rights, civil rights, and all of the other rights that they plan eventually to curtail. That is what I fear the most from the government's assumption of control over our lives, Mr. Speaker.
The government pretends that it is doing all sorts of things for our own good, and I know where it can all lead. I have seen it happen. In view of the millions of people who are still living in the controlled society that I was able to escape from, I have to consider that I am one of the fortunate few. But I believed, as did millions of others, that I was comming to a country that offered a free society, freedom of all the things that communist countries in other parts of the world now control, and in fact that is what Canada has always been, a country exemplifying freedom to the rest of the world.
But what do we have today? We have a government in this country that wants the control over the means of production, over the ecomony, and over all aspects of human activity and endeavor. Like the governments in Eastern Europe its members are self-styled champions of civil liberty, individual freedom, and a wide range of human rights. It does not matter that these two philosophies are in conflit. It is what you can get the public to accept, and not necessarily what is right, that forms the basis of a philosophy that seeks to control people and societies. And that is precisely the type of society that the
12744
April 12, 1976

Measures Against Crime
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau is trying to have Canadians accept.
Allow me at this point to read a set of rules obtained by the allied forces after the war from the communist "Rules of Revolution." Hon. members here will know that these rules have been distributed to members and relate indirectly to Bill C-83, and I will get to that.
Before reading the rules let me point out that they have been taking effect around the world, not only just after the war but up to the present time, whether it be in Asia, eastern Europe, the Middle East, Angola, South America and, yes, even North America, whether we want to believe it or not. Quoting from the communist "Rules for Revolution" they are:
A.	Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.
B.	Get control of all means of publicity, thereby:
1.	Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays and other trivialities.
2.	Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.
3.	Destroy the other people's faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and disgrace.
4.	Always preach true democracy, but seize power as fast and ruthlessly as possible.
5.	By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit produce fear of inflation with rising prices and general discontent.
6.	Incite unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders.
7.	By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues, honesty, sobriety, self restraint, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.
Then the final point which is the one that relates directly to this bill;
C.	Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext with a view to confiscating them and leaving the population helpless.
If you reflect on how many of the above points are already in effect in this country you must begin to wonder just how much longer our democratic way of life will continue.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, the real key to what the government is attempting to do is its insistence that gun-related crimes can be controlled or curtailed by forcing law-abiding citizens to register as gun owners. It has been suggested a number of times by some of my colleagues in these debates that the logical next step is to register all owners of baseball bats, kitchen knives, hatchets and axes, and all other instruments and objects that are used to commit violent crimes.
The fact of the matter is as the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) pointed out, that we cannot outlaw the instruments of death any more than we can outlaw death itself. Lethal weapons as such are already controlled as well as they can be controlled by being included as offences in the Criminal Code. Sawed-off rifles and shotguns, automatic weapons, and revolvers are already classed as either restricted or prohibited weapons in the Criminal Code, yet most gun-related crimes in Canada, as in other countries, are committed with restricted or prohibited weapons.

The logical way to tighten up the law is to tighten the laws that are being abridged by criminals. Adding still more weapons to the restricted classes is not going to prevent or curtail gun-related crime. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the Minister of Justice is as naive as this gun-control legislation makes him out to be, so I have to suspect that there is a more sinister motive behind it, one that has nothing whatever to do with controlling crime.
I know as well as any other person in Canada that the government is bankrupt of ideas when it comes to getting violent crime under control, and I know that neither the Minister of Justice nor the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) is all that concerned about the problem. How could a minister be concerned about controlling crime when he states publicly, before any legislation is even tabled, that he will not be a party to the execution of a person convicted of a brutal, vicious and deliberate murder? How can we believe that such a minister would follow up and ensure that such a murderer would really be kept in prison for twenty-five years? The answer is simple. We can't.
Allow me to point out that there are many other individuals and groups of individuals who share this view publicly. For example, just last Friday the committee representing the rank and file of the RCMP from across Canada expressed their concern that their boss, the Solicitor General, was "unable to be effective as the federal minister responsible for the force." Is there any wonder? They are talking about the same minister who just a few weeks ago said that Soviet KGB secret agents aren't spies. Perhaps he believes they are butchers, bakers or candlestick makers-or even diplomats.
In any case how can we trust a government to protect society when, for example, convicted rape murderers of children are allowed out of prison on daily and weekend passes, to commit further crimes? How can we trust this government to control convicted criminals when almost every week we see another prison break, or another taking of hostages by hardened prisoners? The obvious answer, again, is that we simply can't. We can only trust the government to chip away at the rights and freedoms of the law-abiding citizens.
The Minister of Justice insists that capital punishment is not a deterrent to violent crime, and says that the answer is to impose longer prison terms for certain types of murder. I'm glad that the minister can at least distinguish between the various types of murder. No doubt when this legislation is railroaded through the House we will have two more types of murder-murders committed with registered guns, and murders committed with unregistered guns.
The plain fact is that the minister does not know whether or not the threat of execution would be a deterrent to certain types of premeditated murder. We don't have any data on which to base such an assumption for the simple reason that the cabinet in the past ten years has commuted every death sentence imposed by our courts, therefore breaking the very laws which it passed. Parliament compromised on the contentious issue of capital punishment and voted to impose the death sentence for conviction of the murder of a policeman or prison guard. While we don't have any data on the deterrent effect of the death penalty we do have records that show that some of those murderers
April 12, 1976

whose sentences have been commuted by the Liberal cabinet have gone on to commit further crimes, including murders.
I am afraid that we are going to find ourselves in the same position that the people of California, and other states, now find themselves in as a result of the U.S. Supreme court decision banning capital punishment. That infamous murdering animal, Charles Manson, who had his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment after being convicted in 1969 for seven senseless murders, will be eligible for parole in 1978, just two years from now. Just think of it?
It is a mockery of justice and a sad commentary on any society to allow such a situation to exist. It is not a situation that exists only in the United States or in other countries remote from us. We have our own Charles Man-sons, whether we want to accept that fact or not, and I do not want to turn such people out on leave, parole or full release, to prey again and again on innocent people, until at least they are cornered, and either shot down by the police or returned to a jail cell for a few more years. Unless we are prepared at least to put the death penalty to the test, and find out once and for all if it will deter violent and senseless murders, then we are not doing all we can do, and all we should do, to protect the innocent and law-abiding.
The Minister of Justice said a few days ago that this gun registration legislation will keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible. What complete and utter nonsense! The irresonsible in society acquire guns in the same irresponsible way that they do everything else. The minister is insulting our intelligence when he suggests we can control the actions of the lawless by imposing new restrictions on the actions of the law-abiding people of Canada.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that people are not against some control over the sale, storage or use of firearms. No sensible person would agree that firearms should be immediately available to all sorts of people, in stores, by mail order, or by simply picking up a rifle or shotgun that is left lying around by its owner. I repeat that the Minister of Justice is resorting to overkill, instead of studying the matter thoroughly and sensibly.
The minister should be attacking the weak points in our gun laws, not the strong points. Gun clubs and other organizations concerned with the safe and responsible handling of guns are not the weak points in the gun question. These are the groups who would be in the strongest position with respect to limiting the irresponsible distribution, storage and use of firearms. These are the people who have pioneered the safe use of firearms, and who have carried the burden of education and instruction in the safe use of firearms. It is these people who have brought pressure to bear on the provinces, in the absence of any federal programs, to introduce gun safety courses.
In Ontario, for example, we have an excellent program of gun safety and hunter safety. No person in Ontario can buy a hunting license without first completing a hunter safety course and passing both a written and practical examination. The graduate receives a certificate which is presented to the agency selling hunting licences. It is a serious offence for anyone to sell a hunting licence without verifying that the buyer has such a certificate.
Measures Against Crime
However, the problem here, is that the Minister of Justice simply doesn't seem to be able to come up with any concrete proposals for dealing with violent crime. His sympathies seem to be more with the rights and dignities of those convicted of crimes, and so his tendency is to vent his frustration on the innocent victims of crime and the law-abiding citizens of Canada. He can't bring himself to the point of allowing the state to take the life of a convicted murderer, and he can't seem to find any way of deterring those who follow a deliberate and calculated life of crime, especially those who use guns in the commission of crimes. And so, Mr. Speaker, the minister has decided to kill all the chickens in order to foil the fox. Of course this is a cop-out, but that is not new or unique to this government. It is a form of deceit, something at which the government is adept.
The minister says gun registration as proposed in this legislation is not intended to be confiscation. He says that in place of the death penalty we will impose longer, mandatory prison sentences. He promises a lot of things, Mr. Speaker, but we just cannot believe him. I think back on the multi-million-dollar campaign waged by the Prime Minister in 1974 against the wage and income control program advocated by the former leader of the opposition. The Prime Minister convinced the people of Canada that such a program would not work. And after his government was returned to majority power he imposed the present wage and price control program on the country, a program which had already been worked out in principle at the very time he was attacking our own program.
I cannot accept this bill on any count, Mr. Speaker, neither the gun control proposals, the wiretap proposals, the changes in sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code! the changes with respect to dangerous offenders, parole, nor the proposals for dealing with prison breaks. My objections have already been very ably defined in the remarks of my Conservative colleagues during this limited so-called debate. The fact remains that the government continues to shy away from including any specific details of law in any of the bills it has tabled in recent years.
I am suspicious of any open-ended legislation where the details are filled in after the bill has been passed by parliament. We should be voting on specific details rather than broad principles, and in the case of gun registration in particular I want to know what sort of bureaucracy the government plans to install to administer the law. I want to know exactly what regulations and conditions a person will have to contend with when he or she enters a registration office to apply for a gun registration certificate. It is not unreasonable for members of this House to want to know what they are voting for or against.
That is the reason why all these very important crime issues cannot and must not be pooled in a single misleading piece of legislation such as the one before us. It is easy to see that this devious Liberal government is continuing to try to fool the public. In this case it is most obviously trying to soften the people of Canada into believing that making this bill law, capital punishment will no longer be necessary. I think that the government has been fooling the people of Canada long enough, and I sincerely hope and believe that the public will not fall for it again.
12746

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
It appears at this point in time that our only hope for getting this bill sorted out, and getting some details filled in, will be at committee stage. That is why, if I vote for this bill at second reading, I will be only doing so with the hope of having the necessary changes proposed during the last few days made during the committee stage. If the Liberal members will not compromise, then there will be no way that I, as a representative of my constituents in High Park-Humber Valley, can vote for this phony bill, as it now stands, at third and final reading. I can only hope that some of the members on the other side of the House will take the opportunity of the proposals made in committee to do what they themselves surely know must be done. This bill as it is written will be as bad for their constituents as for mine, and so if they have any interest at all in seeing that good legislation is salvaged from a bad bill, then I have faith that we will correct the obvious inequities and iniquities in Bill C-83 at that time.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) on a point of order?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: You are wasting time.
An. hon. Member: He wants to ask a question. It is not a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I only want to ask the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) for clarification. Did I misunderstand him that he believes the two bills are together? He called it a package deal a while ago, Bill C-83 and Bill C-84.


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


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I will clarify the point very quickly. I never referred to Bill C-84. I was talking about the different subjects in Bill C-83 such as wiretapping, gun control, etc.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively as the previous speaker, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), read out was has been coming in the mail to all members of parliament, this so called document on the "Communist Rules for Revolution."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You know all about that.


John R. Rodriguez: I thought it was more like the capitalist rules for revolution. Let me clarify. The first thing they do, according to those rules, is to:
Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.
I know many liquor companies in this country which became rich by pushing booze on young people. It is the Ontario Tory government which lowered the drinking age to 18, and it is its minister, Mr. Sidney Handleman, who got all the contributions from the liquor companies.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You are out of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I thought we were debating Bill C-83. The hon. member has been speaking now for three minutes and I sincerely hope he will get back to the bill as soon as possible because we always want to hear words of wisdom in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has the floor. I suggest he revert to the terms of Bill C-83.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can see that it hurts them because they are always great ones to repeat this garbage, which in itself has nothing to do with Bill C-83.
The hon. member read the document into the record and I thought we should remind him that it is indeed capitalism that has been responsible for all these kinds of ills which he has read out as being so called revolutionary.
The government has presented Bill C-83 for parliament's consideration and decision. This piece of legislation comes under the general heading of peace and security. When we start thinking about peace and security we tend to think of widening police authority, prohibiting certain acts or instruments, and toughening penalties.
Our children and, I suppose, we as adults get a lot of romantic ideas from American television programs such as police shows, where in every case we see the police making an arrest we see them warning the arrested person of his right to remain silent and if he should say anything it could be used later on in prosecuting him. We do not have that right in Canada. As a matter of fact I know that our police force has indeed very wide powers, much wider than in the country to the south of us. So if we get a romantic view from television and think that Canadians also have these rights which we see on U.S. television, then we should be informed that such is not the case.
Not so long ago I had occasion to write to the Attorney General of the province of Ontario about the case of a young man who was arrested in a hotel in Sudbury and taken to the local jail. What was his offence? He was suspected of smoking grass in the hotel. He demanded to make one phone call to his lawyer, which he thought he had the right to do, but the police promptly booted him to the jail and told him he had no such right and he would stay in jail until they should decide what they would do with him.
The widening of police powers is one of the things that concerns many people in this country. In the bill before us the government seems intent on impressing on the Canadian people that it is the last buffer of security against a rising tide of crime and violence. Therein lies my first criticism of Bill C-83. It includes six particular items, from entirely new legislation governing the ownership of long guns, to amending present legislation covering habitual offenders and dangerous sexual offenders, electronic surveillance, special crime inquiries and custody and release of inmates.
April 12, 1976

Of all the items in Bill C-83 gun control has attracted by far the greatest attention, and in some parts of the country more than others. In my riding of Nickel Belt, which is predominantly rural and working class, there is great concern about certain provisions, which concern has resulted in about 180 pieces of mail daily, plus a 6,000 signature petition. I understand the basic resentment of the people in my area against certain provisions of the bill. They see it basically as legislation aimed at large urban centres like Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa, where a firearm is not looked on in the same manner as in rural areas. Indeed many of the folk in my area say that this legislation is for those urban crazies who do not know about or have any respect for firearms and who want to shoot each other. They feel they are being put through this bureaucracy for the sake of protecting urban dwellers from each other.
In Nickel Belt most of the workers are employed in mines or smelters, and when work is finished, or on week ends, hunting and fishing are indispensable forms of relaxation. Many of the workers have hunt camps or cottages and spend time in the summer and fall hunting and fishing.
They are also concerned about the cost of any kind of licensing program. One constituent pointed out to me that he now pays $15 for a moose licence, $5 for a licence for hunting migratory birds, and $10 for a deer licence, and after those costs there is also the cost of a hunting licence. Now there is a proposed gun licence fee which is as yet undetermined. My constituents see this additional cost a further proof that eventually hunting will be reserved for the rich.
My constituents have also expressed concern about the engulfing red tape of bureaucracy. By nature, rural folk seem to be much more resentful about encroaching bureaucracy than urban folk, probably because they are much more self reliant. In particular, they are set against the proposal to have two guarantors testifying as to the character of a prospective gun owner.
Concern has been expressed about the provision of search and seizure without warrant. In particular, if no charge has been laid, the firearm owner ought to be able to claim his property unless the licensing action is in progress or some charge has been laid.
Another question raised by my constituents deals with reimbursement. If, during the initial three year licensing period, a person is not issued a licence to own a firearm and the registrar issues an order to take his property, will that person be reimbursed? That is very important to the people in my constituency. I have met with members of rod and gun clubs and other interested citizens and listened to their opinions, and expressed mine, in the hope that this legislation can be as effective as possible.
I support the principle of gun control. Indeed the bill does not go far enough with respect to tightening gun control. I have said this to rod and gun clubs and those interested in my constituency, and there are large numbers of them.


Stan Darling: What did they say?


John R. Rodriguez: They said they would turn me out.
Measures Against Crime


Stan Darling: Exactly.


John R. Rodriguez: But I must always be fair and honest with the people I represent, and I cannot say things I think they want me to say so that I can win their votes. I seems to me that being here is a responsibility. I must look at the evidence and make the decision which is in the best interests of Canada as a whole rather than in my own narrow interest, or in the interest of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) of getting re-elected. I suppose we could all become very popular in this House if we were to be for capital punishment and against gun control, but that is not the purpose of being in rd slowing the escalating rate of deaths involving firearms in domestic and non-domestic situations, as well as in accidental deaths. I say that because I notice that in 1974, under the heading criminal acts, 68.4 per cent of firearms murders involved handguns, which are presently strictly controlled in Canada, so I do not think this legislation will control criminals, no matter how we control long gun owners. No matter how strictly we control them, firearms will still be used in the commission of criminal acts in society.
However, the area in which I think this legislation will make some difference is in the inter-familial relationship or with regard to the person who is mentally unbalanced, either long range or temporarily, the person who is a violent alcoholic or who has had a criminal record, who is out on probation or who is out on bail awaiting trial. I think these classes of people ought not to be permitted to have the responsibility of bearing a firearm, and that is where I see this legislation being effective. I have taken that position in my constituency. It is not a very popular position, but in conscience I could take no other. I reject the argument put forward by hon. members in this House, and also by people at large, that it is a right to have a firearm. I must confess that I know of no such right.
I think this matter has less to do with rights and more to do with maturity. It seems to me that it is a privilege to own a firearm, and it is certainly the responsibility of the state to determine who can legally bear firearms and under what conditions. The same attitude should prevail with regard to drivers' licences. It is not a right of a citizen to have a driver's licence, it is a responsibility, and I think too often in the past we have been stressing our rights more than we have been stressing our responsibilities. This is an area in which we have been far too lax in the past.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Hear, hear! I finally agree with you.


John R. Rodriguez: At the moment there is nothing to prevent a person who has been treated as a serious mental patient, and who is possibly dangerous to himself or others around him, from going to the closest army surplus store and purchasing a firearm or, for that matter, to prevent someone who has been convicted of a violent crime from blithely walking down to his friendly Canadian Tire Store and picking out his favourite firearm. If he is not happy with that he could purchase a periodical which is called the Calgary Gunrunner. In it he could find anything from a bazooka to an M.2 rifle. Any serious hunter I know from Nickel Belt knows you do not take an M.2 semi automatic rifle or a bazooka into the bush to hunt, but you can buy it all, and it is listed there. If you are so interested, there is nothing like an auction, and the Natural Resources Depart-

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
ment of the province of Ontario sells rifles. There is nothing like an auction.
This is the kind of laissez-faire attitude in society which leads to a breakdown of a sense of responsibility, and somehow people are getting the idea that they have a right to own a firearm. Stores have no legal basis for refusing to sell firearms. I know that the Criminal Code places the onus on certain persons not to purchase firearms, but there is no onus on stores not to sell firearms to such people. At the moment there is no system whereby stores keep records of ammunition or firearms sold to individuals.
It was mentioned previously that there are approximately 10 million firearms now in the hands of Canadians. There is one firearm for every two Canadians, there is an annual increase of about 420,000 firearms, and no one knows where they are scattered. They are out there somewhere, and coupled with the fact there are no controls with respect to who sells and who buys, and no required competency test, the whole thing becomes a jungle which is quickly breaking down, and it will come down on our heads sooner or later. The time to take some action is now.
When there were such unfortunate and tragic incidents as those in Brampton and in Ottawa, my office received letters from southern Ontario and from everywhere else asking why we parliamentarians were not doing something about tightening up gun control. It seemed that everything died down three or four weeks after that. Now we are getting the other backlash that people do not want controls.
It is easy to see in respect of this kind of situation, this easy access to firearms, that we are playing Russian roulette, with innocent people at the end of the barrel. This concerns me as a parliamentarian and as someone who must look at this bill and make a decision on it. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) are not in the House this evening. However, I want to say to them that the gun control section must be further tightened.
I, and many of my constituents, believe that the guarantor provision should be dropped because it will not be effective. This provision is not the same as that in respect of the guarantor of a passport. A guarantor of a passport is one who, for example, certifies that he has known the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) for two years and can state that the picture submitted is a reasonable facsimile of him. That is not the same as the provision in this bill. We are not asking for identification. We are asking the guarantor, under the provision in this bill, to make an assessment of the character of the applicant and to state whether or not he is a person of character who could be entrusted with a firearm. It seems to me that is entirely different.
Even in rural communities where everyone knows everyone else there would be a difficulty in getting someone to be a guarantor for a person to be permitted to obtain a licence. It seems to me that in an urban situation, such as Toronto, no one ever gets to know anyone else. Therefore I do not see how one could find two guarantors who would be prepared to say that one is a person of such a character that one should be permitted to be licenced.

For instance, the guarantor may be a school principal. This missed the whole point. Today the schools are very large composite schools. The principal never knows who the students are. It is the guidance cousellor who deals with the pupils. The principal is an administrator who, in an urban area, could never testify concerning the character of his students. It seems to me there is another arguments which we should keep in mind which I believe is valid in this connection. I refer to the argument that this will become an elitist thing. It seems to me that certain classes will be certifying certain other classes. The elitist class will be classified as the lawyer, the judge, the school principal, and so on.


An hon. Member:: And a teacher.


John R. Rodriguez: No; a school principal. It seems to me that this involves a certain class distinction. It provides, apart from that elitism, as I have said, no real safeguards. I and many of my constituents think that we should be moving to drop that provision in respect of a guarantor, and instead have the registrar of firearms as the official who would make the decision in every case on the basis of the facts so far as he is aware of them. For example, psychiatric hospitals which are treating dangerously mentally deficient persons and who are moving back and forth from the community to the hospital would pass this information on to the registrar. This information now is passed to the local police force but it could just as easily be passed to the registrar. He could also be furnished information concerning any persons who are out on parole, or who are out on bail, or who have been convicted of a crime in the past.
If these names were passed on to the registrar then, if such a person should apply for a licence, the registrar would institute a check and make a decision on the basis of the facts available to him. In addition I think it is very important that the competency test be included at this stage before any licence is issued. In other words, the person applying must conform not only to the requirement of not having a record which would prohibit his obtaining a licence but he should also provide a competency certificate, and on that basis he will or will not be given a licence. That competency certificate would indicate that he or she had successfully completed a course in gun handling. It seems to me that is a role gun clubs could play in teaching people the proper way to handle and the best way to care for and store a firearm.
I also believe that the registering of guns should be under the aegis of the government rather than contracted out to the private sector. This would avoid the all too prevalent pork-barreling which we see flourishing all too easily in this country these days. With regard to the licensing, I feel it ought not to exceed $5 for at least the first five year licensing period. At the end of the first five year period the situation could be reviewed. I feel also that in the matter of search and seizure of a firearm without warrant the citizen ought to get his firearm back unless a charge is laid under the Criminal Code, or unless for some reason his licence is being revoked.
In respect of the initial licensing period, if an individual cannot be licensed and the registrar causes his firearm to be confiscated then that person should be reimbursed for
April 12, 1976

his property. I would urge that the gun control section of Bill C-83 be amended along the lines I have noted.
However, there is a part of Bill C-83 which causes me great apprehension. I refer to the wiretapping provisions. During the minority parliament of 1972-74 parliament passed a bill which set up wiretap provisions. Now we have the spectacle of the government in a majority position wanting to put back into the wiretap legislation provisions which parliament had previously rejected. A speaker on the government side of the House argued that it is necessary to have electronic surveillance because that is how we could get at the top people-the dons of the mafiosi. I do not think he realizes that the top mafiosi today do not use the telephone. They are much smarter and wiser in that particular area. So I do not think any people of this type will be trapped in that way.


Mr. Nystrom:: They use the Liberal committee rooms.


John R. Rodriguez: Well, I have known them to be used for other things. This particular part of Bill C83 dealing with electronic surveillance to me is most regressive. It seems to me that the state has not made its case for additional powers under the wiretap legislation of Canada. Indeed it gives more arbitrary power to the police without a corresponding protection for the individual citizens' privacy.
I have no experience in this matter so I must believe what other persons with experience and some expertise have said. Ramsey Clark, former United States attorney general and one with considerable experience, made the following points about such surveillance:
a.	wiretapping was not used between 1966 and 1969 yet indictments against members of organized crime tripled; he concluded that wiretapping is a wasteful and inefficient means of investigation and is not, moreover, effective against organized crime;
b.	wiretapping destroys the professionalism of investigators; electronic surveillance encourages not investigation, but just sitting waiting for something to happen;
c.	it is enormously expensive-for example, the use of laser beams which can pierce walls up to 12 feet thick;
d.	such all-encompassing eavesdropping evades human dignity-e.g. the listening in on the sexual activities of Martin Luther King and the subsequent use of this information to smear King's reputation.
On the face of it it would seem to me that these amendments, with respect to electronic surveillance, give the police a licence to invade the privacy of any or all citizens without any authorization. Who will prosecute the police?
The present law at least provides defence counsel with an opportunity to determine whether unlawful surveillance did take place. The requirement for notification to be given to the person who has undergone electronic surveillance at least provides citizens with protection against an over-zealous police force. The government argues this requirement has seriously inhibited electronic surveillance, because notification alerts the potential offender before the investigation can be completed. The example the government gives is that "such investigations can be of a long-term nature and sometimes unproductive periods of some length occur where, for example, the subject is out of the country". The government should be required to provide statistics. How often has this happened? The proposed amendment increases the potential period of surveillance
Measures Against Crime
from 60 days to 120 days. But as the government itself argues, 60 days is usually enough.
In 1975, under section 178.12 of the Criminal Code, 555 authorizations were granted, and 449 renewals were approved. Apparently only two renewals were refused. Considering the track record, it is difficult to see why section 178.23(2b) does not provide the police with enough leeway to complete investigations. Coupled with proposed authorization periods, this proposal gives them a minimum surveillance period of 210 days. The government should tell us how many requests under section 178.23(2b) have been made and how many refused, and also how many convictions resulted from electronic surveillance.
According to the government another difficulty concerning notification requirement is this: it has inhibited the investigation of organized crime. Actually fault did not lie with the notification requirement; it lay with the types of offences for which authorizations can be granted. For instance, the present law dictates that authorization for interception may only be granted in respect of certain, specific indictable offences and any indictable offence involving organized crime. I call on the Minister of Justice to revoke that particular section as, potentially, it offers no greater security to Canadians than the present law does; on the contrary, it could undermine confidence in the state.
Let me say a word about crime inquiries as provided for in the bill. I do not disagree with this provision, but merely raise one point. I want to see the innocent protected. Sometimes, when inquiries are in high gear, the innocent are dragged in. Too often, in the mind of the public the innocent are judged as guilty merely because they are involved in the investigation. It seems to me that the minister should draft provisions to ensure that such inquiries do not become witch hunts but, rather, protect the integrity of the innocent.
Let me now say a word about the dangerous offender section. I suggest that, at the time of review of the indeterminate sentence by the National Parole Board, the board should be expanded with the addition of two persons who should come from the community into which the offender says he wants to be released. In relation to the section dealing with custody and release of inmates, there is nothing there that I disagree with, in principle.
In summary, I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). He wants to send the subject matter of the bill to committee because he knows that by so doing he would kill the bill. I want the bill to go to committee, witnesses to appear and, hopefully, constructive amendments to be moved. Hence I support the bill in principle and will exercise my prerogative on third reading, when I shall see the bill after it has been through the committee stage, and after I have once again consulted concerned groups in my riding.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, as we near the end of debate of second reading I wish to comment on areas of the bill which I hope will receive careful examination and possibly be amended in committee. This debate takes place at a time when people are concerned about the rise in crimes of violence and want protection. It is important to make sure that the measures we adopt are effective, realistic, and afford that protection. But it is also

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime
important not to put in place measures so repressive as to be antithetical to rehabilitation.
Let me speak on wiretapping. I sympathize with the police viewpoint, with their contention that they need additional powers to deal with organized crime. From my own experience in corrections, I would say that the majority of people incarcerated are socially incompetent minor criminals, while the so-called "master criminal" often goes free. I do not wish to see the police restricted in their very necessary investigative work, especially if they are to reverse this trend. However, I am concerned about electronic surveillance, even when done with a judge's warrant. I think wiretapping represents an intrusion into people's lives which should be monitored very carefully. Representing, as I do, an ethnic riding where people are sometimes handicapped by lack of knowledge of English, where dissimilar names often seem similar by reason of unfamiliarity, and where mistakes in identity are made, I am concerned about the possible complications in the life of an innocent person which could result from a police file being built up about him or her.
The present requirement that people be notified after a certain period if police surveillance does not lead to a charge is, I think, a doubtful safeguard. I can understand the view of the police, that it limits their investigation of criminals and may in fact serve as a warning to a wide criminal network to go underground temporarily. But from the viewpoint of the innocent person I think such notification after the event can cause much anxiety and distress and will not necessarily result in corrective action, namely, the destruction of the file. I therefore suggest that either the regulations or an amendment to this bill-and I prefer the latter-should stipulate that in the event of an investigation not leading to a criminal charge after a certain period, all records of the wiretapping should be destroyed. There ought to be a verification procedure, to show that the records have been destroyed.
Let me now talk about the dangerous offender. Bill C-83 contains "dangerous offender" provisions to replace the "habitual criminal" and "dangerous sexual offender" categories. This is in line with the Ouimet committee recommendations of 1969, and with similar recommendations of the Canadian Mental Health Association committee on legislation and psychiatric disorders brought forward in the same year. The "dangerous sexual offender" category has been badly used. Sometimes the result has been excessively long imprisonment for people whose patterns of behaviour, although socially and morally objectionable, were not dangerous.
It is important not to confuse sexual behaviour with aggressive behaviour. Exhibitionists and other sexual nuisances are sometimes seen as being launched on a progressive route to rape; but figures obtained both in the United States and Canada show that convicted rapists are much more likely to have previous convictions for violent offences like assault or break and enter than for exhibitionism, voyeurism, and so on. It is important to protect the community from dangerous offenders, but that will not be done by locking up the socially and sexually incompetent.

Methods of prediction of dangerousness have been improved and refined considerably in recent years, but the definition of "serious personal injury" in this bill merits very careful examination if indeed it is to encompass the truly dangerous.
Turning to the Parole Act, I am pleased to see the proposal to add to the parole board representatives of the community to which an inmate is returning, in some cases. This first-hand knowledge of local conditions and feeling, and the supports or stresses the parolee will encounter should improve the decision making.
I have some concern however, about the parole board assuming responsibility for granting all absences from institutions. It is true that unwise decisions on unescorted absences have been made by some institutional staff, but there is no guarantee that the parole board will make better decisions.
In a well-run institution, correctional staff should consider it part of their professional responsibility to know prisoners as individuals, to know whatever potential an individual prisoner has for constructive, socially useful behaviour, and to support acceptable goals in positive ways. In this context arranging temporary absence for useful purposes can be an important rehabilitative tool.
If correctional staff are not using it wisely, they should be assisted to develop their judgment and prediction skills. However, to take away from them the decision making and, therefore, the responsibility to think about the factors that enter into decisions is to risk a static custodial program without much dynamism or interest in change.
I note that there is provision for the National Parole Board to delegate the authority to grant temporary absence without escort, and I hope this will be used where appropriate. Bill C-83 suggests that the decision to delegate will be made on the basis of some inmate criteria. The wording is "an inmate or class of inmate". It will undoubtedly be useful to develop criteria of this kind, but the competence and skills of staff enter into this too and they tend to vary from one institution to another, depending on the leadership and quality of staff development.
With regard to remission, I am pleased to see statutory remission abolished as I think it was meaningless and confusing. However, to ensure that earned remission really is earned, that it provides positive incentives for inmates to involve themselves in constructive work or study, it will be important to ensure that there is a clear and well developed evaluation system so that the remission is not credited in an automatic way.
If remission is earned and well earned, I think it should be forfeited only in very grave circumstances. I would, therefore, like to see an amendment to the proposal in the bill which provides for forfeiture for "any disciplinary offence". If staff and inmates know that remission, once earned, will be forfeited only for grave reason, which could be defined, there is more likelihood that the inmate will try to earn it and that staff will award it carefully.
This bill essentially deals with violent crime and the prevention of it. It is urgent that public confidence be restored since people have been disquieted by the rise of violent crime. With gun controls in place and with public
April 12, 1976

confidence restored by the passage of this bill as amended, I trust, it will then be important to direct our attention to the prevention of crime. I think one needs to look at this in four steps.
Obviously everything we do in the way of social legislation-housing, income maintenance, family law, education and child welfare-is prevention of crime in the broadest sense. It is no accident that the inhabitants of our training schools, reformatories, and eventually penitentiaries, overwhelmingly come from disadvantaged families.
The second layer of prevention of crime comes in adequate policing. Here I refer not only to the community officer who can do a great deal to defuse situations where the ordinary law-abiding citizen might find himself in difficulty and who does a great deal of preventive work with youth, but also the visible uniformed policemen whose presence has been shown to cut down on certain kinds of crime, notably break and entry.
Third, I hope that we will soon be debating some of the important recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, particularly on sentencing. We have too many ineffectual relatively minor offenders in jails who would be better in community programs, leaving the prisons for the dangerous offender who needs to be out of circulation for a certain time. Measures to keep the offender in the community also provide opportunities to encourage accountability. The offender who is obliged to make reparation and remains in the community to make reparation is perhaps faced each day with the realization of what he or she has done in a way that the inmate in a prison is not.
There are many of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission for innovative sentencing which could be implemented under present legislation. One must hope that attitudes of judges will change so that there is more interest in sentencing in ways that benefit the community and that reserve prison sentences for those where it really is essential.
For those who do get to institutions, it is important that there be a spectrum of institutions, from the community residence or hostel type right through to maximum security. The provisions in this bill for provincial-federal agreements are, I hope, the beginning of an attempt to use the facilities more wisely and more constructively.
Very often in a province such as Ontario you have three, four or five layers of institutions being run under provincial auspices, and the same under federal auspices. More sensible combined use would make it easier to get an individualized program for a person at a particular stage of his or her existence, and allow maximum security to be used not only as a holding place, bus as a place in which a person could be assisted to acquire greater control and move gradually on to a program more suited to whatever improvement he or she was showing.
Finally, I am pleased to see in this bill one amendment to the Prisons and Reformatories Act. I hope it is the beginning of many because the Prisons and Reformatories Act is a very outdated piece of legislation which badly needs many other improvements.
Measures Against Crime


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my contribution by paying tribute to the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who gave us a very lucid and well thought out presentation on the subject, giving credit where credit was due, but pointing out the weaknesses in the bill.
I have often thought as I surveyed this measure that it was sponsored by the wrong minister when it was sponsored by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). Maybe it should have been sponsored by the Minister of Immigration, who is also responsible for Manpower (Mr. Andras); it coud have come under the job creation program since obviously it will require a great deal of manpower to administer.
I have in my hands a publication, dated March 9, which was sent to me and, I suppose, to all members, by the B.C. Wildlife Federation. In this document the executive of the federation says the Treasury Board has already approved 900 new positions just to start this program. Based on the fact that the government has just indicated there will be registrars or licence issuers established throughout Canada for the public's convenience, the federation estimates that the program will require in the order of between 10,000 and 15,000 new civil servants, meaning a bill in the area of between $200 and $300 million. To add a final touch to this picture, the government has already indicated that the licence holders will pay for the entire cost of the program. On the basis of the issuance of three million licences for gun-owners in Canada, the annual licence fee could conceivably be in the area of $100 a year. This is staggering in itself. It amazes me, though, that this bill should be called "peace and security legislation".
I realize, of course, that the people of Canada want security, but I am reminded of an old adage, "The people are asking for bread and are being given a stone." Everyone is in favour of peace; everyone is in favour of security. And the people who are hungry for it most will be those most disappointed by the legislation. If this legislation were intended to produce peace and security one would think it would focus on those who violate peace and security the most, and while the bill does give some credible attention to that aspect it is nevertheless true that the people who will be affected most are those who are already respectful of law and order. The part dealing with firearms affects hundred of thousands of people who already peace loving, while the sections dealing with criminals are in a very small minority.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussion among party representatives and I think there is a general disposition in the House for you not to see the clock until ten o'clock, perhaps allowing the hon. member who has the floor to finish his speech. We could then proceed with the procedural question.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: We could do that, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
12752

April 12, 1976
Measures Against Crime


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may complete his remarks.


Benno Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To support the point I am making I should like to quote an hon. member who is the chairman of the justice committee, the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), who pointed out that only three paragraphs are directed to crime prevention while the rest are "an inefficient tool to fight crime". That is a member on the government side speaking, and he is the chairman of the committee. I certainly support the proposal put forward by my hon. friend from Calgary North that the bill be split up into separate parts.
I might draw it to the attention of the House that the section on the crime commission is already anachronistic since the decision of the Supreme Court validating the operation of the crime commission in Quebec. Thus it would appear that some of the legislation is already out of date. I might add that this Supreme Court decision accepting the point that we are in a field of provincial jurisdiction would indicate that much of the bill before us ought possibly be referred to the Supreme Court for a decision as to its constitutionality.
It would seem to be a cardinal principle to follow that if we want good legislation we ought to consider the people who are affected most by it, as well as those who are knowledgeable regarding the subject. It came as a great surprise to me that the Department of the Solicitor General, while it did contact members of the public at large, notably members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, did so well into the program, at which point the department did not even know that already in British Columbia there is a licensing program in existence which makes training and competence mandatory. When the officials of the federation offered their counsel and help, the offer was apparently turned down. I guess by this time it can be taken for granted that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) would turn down that kind of competent advice. This is why we so often find duplication in government services across Canada. The provinces already have a good program in operation and now the federal government wants to duplicate it.
It seems to me there are several important principles of law which ought to be followed in this legislation. The first is that the very existence of a law ought to act as a deterrent to wrongdoing. This is why speed limit signs are posted. It is not enough that the law be there; it has to be obvious, it has to be made evident so that the public knows where it's at. These gun control provisions are a deterrent only to those who already have a solid core of good will. For those who are bent on doing evil the existence of a law such as this will not be any deterrent at all. Therefore there has to be a deterrent in addition to the law, punishment for violating the law.
Second, the law, to operate properly, ought to encourage responsibility for behaviour. The hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) just pointed this out and I think she is entirely correct. One of the failures of our society is this: we have not taught people to accept responsibility for their behaviour. In most cases when young people are brought before the courts, the judge simply turns them over to their parents or to another agency, slaps their wrists and

says, "If you are good in future, everything will be all right." There is no thought of restitution, or at least, not often enough. Our people are not growing up with a sense of the need to be accountable for their behaviour.
One of the functions of law ought to be to make us responsible for what we do but, sad to say, much of the bail practice, much of the parole system, focuses not on being responsible but on finding ways of getting out of having to be responsible. I hate to say it, but some of my good friends in this Chamber who are lawyers have focused not on getting justice for their clients but on helping their clients to get off. That leads to a total miscarriage of justice. The focus ought to be upon providing justice for society; and the law should make us responsible for our behaviour.
Third, the law ought to be enforced uniformly. There ought to be equity in the disposition of the law. The problem I find with Bill C-83 is that it will be impossible to enforce the bill uniformly. For example, I have in my riding a competitive marksman who travels across Canada to compete. He has in his arsenal of handguns seven very finely tooled pistols. Under this legislation he cannot even travel across Canada to compete any more because he would violate the law.
It is easy to say that he can do it under the Olympic regulations, Mr. Speaker, but the Olympic regulations allow only two classifications, and this gun owner is an expert in seven. That is point No. 1. The second point is that if he is going to travel across Canada to compete he has to carry spare parts with him. This might be another pin, a clip-anything he needs in case one of his handguns breaks down. Under this legislation he would have to have another licence to carry those extra parts. It is impossible under this legislation to be equitable to all people.
Another class affected by the legislation is the antique dealer. In my riding there is a collector who has a mobile museum of guns. People come and see his museum all the time, and he travels around with it to show people. What is this man to do under the legislation? Various suggestions have been made in the House about making these guns inoperative by doing a little welding on them or disfiguring them in some way. But as soon as he makes his guns inoperative, their value as antiques is diminished. These guns are, in a sense, his life savings, his investment.
As other hon. members in this House have said, the gun legislation before us tends to make law breakers out of honest citizens. The people who are law abiding will conform with it. Those who do not have this hard core of good will in them will violate the law without compunction. The law abiding citizen will be hassled and harassed; the other person will not.
Then there are the violent in society, those who believe in violence and who live by violence. I have watched them operate. I have been on the streets where they have operated. Violence is a way of life to them. They believe that the establishment is wrong, that the establishment is corrupt, that it is a case of being more upright and moral by trying to overthrow the establishment than by being part of the establishment. It almost becomes a point of righteousness to help destroy the establishment with this kind of perverted morality.
April 12, 1976

What are we going to do about these people, Mr. Speaker? Are we going to give those with a distorted sense of morality the opportunity to escape the full force of this legislation? Are we going to take away the rights of the large mass of people who are already law-abiding and not deal with the violent in our society? As I have said, it is impossible to have uniform enforcement of this legislation.
Let me give the House an example. If you do not store your weapons properly, Mr. Speaker, you can be liable for up to five years' imprisonment for careless storage. But a person who steals a weapon that has been carelessly stored could get away with only one year if he commits a crime with it. Usually a person does not steal a weapon if he does not plan to commit a crime. Where is the sense of justice with this kind of distortion? With all deference to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), we are dealing here with an exchange package between Bill C-83 and Bill C-84, this package that was mailed to our offices. The government has openly said that we are dealing with an exchange between capital punishment and peace and security.
Under Bill C-84 the maximum penalty is 25 years, which means a convict can vegetate. At the same time a rapist could get a maximum of 20 years. Why should anyone who has just committed the crime of rape, and who is liable for a maximum of 20 years, run the risk of leaving a witness lying around, for an extra five years?


An hon. Member:: He would be eligible for parole.


Benno Friesen: Eligibility for parole is another controversial aspect in this legislation. My lawyer friend over on the other side has been getting people off on parole. The legislation also focuses on minimum penalties rather than maximum penalties. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has already introduced a bill providing for a maximum penalty of five years for crimes involving use of weapons or firearms, and this seems to me the approach that we should take. But the government has consistently been moving toward minimum sentences or as short sentences as possible in this legislation instead of maximum sentences. It seems to me that we should increase the minimum penalties and lower the maximum penalties, thus eliminating the vegetation that could occur when people are in prison for a long time, yet still retaining sufficient deterrent to fit the crime.
One final point-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being after 9.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, April, 1976, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question neccessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Thursday, April 8, the recorded division stands deferred until 4.30 o'clock tomorrow, to be followed also by a division on the main motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, to outline briefly the problems facing the Air Canada finance branch employees in Winnipeg, there is still a constant fear on the part of employees that Air Canada plans on transferring all the operations of the finance work to other groups of employees, or to contract out such work. The latter was already implemented, several weeks ago, with portions of the finance work historically performed by the Winnipeg employees being contracted out to C.A.E.
I will continue to protest this action taken by Air Canada in the strongest possible terms. There is no doubt in my mind that Air Canada has been taking steps over the last few years to wind up the finance branch in Winnipeg and move the whole operation to Montreal. It is my firm belief that Air Canada is introducing or has already introduced a decentralization program to remove the finance work from Winnipeg. The Liberals have moved enough government departments into the province of Quebec and it is time this was brought to a stop.
This problem in respect of the Air Canada finance branch has been in existence for the last two parliaments. I have been up on my feet about 30 times on this issue, and other opposition spokesmen have been up countless times. Just to give you an indication of what happened, way back on December 12, 1974, this is what the Liberal minister stated, as reported in the Winnipeg Free-Press of that date:
Labour Minister John Munro agreed Wednesday to instruct his department to provide whatever assistance was necessary to try to resolve the differences between the government owned airline Air Canada and its finance department employees.
The difficulties that have flared up anew between the management of Air Canada and its finance branch, located in Winnipeg, were aired in the Commons Wednesday. Opposition members outside the house pointed out that when the finance branch stops operating financial operations of the huge airline grind to a halt.
That was a year and a half ago and we are still going through the same operation all over again. When is this problem going to be resolved? The number of employees involved in Winnipeg is 700. If Air Canada is successful in making the move to Montreal this will be a tremendous loss to Manitoba, and it will certainly disrupt the lives of 700 families.
21804-46)4


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


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for once again having secured documentation which is internal to the department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have it too.


Jean-Jacques Blais: However, it never ceases to amaze me how fuzzy the hon. member's thinking can be, for in effect what we have noticed here is the tying in of the unexplainable inability to pay one account of a gas bill at Heathrow to the transferring of Air Canada facilities from Manitoba to Quebec. The hon. member also stated that the finance department in Winnipeg will be transferred to Montreal, and at the same time he asked whether Air Canada would not make a statement on what it intends to do with that Winnipeg finance department. On the other hand the hon. member says that we must stop the movement of government departments from Winnipeg to the province of Quebec.
He cites as an example some dreamed up threat that some department of Air Canada-finance-might be moved over into Montreal. That is unsubstantiated. And all that, we finally discover, is somewhat tied into a labour dispute. The relationship between Heathrow and the movement of government departments from Winnipeg to Montreal and the tying in of the whole thing into a labour dispute to my mind indicates the fuzziness of the thinking of the hon. member.
With reference to the labour dispute which preoccupies the hon. member, and undoubtedly all hon. members, not only from the Winnipeg area but all hon. members who are interested in peaceful labour relations, I might indicate that the Department of Labour has provided the parties with full conciliation assistance under the Canada Labour Code in efforts to assist them in resolving their collective bargaining dispute.
April 12, 1976

A Winnipeg lawyer, Mr. Duncan Jessiman, acted as conciliation commissioner in efforts to settle the dispute. While to this date he has been unable to arrange a settlement, he made a report containing findings and recommendations for settlement of the key issues in dispute. However, his report was not acceptable to the parties, and the union membership commenced legal rotating strikes in December of 1975.
I suggest to the hon. member that he should make a declaration as to whether he would like to remove the right to strike from those parties who are engaged in the strike as a result of a collective negotiation which evidently has reached an impasse.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A very fuzzy answer.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-ROLE OF OFFICIALS OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT IN GRANTING LEASE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, last week as reported at page 12609 of Hansard, in attempting to elicit more information concerning the background of the extension of the Sky Shops lease I asked a former minister of transport, now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson), to indicate briefly what role members of his senior staff played in this matter, whether these roles were carried out with his knowledge and authorization, and what action, if any, he had taken to ensure that the RCMP had access to all relevant information with regard to these activities.
The minister indicated that he was informed informally concerning an exchange of correspondence between the executive assistant to the then minister of regional economic expansion and his own executive assistant. If I understood him correctly, he also indicated that he really did not have much knowledge of what disposition was made by the RCMP of the correspondence to which he gave them access.
The whole question of how the government deals with the awarding of leases and concessions is obviously of great concern. There is no reason why Sky Shops should be regarded as a unique, or even a rare example. Let us consider, for example, all this company did or had done for it in the period 1970 to 1972. This is a most curious affair. One should remember that while the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was in the transport portfolio, Sky Shops was very active in lobbying.
In the winter of 1970 its campaign began. It deliberately sought to have its lease extended upon terms which dispensed with competitive tenders, something which by definition was, and I believe still is, against stated government policy. Departmental officials in the Department of Transport were contacted. The principal secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), Mr. Lalonde, as he then was, was approached by Mr. Lapointe, who was a chief executive officer of Sky Shops and who had been allotted $10,000 to advance the interests of this company.
A former minister of transport, the Hon. Lionel Chevri-er, was retained to press the company cause, and we have now learned that executive assistants may have been corresponding without the approval, or perhaps even the
Adjournment Debate
knowledge, of their respective ministers with regard to a Sky Shops lease extension.
So I hope this evening-and I appreciate very much his coming here-that the minister can further explain the increasingly complex background of this matter. Perhaps the minister can say how these events, and the correspondence in particular, happened without his knowledge. I am not disputing that he did not know anything about it, but I should like to know more details in retrospect about how this could have occurred. It is not as if others in Ottawa or his own department were not aware of the pressure to change his department's policy on tendering. Is it not logical or likely that at some point in time the minister must have signed some documents recommending to his colleagues on the Treasury Board that the Sky Shops lease be extended on its terms?
For approximately two years personnel in the Department of Transport were lobbied extensively. Can we not assume, as logical members of parliament, that the minister of transport as he then was must have become very curious about the RCMP's interest in his files as they related to Sky Shops? Tonight I hope the minister can shed a little more light on the background of the correspondence and why, in the normal course of events, an ex assistant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would be concerned about an airport duty free store lease and why the minister was not informed.
Over five months ago, on November 3, 1975, I asked the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to stay the renewal of the Sky Shops lease, which was not to take effect until the following month, until he was fully satisfied that the renewal was properly obtained. This was not done. Also on the same day I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in concert with his colleague in Transport to investigate thoroughly the circumstances of the Sky Shops leases at both Mirabel and Dorval. To this point in time we still have no assurance that parliament has all the answers to why the leases were renewed and granted on the terms which prevailed.
Therefore I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the former minister of the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion and Transport, to join with me and support the calling of a judicial inquiry into the entire background of the Sky Shops lease extension, and tendering procedures at Mirabel for concessions there. Until such time as our committee procedures are modified so that more effective investigation can be done there, a judicial inquiry is the only way to learn what has to be done to improve the ways in which tendering procedures, or the lack of them, are administered in cases such as this.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was advised late this afternoon of the intentions of the hon. member, but of course I had no way to know until three or four moments ago what kind of a statement he wished to make this evening. He has made a number of comments. I am not in a position to test the veracity of them. They involve various people who were engaged in the matter, and things of that sort. I am sure he would not expect me in the three minutes I have to try to deal with them, or indeed either to accept or refute them. I repeat that I have heard some of the comments only in the last few moments.

April 12, 1976
Adjournment Debate
The late show tonight is based on the questions the hon. member asked me on Thursday. It is to those that I am prepared to address myself. Specifically he asked in the first instance, I think, about the reason I was not curious as to why the RCMP would have asked me in the first place if I would object to any search of my correspondence or a look at my files from my Transport days. The answer is that when they came to see me they told me it was in connection with the Sky Shops affair. I said, "Fine", and I gave them the authorization. I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree it was entirely appropriate for me to do so. I do not know from any questioning or inquiries what the resolution of that might be. That is the situation which exists at this moment. I have not since that time been questioned or checked by the RCMP or by anyone else. Nor have I sought any sort of information as to what the results were.
The hon. member knows very well of course how I learned informally of the existence of certain correspondence between my executive assistant and the executive assistant to the then the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I do not think he will object to my saying he was among those who advised me of its existence. It was only in that way that I became aware of it; that is, by statements by him and other people who I assume in the very nature of things found out this was the case. I do not know specifically what the contents of those letters or correspondence were. I have not seen them.
On the final point having to do with-I am trying to paraphrase the hon. member's question-whether or not I would have been advised of this kind of correspondence, I think he must be aware that in the normal course there are many occasions on which members of cabinet, officials, and various others, including I might say members of this House, write letters of inquiry on behalf of various people. I regard all this as being entirely legitimate and appropriate, but I think that anyone who suggests that a minister or, for that matter, a member of parliament is aware of every piece of correspondence seeking information is being unreasonable.
In all fairness, a great many such inquiries are made, but to the best of my knowledge and recollection there was never any awareness on my part that any such inquiry was made. Also, until such time as I see the correspondence, or it is made public, it would be unfair to suggest that any member of my staff, or anyone else, would engage in any impropriety, or anything like it.
I realize again that once one of these issues is raised it creates real problems in terms of obtaining rational and reasonable views. In this case I am aware that the gentleman in question has suffered unfairly moments of anxiety as a result of this. My only comment is that I hope the matter is cleared up as quickly as possible. I can only repeat what I said in the beginning, and answer as I did on Thursday; that is the full extent of my awareness of the matter which the hon. member has raised.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CANADIAN POSITION ON INVOLVEMENT OF CUBA IN AFRICA
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on March 23 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) certain questions about his Cuba visit. I asked specifically if he had registered any further protest about Cuban involvement in military operations in Africa. In my question, as reported at page 12051 of Hansard, I attributed to the Prime Minister the statement that "Premier Fidele Castro was sending troops to Africa with a great deal of thought and feeling." I went on to say that I would be interested in any new information concerning the Cuban involvement and, if such information was available, in knowing the current position of the administration with respect to this unhappy situation. The Prime Minister was in a real flap. He answered;
I must point out that the hon. member has grossly and inaccurately misquoted me.
I then said:
If I am grossly and inaccurately misquoting the Prime Minister so did the Globe and Mail this morning.
I then followed my remark with a supplementary question. I wanted to know if there had been any official protest concerning this war involvement on the part of Cuba and, if so, what was the form of the protest. The Prime Minister answered as follows:
I am informed that the misquote in the Globe and Mail was a quote from some American paper, so the hon. member is twice removed from the truth by two very big barriers.
He went on to say that, oh, yes, he had protested. Another minister had protested the involvement. He ended by saying, "We are opposed to that kind of intervention".
I suggest that the government adheres to a double standard. Today the Prime Minister, supported by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), had no hesitation in refusing financial assistance to a certain athletic event which is to take place in Canada, because it is understood that South Africans may attend that event and the government takes exception to the present status of segregation within that country. I do not disagree with that position; I simply ask why, if you do not agree with the internal activities of another country, do you involve yourself with Cuba? Why is there this double standard ? Why is there this involvement in the case of Cuba but not in the case of South Africa?
A few months ago the Prime Minister shunned a ploughing match near my riding in Ontario. His stated reason for shunning it was that two old Rhodesians happened to turn up and proposed to participate. He said that in no way would he give that ploughing match his blessing by appearing at the function.
The Prime Minister claims I misquoted him on March 23. Well, the remark I attributed to him, to which he referred, was carried in the New York Times. The New York Times reported the Prime Minister as saying that:
... Fidel Castro is a man of world statute, one 'very well informed about Africa,' who sent 10,000 Cuban soldiers to fight in Angola's civil war only after 'a great deal of thought and feeling for the situation.'


John R. Rodriguez: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I notice it has the blessing of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I can well under-
April 12, 1976

stand the Prime Minister having a lot in common with that hon. member, knowing their backgrounds. Not only did the New York Times attribute that quote, but the Prime Minister stated in this House in answer to a question from the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I quote:
In so far as Premier Castro's views, he made them known to me. I have the feeling that he has a good knowledge of Africa and a good feeling for the realities there.
Right in this House he said virtually the same thing I attributed to him in the question to which he has since taken such exception.
Some time ago I pointed out to the House, in the form of a question to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), that we were giving extensive aid to Cuba through CIDA and the Export Development Corporation. Something over $100 million has been extended. The point that the President of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister have managed to sidestep is that Canada has no obligation to assist a country that is capable of sending troops, take your pick, anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 according to reports, to fight in civil wars thousands of miles from its shores. Not only have they chosen to go into Angola, but the troops are now remaining in Angola and are active in seven other African countries which presumably have aggressive desires within the continent of Africa. Not only is this so, but when the government suggests it does not want to allow internal considerations in these countries to change its aid programs, it is contradicting itself.
About two years ago when the President of the Privy Council was Secretary of State for External Affairs he had no hesitation in cutting off government aid to India because the government felt that country had gone against Canada's wishes and detonated a nuclear device built with plutonium from a Canadian nuclear reactor. I am not disagreeing with this position, but what I find most remarkable is that the Prime Minister has embarrassed us with many of our allies around the world, including Venezuela. If I had more time I would read the quotes coming out of Caracas concerning the visit of the Prime Minister to Cuba.
The Prime Minister has embarrassed us as far as our world position is concerned, stating that he has a kind of token opposition to the Cuban involvement in Africa, but judging from his reply of March 23, in no way is he prepared to state to this House what official protests he has made.
Has he indicated we will withdraw our economic assistance to that country if it does not cease and desist from its
Adjournment Debate
aggressive tendencies, not only by sending troops to Africa but also making a contribution to South American countries, one at least bordering Venezuela from where we import a very large amount of our oil? The House deserves a better explanation than what it has had up to the present time.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, of course Canada's foreign affairs policy is not and could not be based on news reports in the Globe and Mail and the New York Times which seem to be the sources of information on the subject on which the hon. member opposite just spoke. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated the opposite very clearly in this House on March 23. He concluded his statement by reaffirming without any ambiguity, and I quote:
We are opposed to that kind of intervention.
The hon. member gave a strange example of stopping aid to India after the nuclear explosion in May 1974, and the case of apartheid in South Africa. These are two cases where international bodies-in one case the International Atomic Energy through the NPT and other multilateral agreements, and in the other case the General Assembly of the United Nations-have adopted clear resolutions voted upon by the world, to which of course we adhere. Consequently we took the course of action which is the wish and the will of the Canadian people represented by the Prime Minister and the various actions taken by our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).
The case of the conduct of Cuba and its involvement in Angola has been repeatedly exposed to the House and to the public through the statement made in the United Nations General Assembly last fall by our Canadian representative in the Fourth Committee. It was then later repeated in the minister's release dated January 20, 1976, and again in his press statement of February 18 when he announced Canada's recognition of the People's Republic of Angola. He reaffirmed our opposition to the continued presence of foreign troops.
With regard to an official protest to Cuba, the Prime Minister, as the hon. member is aware, has spoken directly to Premier Castro on this subject. This is repeated each time a Canadian minister has occasion to meet his Cuban counterpart and to my knowledge the most recent instance was the meeting between our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and his Cuban counterpart. I think this is a very clear case in which the Prime Minister of Canada is representing the wishes of Canadians, as usual, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Tuesday, April 13, 1976