1976-03-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that during the last weekend, the province of Quebec, and especially the premier of Quebec, had the very great honour to receive a distinguished guest, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada; considering the remarks made by the Prime Minister of Canada about the premier of Quebec on the one hand, and about some goals of the government of Quebec, on the other hand, and since in the opinion of several observers and thousands of Quebecers these remarks are qualified as offensive, arrogant, even insulting towards the premier and, consequently towards the whole people of Quebec, I regretfully move, seconded by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie);
That this House unanimously deplore such a position on the part of the Prime Minister of Canada and, at the same time, invite him to make a statement so that the members of this House may better understand such behaviour.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an urgent matter requiring immediate consideration.
Since the actions proposed by the Minister of Justice under his public order and security program are aimed at controlling firearms rather than dissuading criminals, and since Canadians want to be protected against criminals and killers rather than against firearms, which are dangerous only when handled by criminals, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House hire someone to explain to the Minister of Justice that criminals, not firearms, commit crimes, in order to prevent the minister from eventually jailing rifles and letting killers roam free, which seems to be the logical outcome of his policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FISHERIES
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall);
That the House regret and strongly condemn the crusade undertaken by the Green Peace Corps which, through illegal means, seeks to deprive indirectly the fishermen of eastern Canada, and particularly those of the Atlantic region and of Magdalen Islands in Quebec, of part of their income derived at this time of year from seal hunting, and that the government enforce with all due strictness the regulations enacted and promulgated concerning that kind of hunt.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the House gives its unanimous consent, I shall put the motion. Seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) moves:

March 9, 1976
Federal-Provincial Relations
That the House regret and strongly condemn the crusade undertaken by the Green Peace Corps which, through illegal means, seeks to deprive indirectly the fishermen of eastern Canada, and particularly those of the Atlantic region and of Magdalen Islands in Quebec, of part of their income derived at this time of year from seal hunting, and that the government enforce with all due strictness the regulations enacted and promulgated concerning that kind of hunt.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An indication was given by Your Honour that this motion was agreed to unanimously. Am I correct?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unanimous consent pursuant to Standing Order 43 refers only to the presentation of the motion. I had asked whether there was unanimous consent that the motion be presented pursuant to Standing Order 43, and it was my impression that there was no disagreement with that; therefore, I presented the motion. However, if in the commotion that usually surrounds such motions I overlooked any hon. member who either now identifies himself or who distinctly heard another hon. member withhold his unanimous consent, I stand to be corrected and the motion ought not to have been put.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The motion ought not to have been put, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Evidently the hon. member makes it clear that the unanimous consent of the House was not forthcoming, and therefore that motion ought not to have been put.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER APOLOGIZE FOR BEHAVIOUR IN RECENT VISIT TO QUEBEC-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I should like to present a motion.
As the federal government exists owing to the express will of the provinces, and as each one of them wants to keep its identity and integrity, and as the contempt and demagoguery expressed by the Prime Minister over the weekend toward Mr. Robert Bourassa were a direct attack on the Quebec premier and an indirect one on all provincial premiers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the House request the Prime Minister of Canada to make a public apology in order to prevent that regrettable incident from having untoward consequences.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion cannot be put without unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works who must realize that his answers in this House last Wednesday, as reported on page 11457 of Hansard, have put him in an extremely difficult position as a member of the House and as a senior member of the government. Yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs refused to answer questions about conversations between himself and the Minister of Public Works. Would the Minister of Public Works now tell this House on what basis the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs asked him to approach Mr. Justice Hugessen?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I support entirely and follow in the footsteps of my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am somewhat surprised that the hon. gentleman does not accept that conversations between members of the privy council are privileged.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION ON REFUSAL OF MINISTERS TO ANSWER
Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that the ministers get together on their excuses. The Minister of Public Works is claiming privilege. Yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was claiming that the reason for his not answering was that the matter was before the courts, I suggest a spurious reason. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he accepts either or both of these dodges as a means of keeping from the House of Commons information that the House of Commons should know about the potential involvement by intervention by ministers of the Crown in decisions of members of the judiciary respecting matters that are before the courts. Does the Prime Minister accept the reasons which have been given for refusing to answer questions by either the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question in great detail last week, when I answered many, many questions. I could rehearse the answer once more, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to hear it. I have heard from the three ministers who were mentioned in Justice Mackay's letter. I consulted myself,

**1^* H
March 9, 1976

since he also saw fit to mention me as perhaps being guilty of some form of contempt.


Mr. Fairweather:: And how did the consultation go?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I listened to their version and feel that their explanations indicated clearly that they were not attempting to influence in any way the judgment of the courts. I have said that if the courts feel otherwise it is up to them to pass this information on to the Minister of Justice, as was requested by the Minister of Justice of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec. Until we hear definitely that the courts feel aggrieved, I take the word of my ministers.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF REPORT OF JUDGE DESCHENES
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to refuse to make available to parliament information on the basis of which parliament can come to a conclusion as to the propriety of the ministers' actions. Without for a moment accepting the evasions in this House regarding those conversations, and understanding the very limited scope of the inquiry of Chief Justice Deschenes into the legal aspects of the case, may 1 ask the Prime Minister some specific questions about the publication of the report to be made by Chief Justice Deschenes. First, does the government agree to the full publication of that report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, I must remind the Leader of the Opposition that he is asking his third supplementary question and a series of questions now put would seem to presume on the privileges of the House. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition might put one question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister to tell the House if the government will agree to the full publication of the report to be made by Justice Deschenes; also, is the government now actively seeking the agreement of Mr. Justice Deschenes for the release of that report in full, immediately it is received by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not agree to that. The Minister of Justice made clear what the procedure would be. He was writing to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, to ask the chief justice to communicate to the Minister of Justice any information he might possess on this case which is so disturbing the opposition.


Mr. Muir:: Where are your purple robes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Chief Justice feels that he has something to communicate to the Minister of Justice, we would not, as I made clear in the House the other day, object to that. On the contrary, if he wants to make it public, it will be up to him to decide. It will not be up to us to tell the Chief Justice how he should act.


Charles Joseph Clark: But will you request that?
Oral Questions


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REVEAL CONTENT OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN MINISTERS AND JUDGES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last Friday, according to Hansard, the Minister of Justice said that he was sure members of the government and ministers would submit to interviews with the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec. On the other hand yesterday the Prime Minister seemed to agree with me, seemed to agree that Chief Justice Deschenes would not normally be called on to look into conversations between members of Cabinet. Can the Minister of Justice indicate what he intends to do now, as Attorney General of Canada and chief legal adviser to the government, to remove this ambiguity; or, will he institute some sort of independent inquiry so that the House may know the contents of any conversations which any ministers of the Crown had with judges relating to the intentions and motives of any ministers of the Crown?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not intentionally paraphrasing me erroneously. I indicated last Friday that if the Chief Justice of the Superior Court wanted to talk to ministers on this matter, I was sure they would co-operate. There was no conflict between my answer of Friday and the Prime Minister's answer of yesterday. As to the latter part of the question, I have already indicated my position. As Minister of Justice, I do not intend to make further recommendations to the government at present until I have had the opportunity to hear from the Chief Justice of the Superior Court any matters he thinks it is appropriate to bring to my attention.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the minister for his answer. I do not wish to argue with him, but I maintain that there appears to be on the record some sort of ambiguity as matters stand now. Apparently neither the chief justice nor this House may have access to conversations between his cabinet colleagues. Would the Minister of Justice give this House some explanation. Is he prepared to provide any kind of documentation for example that these conversations were about normal government business and not the private and political interests of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, private communications between ministers are confidential. I see no ambiguity whatsoever on the record.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD ABILITY OF BOARD TO MONITOR PROFIT AND PRICING POLICIES OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. This question is about justice-economic justice. Over the past year various officials of National Revenue, including the minister, have admitted to the public that this country loses hundreds of millions of dollars because

March 9, 1976
Oral Questions
of the ability of multinational corporations to divert funds from one subsidiary to another in a different country in order to take advantage of tax laws. Given this ability to manipulate profit and loss statements does the minister still maintain that the Anti-Inflation Board is capable of monitoring, let alone controlling the profit and pricing policies of multinational corporations?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Those operations in Canada, Mr. Speaker, yes.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister more on his faith than on his facts. We had a chance to speak to some of the people from the monitoring board, the AIB, and I asked a question of Mr. John Hague at the seminar held for MP's on the anti-inflation program. He told me that the National Revenue people had lots of experience in handling such attempts at diverting funds. Given the fact that 60 per cent of our manufacturing sector is foreign controlled, that petroleum is 95 per cent and the Minister of National Revenue has admitted that he really cannot control-


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


Max Saltsman: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the face of this admission on the part of the Minister of National Revenue that he had no way of really monitoring the foreign multinational corporations can the Minister of Finance say how he intends to do the monitoring.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would check the record I think he will find he has not correctly stated what the Minister of National Revenue has said. The minister has pointed out that, of course, there is difficulty in monitoring transnational transactions and indeed there is the possibility in some cases that revenue has been lost. Notwithstanding that, the Department of National Revenue over the years has had some success in monitoring the transfer payment problems.


INCOME TAX
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue in this case. The other day in response to a question of mine, the minister said that people in his department were meeting with their counterparts in the United States to arrange some kind of a method to monitor the profits and transfer payments of multinational corporations. Can the minister say how those meetings are proceeding and whether he has reached agreement with the United States government on monitoring multinational corporations?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, once again we have the hon. member looking at a glass that is nine-tenths full and seeing that it is one-tenth empty when he interprets the wording I used. We are

working on a close, almost daily, co-operation with the Internal Revenue Service in areas in which we have mutual concerns, because tax laws are bound by boundaries and what we have to do is work across these boundaries. I must say we have had first class, 100 per cent, co-operation from the Internal Revenue Service of the United States in the hope that we will get other countries to join with us and embark upon simultaneous monitoring which will make us not only effective as we are now but more effective in the future.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last weekend, the Prime Minister spoke about the repatriation of the constitution from England to Canada. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, I commend him because he had the courage to say how he would proceed with the repatriation of the constitution. Either some people did not understand anything or I misunderstood. Could the Prime Minister say clearly and as firmly as he did last weekend that the purpose of the repatriation of the constitution is not to amend the constitution in England but to repatriate it to amend it here in Canada? Can the Prime Minister repeat if this is what he said namely that we do not need England to legislate on a constitution which properly belongs to us Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada understood, certainly better than some other hon. members opposite. I indicated very clearly in Quebec City and in this House yesterday, and on several occasions before and after, that it was a matter of putting an end to the last trace of colonialism which enables England to pass legislation which is valid and applicable in Canada. We are the only independent country in the world which is in this situation where its laws, and in particular its constitutional laws, can be made by another country; this is precisely what we want to put an end to. Once the constitution is repatriated, Mr. Speaker, the federal government will not get any new power whatsoever.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In my supplementary, I put aside the statements made by the Prime Minister of Canada about Premier Bourassa. That is none of my business and I do not want to talk about it. But referring to the Canadian constitution, the Prime Minister also stated that pretty soon he would proceed to its repatriation and that if he has not the support of the provinces, he will act unilaterally. I also approve of that, because there is no need to beg here and there for repatriating what belongs to us. Here is what I want to know. The Prime Minister said that pretty soon we would initiate proceedings or will proceed to such a repatriation. When does the Prime Minister intend to begin or did he
March 9, 1976

begin to work in order that the constitution, after 49 years of controversy, be finally repatriated, discussed and amended in Canada, and that it really belongs to the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I would like first of all to clarify my previous answer. When I said the federal government would not have any more power than before, I meant it would not take any away from the provinces. The separation of jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government will remain exactly the same.
As for the latter part of the question, as I have said previously, I intend to report to the ten premiers on the state of the discussions which have been going on for a year. A year ago, the provincial premiers and myself agreed on the principle that repatriation was desirable. I had a mandate from them to seek an agreement largely based on the foundations we had laid down in Victoria. I must now report in writing to the provinces and shall then see whether an agreement is possible on the basis of the progress we have made. If an agreement is possible, there will be the usual meetings, detailed discussions, following which repatriation will take place with everyone's agreement. If not, I shall report to both chambers to find out whether they share my view that after 49 years of fruitless efforts the time has come to take unilateral action.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. I should like to congratulate him on his frankness in his answer to me on Wednesday when he said he intervened to make sure the judge had the facts and did his duty. Today he said that any conversation between privy councillors is privileged. I ask the minister to reconsider his position. Government matters would be confidential and secret, but does he consider a conversation which affects the Minister of Public Works personally in reference to a court matter in which the Minister of Public Works admitted he did intervene with the judge as confidential? Has he reconsidered his position, and will he tell us now what that conversation was?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the hypothesis in the first part of the question, I must say that I have thought over this matter a good deal. I still regard conversations between privy councillors as being privileged-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do I take it now that the Minister of Public Works is refusing to answer on the ground that all conversations between privy councillors, whatever they
Oral Questions
may be, are privileged and confidential? Is that his position?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REQUEST THAT CONSUMER MINISTER SAY WHETHER MINISTERS ASKED TO INTERVENE WITH JUDGE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who I know has had an opportunity to reflect on his refusal to answer questions. Knowing the difficult position the Minister of Public Works is now in, having disclosed some information, I now ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as a lawyer and as a member of this House who has had at least 24 hours to reconsider his indefensible refusal to speak up yesterday, to tell the House whether he invited the former Minister of Finance or the Minister of Public Works to intervene in any way with the judge who was in charge of those proceedings. Surely, he can answer that question.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the hon. member that he consult Beauchesne, 4th edition, citation 149, paragraph (c).


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-PRIME MINISTER'S VIEW ON ESSENTIALITY OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN MINISTERS FOR INVESTIGATION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the stonewalling is continuing. Let me ask the Prime Minister a question. The other day the Prime Minister said that the chief justice would not normally be called upon to look into conversations between members of his cabinet. Surely, the Prime Minister must now admit that these are not normal circumstances. Does he not agree that the reasons for the conversations and the conversations themselves between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Public Works are vital in order to accomplish a complete investigation by the chief justice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I honestly fail to see why the opposition is pursuing this diversionary tactic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: Are you kidding again, Pierre?


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps this is a privileged comment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can see that they are very sadly sidetracked. The essence of the question is what ministers might have said to judges in the course of their duties. What ministers say between themselves or what hon. members opposite say between themselves is not relevant to this case. It may be relevant to something else, but whether the courts have been aggrieved by interference in the course of justice surely would depend on what the

Oral Questions
ministers said to the judges and when and how, rather than what the ministers said between themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- POSSIBILITY OF PUNISHMENT FOR MINISTERS WHO APPROACHED JUDGES
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let us get
down to the nitty gritty. It has been stated by the law societies of both Ontario and Quebec that leaving aside the grievance which might come into play with respect to judges, a cardinal rule has been broken by the ministers who so approached them. Would the Prime Minister now advise this House what punishment he envisages for those ministers who broke those rules, and when can we expect an announcement in that regard?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The point I was making to the hon. member in my first answer-and the second one follows it-is that ministers by speaking between themselves have not broken any rules of which I know. If there are any rules broken-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It must happen frequently that members of the cabinet discuss-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Why are they afraid to reveal it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is my answer, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It's not a very good one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You have broken a cardinal rule.


An hon. Member:: Name the cardinal.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I can name the cardinal. He is with the Queen, Harold Wilson and the Pope-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: -who seem to be intervening in Canada's constitutional evolution.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- SUGGESTED REFRESHER COURSE IN ETHICS FOR MINISTERS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask, pending the chief justice's report-and whether or not it is secret is apparently up to the cardinal-will the Prime Minister convene a refresher course in legal and ministerial ethics for his cabinet colleagues based, I suggest, on a most excellent speech by Professor Lederman-that should have had much wider publicity than it did-made to the judges' meeting last week in Toronto?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this question is addressed to the gallery rather than to me.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the hope that he will be better informed than the Prime Minister as to any accord or agreement reached between India and Canada over resumption of nuclear aid.
Will the minister tell us explicitly what arrangements were worked out in New Delhi by the Prime Minister's political adviser, and if any agreement was arrived at which would ensure that India will refrain from the detonation of a nuclear device during the lifetime of its reactors and not just for the 15 month period in which the Rajasthan reactor is to be completed, as initial reports seem to indicate?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I am not any better informed than the Prime Minister on this subject, but I can tell the hon. member that the negotiating team in New Delhi, which was headed by Michel Dupuy, the Assistant Under-secretary of State for External Affairs, did reach some understandings with the negotiating team on the Indian side. These understandings are subject to approval by myself and by the cabinet, and until consideration is given to the report which will be made to me, I do not think it would be very relevant or useful to give a report of understandings which have not yet been approved by the government and which may not be implemented.


ADHERENCE TO NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY AS PRECONDITION TO GRANTING NUCLEAR AID-POSSIBILITY OF DOUBLE STANDARD
Flora Isabel MacDonald: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister to clarify his government's decision with regard to ratification of the NPT as a precondition to the export of nuclear aid as a result of two statements made by his parliamentary secretary last night on the adjournment debate as follows:
NPT adherence is not an absolute precondition to nuclear trade on commercial terms with other countries.
Later the hon. lady said:
NPT adherence is a precondition for extending bilateral government development assistance resources in the nuclear field.
Mr. Speaker, am I to take it from this that when nuclear exports are thought to be commercially profitable, Canada will peddle its nuclear technology throughout the world regardless of the moral and political consequences of such sales? If not, why the double standard?

March 9, 1976


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard involved at all. In any sale of nuclear equipment or technology to any country, precisely the same standards are applied whether they are applied to a reactor for which we provide assistance through our Canadian International Development Agency or whether we provide a reactor on a completely commercial basis, the safeguards are precisely the same. There is no double standard and in its bilateral agreements Canada exacts precisely the same standards, regardless of the source of the financing.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services and concerns the negotiations presently under way with the Lockheed corporation for the proposed purchase of the Orion LRPA. Since the decision was announced in principle two months ago, can the minister advise whether lack of agreement about front-end money on that purchase, which is over $100 million, was as a result of negligence or oversight by the government or the result of it being deliberately misled by the Lockheed corporation as to the necessity for additional government funding for the contract?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated many times to the House, it is a question of financing on the part of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Ltd. It is necessarily the question of long term financing, given that corporation's circumstances which prevailed on the international market, and as a result, we are led to be more cautious. On the part of the government, it is a matter of short term financing, and this is an extremely complex question. We are considering the possibility of achieving this short term financing through a re-evaluation of the production schedule originally planned. We are hoping a conclusion will be reached by the end of this month.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to uncomplicate that question for the minister in just a moment. The terms of the contract will require that Canada take the risk by putting up the money. Since Lockheed has no United States federal guarantee or advantage, and in view of the clear case that Canada is risking up to $200 million without guarantee of delivery of this aircraft, will the minister now drop the other shoe and make the obvious decision? Also, would the minister tell the House when they are going to go either to Canadair or de Havilland to provide a Canadian LRPA and put all Canadian workers to work?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, from the contract negotiated but not yet signed with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation
Oral Questions
Ltd. will flow a major economic boost for Canada and we obviously keep this advantage in mind.
As for the terms of payment of this eventual contract with Lockheed, we are not required to make a down payment. According to the agreed formula, we pay as the production goes on. As for the risk of dealing with Lockheed, some officials met with representatives of the American government to assess what would be their own position towards Lockheed, given the prevailing circumstances surrounding this corporation.
The American government accounts for two thirds of Lockheed's overall orders, which means that Lockheed considers the U.S. government as a major player. The fact that the United States chose to deal with Lockheed reassures Canada to a certain extent.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Last March 3, in answer to some allegations made by a Justice of the Superior Court, the minister told the House that he would ask the judge to apologize and withdraw his allegations. He gave him three days to do so. I would like to know whether the minister did receive an apology and whether he intends to table it in the House?


OLYMPIC GAMES
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
Following the Prime Minister's statement about the Olympic Games, which amounts to a flat no, the President of the Treasury Board stated at the same meeting that he was trying to find another payment formula. The Quebec finance minister says he is very optimistic concerning the use of this formula. Can the President of the Treasury Board explain what he means when he talks about a new payment formula?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I said in Quebec-and I was simply repeating what the Prime Minister had said-that there is absolutely no question that the federal treasury will make up the deficit resulting from the Olympic Games, because we want to respect fully the agreements entered into by the parties some years ago. As for other self-financing formulas, I have discussed some of these last months with the Minister of Finance. I met him Saturday afternoon, but I have nothing to report at this time.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.

March 9, 1976
Oral Questions
In view of the interest shown by Quebecers and all Canadians, I imagine, and since the negotiations between the responsible ministers in Ottawa and Quebec City are going on, when could the minister give some relevant information to the House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly advise the House as soon as possible. It would be useful to know the views of the hon. member's party about the matter.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture regarding the importation of cheese. Would the minister look into the possibility that Dutch cheese has been dumped into the Ontario market? This cheese, manufactured in Holland, is selling at 40 cents per pound less in Ontario than it sells in Holland?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that all aspects of imported cheese, subsidized or otherwise, are being investigated at the present time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I am not attempting to ask him to breach any cabinet secrecy in respect of an agreement which has not been placed before his cabinet colleagues. I wonder if the minister could confirm that any intended agreement with India with respect to the continuation of nuclear aid will be in conformity with the four principles agreed upon by Canada and the other six supplier nations as a result of the London conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, certainly the standards that have been agreed upon by the supplier countries are involved in this discussion. One of the questions that I shall be asking as I receive the report is to what extent the understandings that have been reached in New Delhi comply with the guidelines established by the suppliers before I would send forward recommendations to the cabinet.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that one of the principles involved in respect of the supplier conference agreement was that recipients of nuclear aid must give assurances that nuclear facility imports will not be used to make nuclear explosives for any purpose, even tunnel excavation by nuclear explosion, for any period of time, whereas the intended

agreement now on the desk of the minister relates only to an 18 month period respecting the New Delhi agreement. Can the minister comment on the contradiction between no time limit in respect of the supplier conference agreement and the 18 month period specified in the draft agreement now on his desk?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any draft agreement. What I have received is a very summary report by way of telegram. I hope to receive a full report from Mr. Dupuy very shortly. At that time it will be possible to be more precise. However, on the basis of my personal knowledge, I do not believe there is any difficulty with respect to the question of the duration, as has been raised by the hon. member.


SIGNING OF NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY AS PRECONDITION TO SIGNING NEW AGREEMENTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It flows from the questions on the New Delhi agreement as well as the statement made by the minister's parliamentary secretary during the adjournment debate yesterday. Is it government policy to complete nuclear power sites without the host country involved having signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but that all new agreements to build Canadian nuclear power sites will have as a precondition that the host country has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, that would not be a clear definition or clear statement of government policy with respect to membership in the NPT. I believe that my colleague, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in making his statement in December, 1974 underlined the conditions with which we look at the NPT. Briefly, I would say in cases where we provide direct aid or assistance in the construction of a nuclear reactor, we expect such countries to join the NPT because of the greater responsibility Canada has taken through its provision of financial assistance and because of the greater possibility that exists in that situation for having an influence on the recipient country. In other cases, generally, membership in the NPT is an influential factor in considering whether to undertake a transaction of any kind.


ELECTIONS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister yesterday assured this House that he believes the electorate in every constituency in Canada is entitled to representation in the House of Commons, can the Prime Minister inform this House and the people of Ottawa-Carleton when a by-election will be held to fill the vacancy made by the resignation of one of
March 9, 1976

the Prime Minister's disenchanted party members, John Turner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will follow the rules laid down by this House in making that announcement.


Paul Wyatt Dick: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister was able to bring on a by-election within 41 days of the resignation of Gerard Pelletier to fill that vacancy in the province of Quebec, why is the Prime Minister leaving constituencies in Newfoundland and Ontario so long without representation in the House of Commons by refusing to call by-elections at the earliest opportunity?


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Because we in Ontario are second-class citizens.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I am following the cardinal rules laid down by the House in this matter. In the case of Newfoundland, the vacancy was caused by a Tory member resigning. In the case of Hochelaga, it was a minister of the Crown resigning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HARBOURS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the debate now going on, but I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It arises out of last week's decision to have a federal-provincial study on the feasibility of expanding container facilities in Halifax harbour. Does this federal participation mean, should the need for more facilities for the most active container port in eastern Canada be proven, that federal moneys will be spent on new container facilities there? I ask this because we have never had a direct public answer from the National Harbours Board.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it should be well recognized that there is a very fundamental federal involvement in port construction. That would ordinarily involve us in legitimate and needed expenditures in any port, including the port of Halifax. Therefore, the basic answer to the question is yes. Of course, that in no way prejudges the issue as to whether the particular facility recommended is needed and further study will be made for that purpose.


AGRICULTURE
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Oral Questions
Since the dairy producers are concerned by the future plans of the federal Department of Agriculture, could the minister assure the dairy producers that his new dairy policy will not mean any loss of income in comparison with last year, because some dairy producers state that as a result of his new dairy policy they will lose from $5,000 to $6,000 a year?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the milk management supply committee is made up of people from all over Canada, such as provincial representatives, producer representatives and people from the trade. They are meeting in Ottawa today and possibly tomorrow. It is my opinion that people who are productive should be paid for their production. Because they overproduce, they should not be penalized by being asked to give away their produce. In no way will I be responsible for such a program as that.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Nova Scotia Premier Gerald Regan was reported in Saturday's Globe and Mail as accusing Ottawa of hypocritical expediency for leaving crude oil prices outside the anti-inflation program. In view of this assessment by a fellow Liberal, will the minister now bring crude oil prices under the anti-inflation guidelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No,
Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTED INCREASE IN EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS TO NOVA SCOTIA AND MAINTENANCE OF OIL SUBSIDIES
Andrew Hogan: Is the
minister prepared to make very substantial increases in the equalization grants to the province of Nova Scotia as well as maintain the present level of import oil subsidies to offset a severe decline in that province's economy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member there have been substantial increases in the equalization payments to Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces in recent years. As to whether there should be a special subsidy for Nova Scotia so it will have a special Nova Scotia oil price as opposed to that payable by the rest of Canadians, it is not a course of action which commends itself to me.

March 9, 1976
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES NEEDED TO COPE WITH INCREASED WORKLOAD
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. With estimates of his department already requesting nearly 400 employees to run the anti-inflation program, twice the original estimate of 200, will the minister tell the House how many additional staff members will be required by the Anti-Inflation Board in order to cope with the expansion of their activities announced in the order in council tabled yesterday which puts the number of firms covered by the board at 20 times the original estimate?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, that question should be directed to the Minister of Finance.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a precise figure in that regard. I will see if I can seek one and communicate with the hon. member.


POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES- EXPANSION OF CONTROLS-POSSIBLE ADMISSION OF NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE CONTROLS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that the estimates actually come under his department with respect to the Anti-Inflation Board. My supplementary question is to the Minister of Finance. Accepting that general insurance companies are now being reviewed with a view to possibly including those companies under the wage and price controls, will the minister tell the House whether the Anti-Inflation Board or he is considering any further expansion of monitoring and regulating activities into sectors of the economy as yet unaffected by the wage and price control program? Also, will he tell the House whether the expansion of the scope of the anti-inflation program represents an admission that selective controls are inadequate and a realization that comprehensive controls are more appropriate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm that the Anti-Inflation Board will receive a reference from the government with respect to the general insurance industry. Of course, under the provisions of the law, that will be effective from the date of the public statement and the reference. The hon. member seems to be saying in one breath that the Board is acquiring too many personnel, while in the next breath he says it should engage in a program which would require many more personnel. I would have to reflect to see if there is any logic in the two positions.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the rather strange manner in which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) objected to a motion which had already been passed. You asked three times for unanimous consent and obtained it. Then the

hon. member for New Westminster rose on a point of order to say that he disagreed.
Being aware of the legal abilities of the hon. member for New Westminster, I am surprised that he took so much time in stating his objection to that motion which had already received, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, the unanimous consent and which moreover had been passed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was simply rising to point out that because of the noise in the chamber at the time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -it was entirely possible that Your Honour did not hear the "noes" which were uttered in certain quarters of the chamber. Since hon. members of the Conservative Party believe I said "No", I want to tell them that this is perfectly correct. I did say no.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth Report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Crouse.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,497, 3,532, 3,546, 3,911, 3,921, 3,940, 3,941 and 4,082. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many employees are earning more than $25,000 a year in (a) CNR (b) Air Canada (c) CBC (d) Polymer (e) Eldorado (f) CMHC (g) Industrial Development Bank (h) Farm Credit Corporation?
2.	In each case, how many are (a) French-speaking (b) Englishspeaking (c) bilingual?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: 1.	(a) It has not been the practice of the Company to disclose data on employees' earnings in the manner requested. Certain details on annual earnings of various occupational groups of Canadian National employees, however, are available from the publication "Railway Transport" Part VI (Employment Statistics) issued annually by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
March 9, 1976

2.	CN records are not designed to capture the information as requested. However, a survey conducted earlier this year established that roughly 12.5 per cent of those on the senior officers' payroll were francophones. On the St. Lawrence Region (comprising all trackage in the Province of Quebec, except the Gaspe Peninsula, plus a line in Ontario, Vankleek Hill Ottawa-Brent) 78 per cent are bilingual and 22 per cent are unilingual English speaking.
1.	(b) Air Canada has not been in the practice of disclosing such information on employees' earnings.
2.	Of those employees earning a basic salary of $25,000 a year or more (a) none speak French only, (b) some 70 per cent speak English or English plus a language other than French, and (c) approximately 33 per cent are bilingual. (English and French).
1.	(c) 631.
2.	CBC records have not been maintained in a manner which would enable the Corporation to extract readily and without an inordinate amount of work, time and cost, information about the mother tongue and language proficiencies of these employees. In addition, since the Corporation's records do not necessarily contain the requested information, the final answer would not be complete.
1 and 2. (d) The subject matter of the question does not fall within the administrative responsibility of the government of Canada.
1.	(e) 26.
2.	(a) 0; (b) 21; (c) 5.
1.	(f) The four employees of CMHC appointed by Governor-in-Council are in receipt of salaries of more than $25,000 per annum. It is not the policy of CMHC to disclose salaries in greater detail, since these are matters of internal administration and the responsibility of the President and Board of Directors.
2.	The Personnel records of CMHC are not yet complete with respect to language capabilities. Of the total number of employees earning more than $25,000, 61 have been tested, of whom 27 are bilingual.
1.	(g) There are 144 employees earning more than $25,000 a year.
2.	(a) 0; (b) 105; (c) 39.
1.	(h) 36.
2.	(a) 2; (b) 23; (c) 11.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to Schedule "C" of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, signed in 1969, for each economic indicator cited (a) a 50 per cent below national average output in the agricultural sector (b) a per capita income of 60-70 per cent of the national average (c) an aggregate annual output in commodity sectors growing on average 2.2 per cent from 1961-1965, what is the level (based on constant dollars) for each year since 1969?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows; Net Provincial Product per cent Growth: 1970, 7.4; 1971, 1.9; 1972, 9.2; 1973, 12.2; 1974, 8.4. Population: 1970, 110,000; 1971,
Order Paper Questions
112,000; 1972, 113,000; 1973, 115,000; 1974, 117,000. Per Capita Income per cent Growth: 1970, 9.2; 1971, 0.3; 1972, 10.8; 1973, 9.6; 1974, 4.2.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the agricultural sector of Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, what progress has been made in decentralizing decision-making among district farm offices so they can better adapt their programmes to local needs?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: The decision-making process in district farm offices is a matter which is the responsibility of the government of Prince Edward Island and, as such, questions related to these organizational and administative arrangements should be directed to it.


Mr. McCain: Did the Province of New Brunswick request funding from DREE over the next five years for (a) upgrading of Route 2, Fredericton to Grand Falls (b) upgrading of Route 2, Mactaquac to Woodstock and, if so, in each case (i) how much (ii) how much financial assistance is DREE prepared to give?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: In response to a request from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the province of New Brunswick submitted to the Department an outline of the provincial plan for highway construction and improvement to be undertaken over the next five years. Although the projects listed in this question form a part of the overall provincial plan, there has been no specific request from the province for DREE assistance to them, the question of what assistance, if any, might be provided is being considered in the continuing process of federal-provincial discussion regarding DREE activities in New Brunswick, (i) Not applicable; (ii) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since William Teron was appointed Acting Secretary or Deputy Minister of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs how many senior officials of the Department including Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have (a) left their jobs (b) been transferred to other departments (c) given notice or signified intention to leave or desire to be transferred and, in each case (i) what are their names (ii) what are the positions they held or presently hold?
2.	Has Mr. H. L. Laframboise, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Research left the Department since the appointment of Mr. Teron to assume a position with the Department of Labour and, if not, is it his intention to leave?
3.	Did (a) Mr. Andre Saumier, Senior Assistant Secretary responsible for inter governmental co-ordination (b) Mr. Harold Dyck, urban affairs co-ordinator for the Prairie region, leave the Department following the appointment of Mr. Teron and, if so, on what date?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is
11622
March 9, 1976

Order Paper Questions
concerned: 1. (a) Four, (b) Two of these four accepted transfers to other departments, (c) One person has advised he has accepted a transfer, (i) H. L. Laframboise. (ii) Assistant Secretary, Policy and Research.
2.	Mr. H. L. Laframboise is being transfered to Department of Labour effective March 1, 1976.
3.	(a) Mr. Andre Saumier, Assistant Secretary, Coordination and Development, was granted two years leave without pay from the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs effective January 26, 1976 to accept a position outside the federal government, (b) Mr. Harold Dyck, Senior Regional Coordinator for the Prairie Region, resigned from the Ministry January 16, 1976 to accept a position with a provincial government.
In so far as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned: 1. (a) Two senior officials of CMHC retired at the end of 1975 because of age or length of service, (b) Two senior officials of CMHC have been seconded to the Anti-Inflation Board. These retirements and temporary transfers are not related in any way to Mr. Teron's appointment as Acting Secretary in the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. Details of personnel administration of CMHC are the responsibility of its President and Board of Directors, and it is not the policy to disclose details of that administration.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion granted financial assistance to Placage Champlain Inc., Tring Junction, Beauce South County and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Has the company discontinued its operations?
3.	Who were or are the Directors?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Yes. Placage Champlain Inc. accepted an offer of $101,760, of which only $83,823 was paid out.
2.	Yes.
3.	The two main directors of Placage Champlain Inc. were Messrs. Jacques Dussault and Guy Rheaume.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion granted financial assistance to Poly-Traction Inc., Tring Junction, Beauce South County and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Has the company discontinued its operations?
3.	Who were or are its Directors?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Yes, Dayco Poly-Traction Ltd. accepted an offer of $507,000, of which only $201,960 was paid out.
2.	Yes.
3.	Messrs N. M. Davis, R. K. McKenzie, J. W. McCarmack and J. G. Vanderwood were the directors of Dayco (Canada), parent company of Dayco-Poly-Traction.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What is the estimate of the cost involved in providing old age security to those in the 64 year age group in 1976?
2.	What would be the estimate to reduce the eligibility age by one year in each succeeding year to lower it to age 60?
3.	Is there an estimate of what amount of social assistance is presently being received by persons in each of the age groups from 60 to 64 and, if so, what is it?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. On the assumption that the January 1976 OAS rate remains constant in 1976, and based on Statistics Canada population projections, the estimated additional cost in 1976 would be $259.6 million dollars.
Note: The Guaranteed Income Supplement is not included in this estimate.
2. Under the same assumption as that made in the answer to part 1, the estimated additional cost would be:
Year	Eligibility Age for OAS	Estimated Additional Cost1976	64	$ 259.6 million1977	64-63	$ 549.6 million1978	64-62	$ 848.5 million1979	64-61	$1,148.4 million1980	64-60	$1,469.1 million
Note: The above estimates are based on the current value of the Canadian dollar.
3.	Very rough estimates derived from the 1973 Survey of Consumer Finances are as follows:
Age Group
61
63
Amount of Social Assistance* *
$28 millions $23 millions $34 millions $22 millions $18 millions
* Amounts include federal and provincial payments.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is agreement that the order which is to be called first today will be government order C-61. However, I indicated yesterday, a point of order having been raised in connection with a proposed amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for
March 9, 1976

Calgary North, that argument would be deferred until this time. I hope hon. members will agree that it would be appropriate to hear those arguments now in order to give the Chair an opportunity to reflect on them, so that when we return to Bill C-83 the Chair might be in a position to make a disposition of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Justice 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.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might begin by putting the words of my motion on record:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"That Bill C-83 be not now read the second time but that the
subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice nad Legal Affairs for the purpose of considering a more
proper legislative division thereof."
Those of us who were preparing this motion realized at the time the difficulty of wording a motion which would be in order on second reading. Thus, we did give the matter considerable thought. I intend to begin by referring to two authorities, raising points which I shall deal with in the course of my submission. I wish to refer to the fourth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 278, citation 386. I wish to refer, also, to May's Parliamentary Practice, particularly page 487 where the subject of reasoned amendments is dealt with.
May I say that an amendment at second reading of a bill is an amendment to the second reading motion, not to the bill itself. For this reason, all the allowable forms of amendment at this stage eschew specific references to the provisions of the bill or to things which are not in the bill but which some members think ought to be. Citation 386(3) of Beauchesne's sets out this rule. It is also found in May's eighteenth edition, chapter 21. May states in part, at pages 487 and 488:
(i)	The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The amendment must strictly relate to the bill which the House, by its order, has resolved upon considering.
(ii)	The amendment must not be concerned in detail with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that my proposed amendment certainly relates to the bill. My second point is that it does not deal in any way with the provisions of the bill. Clearly, if we followed the practice to which the quotation from May refers, the amendment would not even be questioned
Measures Against Crime
since it does not refer to matters in the bill or matters which are not in it, or to anything which might be dealt with in committee. It relates strictly to the progress of the bill and to the second reading motion itself.
I believe that even in light of Canadian practice there is nothing wrong with the motion. In fact, only under the most restrictive interpretation of practice which could be conjured up could a case be made against the amendment. Some contend that the addition of any words whatever to the end of a motion for referral of the subject matter to a committee-and the amendment asks that the bill be sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the purpose of considering a more proper legislative division thereof-automatically means that the amendment is out of order. I would point out, again, that the amendment does not deal with any clause of the bill: it merely concerns itself with the division of the bill as to categories-for instance, gun control, wiretapping and provincial inquiries. Such an interpretation cannot be justified by anything which appears in our Standing Orders, in Beauchesne's in May's, in the practice of the House of Commons at Westminster, or here in Ottawa.
Where amendments of this type have been ruled out of order, it has been because the words added referred to the precise terms of the bill or introduced extraneous matters, not because there were words of any sort added after the name of the committee in the motion. To illustrate this I have three examples of referral amendments to which words were added without rejection by the Chair. On May 17, 1956, the hon. member for Prince Albert, as he then was, moved a referral in the usual terms, and Mr. Caldwell, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, moved an amendment as follows:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by adding thereafter the following words:
"so that consideration might be given to the advisability of recommending the constructing and operating of a trans-Canada natural gas pipe line under public ownership."
That amendment was accepted without question. If there were a rule that no words could be added, it would have been struck out instantly. So the mere fact that we have put a phrase in the end should not rule out our amendment. I might say that when the amendment I have just quoted was accepted it was not a time at which the opposition parties got away with anything they were not entitled to get away with. I think things are a little easier today; I think there is more flexibility.
On September 28, 1964, a referral was moved which included at the end the words "for further study and report". Those words are rather innocuous, but so are the words I propose to add to the basic motion. In fact, the "further study" was added as a political attack, as the member who moved the motion had spent most of his speech saying that the bill before the House had been improperly prepared and insufficiently considered. The words were not there by accident. But without referring to the specific provisions, the mover gave the reason for the referral of the subject matter to a committee, and I am doing the same thing now, Mr. Speaker.
21 419-43)4

March 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
Finally, on Thursday, November 16, 1967-this is more recent-an amendment was moved in relation to the abolition of capital punishment bill as follows:
That this bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-
So far, that is exactly the same as my motion.
-for its examination in the light of studies made of the penitentiary system in general and, in particular, the rehabilitation of inmates.
The very points we are discussing today were raised. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, who had a reputation for being extremely strict on this type of amendment, ruled as follows:
I assume the hon. member for Lafontaine would want to argue in favour of his amendment. I must tell him that after reflection, and in spite of the difficulties to which the Registrar General referred, I believe the amendment should be accepted. It is a reasoned amendment. Normally reasoned amendments suggesting that a subject matter be referred do not go beyond referring the subject matter to a committee. Additional considerations are embraced in the amendment proposed by the hon. member, but I do not think they are irrelevant. In view of these considerations I suggest to the House that from the procedural standpoint the amendment should be accepted.
I am arguing my case to Your Honour as if I were presenting a legal argument in a courtroom, and I would say, with respect, that the only possible objection that Your honour could take are to the words "for the purpose of considering a more proper legislative division thereof". In the examples I have referred to, they went even further than that. I suggest that, if anything, the amendment that I proposed yesterday is easier to accept than the one Mr. Speaker Lamoureux accepted.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment should be accepted. It does not refer to the subject matter of the bill, it does not anticipate the committee stage, and it does not refer to matters beyond the scope of the bill. Acceptable reasoned amendments of this variety do occasionally have words which, to quote the ruling I have just referred to-I must say, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to argue a case with so much noise and I would appreciate a little more order-go beyond referring the subject matter to a committee, and this amendment is even more circumspect than most of those. I want to come back to my point about a reasoned amendment. According to May, page 487, under the heading "Reasoned amendment":
It is also competent for a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move what is known as a "reasoned amendment".
I contend that is what I have done.
This amendment is to leave out all the words in the main question after the word "that" and to add other words; and the question proposed upon the amendment is, that the amendment be made. A reasoned amendment is placed on the paper in the form of a motion and may fall into one of several categories.
(1)	It may be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
(2)	It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise opposed to its progress.
(3)	It may seek further information in relation to the bill by committees ...
Such amendments have tended in modern times to become rather stereotyped and are confined generally to the first two categories; and

amendments selected by the Speaker for discussion have commonly included the words, "this House declines to give a second reading"-
Those words have not interfered with the substance of the motion.
I do not think I need spend much time on Beauchesne's because this has been covered in my argument. Citation 386 provides:
On the second reading of a bill, the House may decide to refer the subject matter thereof to a commission-
That is basically the same as a committee; if it were referred to a committee it would be in order. I should now like to make a suggestion to Your Honour. I gave this matter considerable thought yesterday before I moved the motion. It was not a case of making the motion and then trying to find arguments to back it up; we did our homework before the motion was moved. If Your Honour feels that the words "for the purpose of considering a more proper legislative division thereof" puts us in difficulty, I suggest that we are still in the ball park, but if we have knocked the ball out and it is a foul ball under these rules, then I hope the House will allow me to withdraw those words and move the motion in its pure and plain sense instead of perhaps establishing a precedent for the future. May I thank Your Honour for the kind attention I know you have given me. I know you will give my argument the consideration that I have experienced in the past.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I think his last comment is perhaps the most revealing. He finds himself in serious difficulty with regard to this motion and he is trying to salvage a pretty bad deal from the beginning.
There are two major defects with respect to this amendment. The first is that it goes against all previous precedents in that this particular motion does not oppose the principle of the bill. Your Honour knows that there are two major types of amendment that are permitted on second reading. The first is what is commonly referred to as a hoist-namely, that second reading should not now be given but that it be given at a future time. In such event, the session might have ended by the time the three or six months had expired. Evidently the hon. member for Calgary North is not attempting to do this.
The second type is what is referred to as a reasoned amendment. This is subject to a number of precedents dating back to 1947, and if the hon. member for Calgary North is to be successful, he must come within that particular definition. The cases are quite clear. Decisions rendered by various Speakers on reasoned amendments are also clear. In order that a reasoned amendment can be allowed, it has to oppose in principle the bill or any of its provisions. In this particular instance the motion presented by my hon. friend deals with the form and not with the principle of the bill. He seeks, as he has admitted, to have the matter referred to a committee so that the committee might consider a better form.
I should like to refer Your Honour to the Journals for Friday, May 7, 1971. On that occasion the Deputy Speaker at that time ruled on a motion moved by Mr. Gleave and seconded by Mrs. Maclnnis. The motion moved that a bill
March 9, 1976

before the House be withdrawn and two new bills be presented; that there be a division of the bill. At that time the Deputy Speaker held as follows:
With respect, it is my feeling that the hon. member is not opposing the principle of the bill but is suggesting another way in which the government could deal with essentially the same subject matter.
He went on to say:
So I suggest, without repeating my initial concern but adding to it those remarks, that it seems to me that the opposition to the bill as set out in the hon. member's amendment is an opposition to the form of the bill and is not in opposition to the principle of the bill. He is suggesting that the way in which the House should deal with it should be changed, and again that is a matter of debate, but it seems to me that it is not acceptable as a reasoned argument.
The second weakness of the hon. gentleman's amendment is that, contrary to what he alleges, it goes behind the bill and touches the different parts of the bill. He attempts to show that the amendment does not substantially amend the bill and does not anticipate amendments which can be moved in committee.
When speaking on the motion, the hon. member said that he intended to divide the bill so that the gun legislation could be dealt with separately. Evidently he does not approve of gun legislation; he intends it to be separate and apart from other parts of the bill, intends to vote against that part and so dispose of that aspect of the bill. Surely he can move such motions when the bill is in committee.
Again may I refer to the decision of Mr. Speaker Lamou-reux of January 26, 1971. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), seconded by Mr. Richard-who is no longer a member-proposed a motion to send various parts of Bill C-207 to various committees. The hon. member sought to divide that bill, much as the hon. member for Calgary North seeks to divide this bill, and refer its various subject matters to various committees. As recorded on page 286 of the House of Commons Journals, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux said:
It is not a reasoned amendment. It is largely a deviation or a change from the old established form of amendment which provides that the subject matter of a bill or a motion before the House be referred to a special committee or a standing committee. What I believe is objectionable from a procedural standpoint in connection with this proposed amendment is that it goes into the details of the bill...
My difficulty in accepting the hon. member's proposed motion is that it goes behind the bill and seeks to touch the different parts of the bill by way of an amendment which should normally not be used in this form.
The hon. member for Calgary North wishes to correct the particular failing of his motion by removing all provisions which Your Honour may not find acceptable. I suggest he cannot be permitted to do that. By removing those particular provisions which follow the referral-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think we need to waste time on that point. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) put the matter accurately. The permission of the House must be sought for removing the offensive words, not the permission of the Chair. This can only be done with the permission of the House. If I found the words offensive, I understand that the hon. member would expect permission of the House to be forthcoming
Measures Against Crime
for removing the offensive words. It cannot be done any other way.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the House to another precedent on point. Again, the hon. member for Calgary North was implicated, and I use that word advisedly and, refer Your Honour to the House of Commons Journals for January 23, 1969. The House was dealing with an omnibus criminal bill, and the hon. member tried to do exactly what he is now trying to do in slightly different form. The motion then before the House was that-
-the . . . standing committee be instructed to make and bring into the House four separate reports-
Those four separate reports related to various clauses of the omnibus bill. As recorded on page 617 of the Journals, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux said, in part:
As I stated at the outset, a close scrutiny of precedents and authorities, I suggest to hon. members in all humility, leads to the conclusion that a motion to divide a bill by way of an instruction to a committee cannot be entertained at this particular stage of the House's proceedings.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux went on to say, as reported on page 618:
The hon. member for Calgary North has advanced the suggestion that the significance of second reading has been altered by the new rules, and he expounded this view in a very interesting way this afternoon. Although this is not clear from the rules themselves, I would think this is a fair interpretation of the new relevant standing orders. The vote on second reading is less a vote on the principle of the bill and more a decision of the House to send the bill on for further consideration at subsequent stages of proceedings. If this interpretation is correct, it seems it should now be even less difficult for honourable Members to vote either for or against the main motion, since such vote would not constitute either approval of, or opposition to, the principle of the several propositions contained in the omnibus bill.
I suggest that the wording of Standing Order 47 is conclusive. It reads:
A motion to refer a bill, resolution or any question to a committee of the whole, or any standing or special committee, shall preclude all amendment of the main question.
In conclusion, I suggest that the entire amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North is unacceptable.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I first suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) that Standing Order 47 does not apply. Before us is a motion for second reading, not a motion to refer. That is the main part of the motion, namely, second reading. Actually, I am puzzled as to what Standing Order 47 means. A number of years ago we used to move one motion, that the bill be now read a second time. After second reading, the appropriate minister moved another motion, to refer the bill to committee of the whole or to a standing committee. Similarly, on third reading, we moved that the bill be read the third time. After that there was another motion, that the bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper. I suspect that Standing Order 47 was drafted long before we made these changes, whereby we combined the two motions on second reading as well as on third reading. At any rate, to use Standing Order 47 as an authority for the proposition that you cannot move an amendment to the second reading motion is stretching the old rule very far.

March 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council suggested that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) had two options: he could move a hoist, or move a reasoned amendment. I suggest the hon. member for Calgary North has a third choice. He can move a hoist, a reasoned amendment, or avail himself of citation 386 of Beauchesne's fourth edition to move a motion calling for the bill not to be read a second time but for the subject matter to be referred to the standing committee. That, I suggest, the hon. member has done, and he is perfectly within his rights. But he ran into trouble, as he himself knows, by not making the motion a simple reference of the subject matter to the standing committee. He added a phrase which seems to call for the bill itself to be referred to committee "for the purpose of considering a more proper legislative division thereof"-in other words, a more proper legislative division of the subject matter of the bill. The latter wording is the trouble, as my hon. friend agrees. I think the hon. member's purpose would be served if the motion were to end with the words "Justice and Legal Affairs". I hope Your Honour will so find.
The parliamentary secretary's suggestion that the hon. member should not be permitted so to change his motion is the ultimate in being ridiculous. The hon. member need merely ask the next Conservative speaker to move that the bill be not read the second time but that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, so why not let him alter his amendment accordingly? I do not support the substance of that amendment. I think the bill should go to the committee and the committee should work on the bill. But I defend strongly the right of the hon. member for Calgary North to move the motion ending with the words "Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs".


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, with all the learned members who have entered this debate, I hesitate to enter it. However, I wish to bring to your attention the fact that I consider the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) out of order for the reasons stated by the parliamentary secretary to the House leader. I also wish to bring to your attention Standing Order 46, which states very clearly that when a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; to continue or extend a sitting of the House; or for the adjournment of the House.
Quite clearly, the hon. member's motion falls within the first category, namely, a motion to amend it. However, the motion before the House is that the bill be not now read the second time. The motion to amend, even if the House agrees with the hon. member's deletion of the words that he may require, in substance is that the bill be not now read the second time. I would refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's citation 202(12) which states that an amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order. The motion before the House is that this bill be now read the second time. The motion of the hon. member for Calgary North is a direct negative of that motion, and by reason thereof is out of order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I shall not go over all the ground so ably covered by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I certainly want to go over some of the ground that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) just now attempted to foist upon Your Honour when he made the argument that the motion put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North in effect is a direct negative to the second reading of the bill. I suggest that is not so. I suggest the purpose that would appear from the full version, which may not be accepted, is to have a very polyglot measure dealing with five or six items of law sorted out so that it can come back to us in some form in which members could give it an intelligent vote. I suggest it is that simple.
The Minister of Justice did not argue the point for very long. I think perhaps the reason is that he did not have any long argument to make. Obviously, it is not a direct negative. I believe the argument of the parliamentary secretary has been shot down very well by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I will take my own shot at the lame duck as it approaches the ground. I suggest there are only two possible ways one may change motions for second reading and referral of bills to committees. One is the principle of the reasoned amendment; the other is the hoist. The parliamentary secretary, I think, made the error of saying that the vote on second reading must always be against the principle of the bill. Certainly we must agree, in respect of the case of anyone who has been lucky enough to get a reasoned amendment accepted by the Chair, that this situation obviously suggests that the bill should not be read the second time. So obviously the reasoned amendment is against the principle of the bill.
However, a hoist may be considered as much a matter of substance or procedure; that is, it may be considered a device operating against the principle of a bill; but it may also, I would suggest to Your Honour be considered as a device to get a contentious issue out of the way in a particular parliament and have it come back again at a future time. Members may have two very different motives for voting for a hoist. The third point the parliamentary secretary did not mention, but which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did mention, is the use of the procedure under citation 386.
I suggest there are no closed categories with regard to the type of motion that can be presented on second reading. It can be against the principle being discussed. It can be against the type of the bill by way of a reasoned amendment. It can be against dealing with the bill immediately by way of the six months' hoist, and it can also be, as the hon. member for Calgary North brought in, by a measure to have it taken out and looked at by a committee and somehow brought back in more intelligible form and then the vote can start on whether the bill or portions of it should be read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not propose to deal with the matter definitively now, but there are some matters which I believe I can clear up. I do not think there is any difficulty in understanding the motive behind the amendment. It is an omnibus measure, and frequently when such measures are put before the House there is an attempt in one way or another to either split the bill directly by way
March 9, 1976

of a motion or, as is attempted at the present time, to send the bill to another body for consideration of those factors which might lead to the advisability of dividing the bill in some other way.
As I say, I do not think there is any difficulty in understanding the basic motive behind this particular amendment. Neither do I have any difficulty in understanding that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) or any other hon. member is perfectly entitled, not by way of a reasoned amendment but by way of citation 386 of Beauchene's to move an amendment which might, if one were to attempt to analyse it, appear to be what is described as an expanded negative but which is so well established in our practice as to be beyond question. That is to say, the hon. member has the right, as do other hon. members, to put an amendment that the bill be not now read a second time and that the subject matter be referred to some other body for consideration provided it is the subject matter that is referred and not the bill, and provided, also, that the other body is a body that is in existence and not about be to called into existence. Therefore, up to that point there does not seem to be any argument.
What is solely in issue here is whether or not the hon. member puts himself out of court, as it were, by adding the words which have been referred to. At that point the Chair has some considerable difficulty, not simply because of understanding the nature of that language or the difficulty it might put the committee in, but really about whether or not we want to get into a practice or encourage a practice which might lead to the proliferation of different language in respect of second reading amendments which might cause such a variety to be put forward that really second reading amendments would be limited only by the imagination of the proponents. That is really the question. It has to do with the kind of policy we want to follow. But certainly there is no difficulty about the ability of the hon. member to put an amendment forward which would stop after the words "legal affairs". The question the Chair must decide now, after all the argument which has been most helpful, is solely whether the hon. member has disabled himself by adding the extra language. Perhaps after further consideration by the House of Bill C-61 I might be able to dispose of that matter before the return to further debate on this particular motion before the House.
Order, please. Orders of the day.


MARITIME CODE ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
March 5, 1976-Resuming consideration of report stage of Bill C-61, an act to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Speaker:: I understand this is the resumption of the debate on this particular motion.


Mr. Forrestall:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It had been understood, because of Your Honour's consider-
Maritime Code
ation of the amendment and the procedural points in front of us, that we would continue with Bill C-83 and would move to Bill C-61 at five o'clock; that there would be a short debate on motion No. 9 and that the bells would be rung some time between five o'clock and six o'clock. If there have been some other arrangements, perhaps we had better go behind the curtains, because very clearly this is not the understanding that was left with us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At five o'clock it will be private members' hour.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the order which you called would be the first order called after the particular argument, which has now been disposed of, had been dealt with. There is private members' hour at five o'clock and it was our information-and we had advised hon. members of it in the usual way-that private members' business would be dealt with at five o'clock.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I think it was pretty well agreed that this is the way we would deal with Bill C-61. I believe that motion No. 9 still has to be disposed of. A member of our party wishes to say a few words with regard to motion No. 9, following which we can dispose of the whole bill before five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it understood, and agreed, that the House will now move to the consideration of motion No. 9 which still remains outstanding at the report stage of Bill C-61, and that upon its disposal the several deferred divisions will be called? Thereafter, I hope to be in a position to make a ruling on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-61, to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Otto Emil Lang: motion No. 9:
That Bill C-61, an act to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, be amended in schedule III by striking out lines 28 and 29 at page 59 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The minister shall provide a suitable place for".


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this final motion which appears on the order paper in connection with Bill C-61 I think I can be very brief and simply recount to Your Honour and to the House what transpired during the course of our committee work with respect to the particular section dealt with in motion No. 9.
As we considered clause by clause the various sections set out in schedule III, it came to the attention of some hon. members that there was a question in their minds about the propriety, as they saw it, of making a reference

March 9, 1976
Maritime Code
in this statute to the National Capital Act and the national capital region in connection with the location of the central registry that is established under the legislation.
I think it is fair to say that there were mixed views on this subject around the table in the committee, but simply to avoid any difficulty which this problem might cause for some members in dealing with this piece of legislation it was decided, in the interests of expediting the work of the committee on Bill C-61, to delete reference to that statute and to that region and simply in substitution to give the minister power to designate where the location of the headquarters should be.
In making that amendment at the committee stage we omitted, unfortunately, to make a consequential amendment in the statute to make a subsequent section in the legislation correspond with the section that we amended in the committee. Motion No. 9 does nothing more than simply make that consequential amendment to ensure that all sections in the act are consistent on this point. I commend this amendment to members of the House.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this amendment which has been moved by the government has perhaps removed one of the technical objections which could be made to the bill. However, there is a wide range of technical objections which this and the other amendments do not accommodate. For instance, I should like to draw to your attention and that of the House, and particularly the attention of the minister, the fact that prior to the introduction of this bill, and as an initial announcement of policy, the former minister of transport, the now Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand), assured the Atlantic provinces' premiers that there would be safeguards for coastal industries in Canada, particularly in the Atlantic area.
These safeguards, of course, would cover a wide range of problems which include the adequacy of the supply of boats, the containment of the rate, the maintenance of the service, and in general ensure that coastal industries would not be unfavourably affected by the introduction of this legislation either in respect of service or in respect of the economic impact that this legislation might have upon them.
Secondly, there should have been a safeguard that there would be maintenance of existing competitive rates and that these would not be adversely affected for those who would ship goods by land. To date, these safeguards have not been forthcoming. Thirdly, the minister indicated there would be participation by the provinces in the formation of regulations in respect of the bill, and that prior to the enactment of legislation these regulations would be approved by the premiers of the Atlantic area. This has not happened.
Fourthly, we were assured that the federal-provincial committee which deals with transportation matters and transportation regulations would be given an opportunity to monitor the situation as the effects became apparent. To date, no such opportunity has been presented to the provinces to do this in co-operation with the government, and the regulations as submitted by the Department of Transport have not been accepted by the Atlantic provinces' premiers. We are, then, in a position of having accepted

this bill in principle-a bill which, however, is not in accord with the agreement and the commitment of the predecessor of the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang).
As I understand it, the premiers of Atlantic Canada have asked the Minister of Transport that this bill not become law until such time as these safeguards have been honoured by the Minister of Transport and the government in general. I think, therefore, that we are going at a rather precipitous rate with this bill and that this amendment is very much in order. It points out some of the anomalies which exist and some of the efforts which the government is making to accomplish some things which are not acceptable to Canada as a whole and to the Atlantic provinces in particular.
Where will he get these safeguards? It would be impossible, I submit, for the people of Canada to know exactly what the economic effects on this nation will be unless the government were to study the economic effectiveness, as others have suggested, or to have a cost-benefit study. In some instances, should we not determine whether or not we should have a cost disadvantage study? I have no objection to-as a matter of fact, I support-the principle of the establishment of a marine code and a Canadian merchant shipping structure as proposed in this bill, but like so many other items that have been introduced by this government, it is only part of the package; it is only the tip of the iceberg.
It is high time the government answered some of these questions. They have been posed in committee. There have been no answers by the minister or his parliamentary secretary. No answers have been given to us by any member of the staff of the Minister of Transport, and to the best of my knowledge and belief the Atlantic premiers have not received the assurance they requested, that the economies of the Maritime structure will be preserved or monitored or in any way safeguarded as initially promised.
One of the principal facets of transportation, not only in the Atlantic region but in Canada, is the fact that we have both land and water transportation opportunities. As a result of this, the land rates have very often been based upon what it would cost to transport the same item by water. There is a multitude of items which fall into this category, and they move from Thunder Bay to the Atlantic area, from the Atlantic area to Toronto, the Atlantic area to Hamilton and from British Columbia to Thunder Bay or the east coast. Item after item is rated by the rail transportation structure of Canada at a water competitive rate.
The rates, for instance, which have been extended to the B.C. forestry industry for the movement of their product eastward is very low relative to a multitude of other rates, because the railroads estimate that this product could be moved from B.C. to eastern Canada by water at this particular rate. All these things may very well disappear unless, as was mentioned earlier, the committee gets the authority to monitor what is taking place. The government has steadfastly refused to present to the House or to the committee the regulations which have been submitted for approval to the Atlantic premiers. We understand that there have been some negotiations with respect to these

regulations. There was a news release with respect to these regulations in which some objections were expressed. Part of that news release reads as follows:
The Honourable Wilfred Bishop, New Brunswick Minister of Transportation, expressed the concern of the Atlantic ministers in the proposed changes to the coasting trade laws of Canada. All ministers thoroughly endorsed the maritime code now before parliament and were assured by Mr. Lang that the federal government will hold further consultations with the provinces before the new regulations are introduced under the code.
But bear in mind that the Atlantic premiers, in December of 1975, requested that the bill not be passed until these regulations were approved by the Atlantic area, in compliance with the assurance given by the former minister of transport who advised the present minister of the positions which had been taken. Let me cite some examples of cost which can occur as it is presently understood. If this can be effectively denied, I will have no quarrel, but so far I have heard no denial in spite of the search I have made for information. Labrador Liner Board has been advised that under the regulations presently proposed it would cost $650 per day for the ships which they use-one usually, and two at least part time, for approximately seven months of the year. Their additional cost, as they understand the proposal, is $650 per day per ship for the movement of their wood products from Labrador to the Liner Board plant on the island. This is indicative of at least one of the costs.
As I mentioned earlier, comparable legislation in the United States has put the state of Washington in an unsatisfactory competitive position on the east coast of the United States. This legislation will put British Columbia and its lumber products in an unsatisfactory competitive position on the east coast of Canada. Under this structure, Washington lumber could conceivably move into eastern Canada quite a bit more cheaply in international bottoms than could British Columbia lumber, except for one thing: there has been a suggestion that there may be an exception for B.C. lumber. This is not a firm suggestion, but there has been the suggestion that B.C. lumber might move as an exception to the regulations of this legislation. I think Atlantic Canada, and all Canada for that matter, should know, if exceptions are made for B.C. lumber, are exception to be made for east coast products?
One of the things which I think is misunderstood in the consideration of this bill is that we are not talking in terms of 100,000-ton vessels or 150,000-ton vessels. We are talking in terms of small vessels for coastal trade, in the main, excepting perhaps traffic between the Pacific and the Atlantic which might consist of larger ships. However, basically the coastal trade in going to be moved in relatively small ships, and as a result of this the cost of the small ship is going to rise much faster than it would in the case of the larger ship.
I say this because the Canadian Shippers' Association pointed out to the committee that it had been able to reduce shipping fares under certain conditions comparable to the marine code as it applied in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence systems. However, there have been two factors which I do not think are applicable to the general coastal trade of Canada. One is that as the St. Lawrence Seaway was deepened, locks were made capable of carrying bigger ships-bigger ships came into use and an economy of scale was introduced.
Maritime Code
Second, and at about the same time, although not exactly coincidental, massive shipments of bulk products from Sept-Isles to Great Lakes' points made a possible two-way trip for a boat. It could have a load coming and going, with a little dead space in between, I agree, as it went from, perhaps, a steel port to a grain port on the lakes or as it went from a grain port to Sept-Isles in the St. Lawrence system. Therefore, though economies were exercised as a result of an opportunity for two-way hauls, when a comparable law applied in the seaway I do not see comparable opportunities for economies as we refer to the coastal trade of Canada. I think this should be taken into consideration and all hon. members of the House should recognize that in the main we are talking about a small ship transportation structure.
I am sure the Minister of Transport does not wish to impose anything detrimental on any area of Canada, but if we explore the water competitive structure I wonder if the minister knows that the freight rate on Prince Edward Island potatoes-perhaps the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) would be particularly interested in this-as they are shipped to Canadian points is established on the estimated cost of moving potatoes on an historical basis to water points in Canada such as Montreal and Toronto. That is how that rate has arrived at the level it is today. If by any chance the implementation of the Maritime Code produces a substantial rise in the cost of transportation by water estimated for potatoes from Prince Edward Island to Toronto, that same increment in rate will apply to potatoes from P.E.I. as they are moved by rail from P.E.I. to Toronto or Montreal. These are the broadening effects that this bill can have.
This, of course, would apply to the same product in New Brunswick, because the New Brunswick rate on this product to the inland areas of Canada is competitive with Prince Edward Island. Therefore, if the Prince Edward Island rate rises because water competitive rates rise, the New Brunswick rate will rise as well. This imposes very serious hardship on one of the sources of income for Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. We are not talking of imaginary things when we talk of these inequities, Mr. Speaker. We are talking of real things by example from other jurisdictions. We are talking of the effect of the Jones Act in the United States. This will have identical effects in Canada. It will require a federal subsidy to keep the rates at the present level or to protect the water competitive rates as we know them today. No witness who has appeared before the committee on behalf of the minister, the minister or his parliamentary secretary, is prepared to give an assurance to any part of Canada that any of these items will be monitored and regulated or that exceptions will be made in order to control costs.
Last night I had representations from the feed industry of the Atlantic area. They pointed out that not too long ago the rail rates for feed grains transported to the Atlantic area had dropped by $3 per ton in the last five years. This did not take place because the rails found they could transport grain more cheaply than before, but because of the private enterprise of the entrepreneurs who moved grain by water to Halifax, to Summerside and to Fort
11630

March 9, 1976
Maritime Code
William to obtain a cheaper rate. The rail rates came down accordingly.
On behalf of farmers in the Atlantic area, I ask the Minister of Transport for assurance that the livestock industry in the Atlantic area and eastern Quebec will be monitored, that costs will not go up, that water competitive opportunities will remain for receivers and shippers of products related to the coastal areas of Canada. If there is to be an exception for British Columbia, as was suggested during debate, an equal opportunity for exception should be extended to the Atlantic area or any other area where it is required.
There have been estimates as to costs. It has been estimated that transportation costs of petroleum products from coastal refineries to central Canada would increase by 40 per cent as a result of implementation of this bill. I wonder if the minister could assure the House and the Atlantic refineries that such is not the case. If it is the case, could he give an assurance that Atlantic refineries will be protected, or that consumers of their products in the province of Quebec will be protected against increased transportation charges brought about by implementation of this bill?
Let me repeat what I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker. This is not an objection to a particular proposal of a maritime code; it is an objection to the fact that the bill involves only part of the total package. It has given no consideration whatsoever to the economic impact which might be pressed upon the coastal areas of Canada or even the lakehead areas of Canada. If it is brought into effect, it will impose hardships on the coastal areas against which other areas are protected. While feed grains may cost more in the Atlantic area, the Crowsnest pass rate remains in place. I do not quarrel with that, but I do quarrel with an increase in feed costs in the Atlantic area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. We are at report stage on a motion before the House, not on the whole bill, and the hon. member has spoken for 20 minutes which is the time allotted to him.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have enough time for two more sentences.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I want to cite one more example. Since the opening of the Atlantic seaway there has been no change in rates, to the best of my knowledge and belief. There have been cost increases in the movement of ships through the mouth of the St. Lawrence, through the canal and into the lakes. I hope the Minister of Transport will assure the coastal areas of Canada that they will receive the same treatment as grain shippers in the prairies and those who receive service from the St. Lawrence Seaway and its connecting services.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, there was a discussion with respect to the form of the legislation that we are dealing with. Perhaps I should deal with that, and then the parliamentary secretary may have something to

say about it. At page 59, lines 26 and 27, there is appended to the form of the bill as it came from committee the following words:
-described in the schedule to the National Capital Act.
My understanding is that these words were deleted or, as a result of the findings of the committee, were held to be unnecessary to the statement of the statute. I hope that before we finish debate today we can have the consent of the House to delete these words. I understand there is no difficulty with respect to that and perhaps we could deal with it later. I should like to say something about the amendment itself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We might as well clarify the point now, to make sure that everybody is satisfied with the guarantee. The matter was raised by two hon. members. I think we should proceed with motion No. 9 and the vote on the report stage motions that have been deferred. Then, before putting the question on third reading maybe the House could, by unanimous consent, make the suggested changes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I agree in principle, but since third reading might not come today perhaps this could be done as a point of order just before we pass the motion for concurrence and report stage, rather than waiting for third reading.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I gather the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is acceptable to the government. It is acceptable to us, and I hope it is acceptable to the Chair. I should like now to turn to the amendment itself. As I started out to say, I want to commend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) for this amendment. I support its intention.
On January 30, 1976, a motion was moved under Standing Order 43 condemning a surreptitious attempt to change the name of the capital city of Canada to the national capital region. That motion was turned down, of course. It had been proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The bill, as it went to committee, contained a legislative attempt to do exactly the same thing. At least it looked that way.
In terms of the motion under Standing Order 43, it generated one of the largest batches of mail from the Ottawa area that I have received as a member. Ottawa members on all sides of this House commented with respect to the national capital, what it is and what is its name. There was quite violent reaction to an exchange of correspondence between the clerk of the privy council and another with respect to the procedure that might be used to change the national capital. Quite frankly, it looked in the legislation as it went to committee as if this was being carried out. It may well have been the intention of the government to move step by step to gradually change the public thinking in terms of what is the capital city of this country. This is certainly one indication of an intention on the part of the government. I do not know what more we can find than a statement in legislation. Certainly, the way the National Capital Commission in this area has always
March 9, 1976

described itself as Ottawa-Hull has a tendency to appear to be an attempt to do indirectly what the government heretofore did not have the courage to do directly.
I commend the minister on this amendment as it at least to this extent takes the heat off a subject which can be heated indeed. The clause would read that the minister would provide a suitable place for the appropriate functioning of the office of the registrar, and so on. That is satisfactory. It would remove the very strong feeling that could be generated as a result of the subclause as originally framed in terms of the matters to which I have just alluded.
What is a suitable place? I do not want to advise the government directly on what a suitable place might be. However, I want to make some comments if the government is considering it within the city of Ottawa or some other place within the area described in the National Capital Commission Act as the national capital region. I wish to make some suggestions to the minister, as I assume he will have something to say about the location of the offices of an agency for which he is responsible.
I believe we are making a mistake in the city of Ottawa and the national capital region by continuing the North American phenomena of piling more and more people, offices and installations into the centre of our cities. We are, in effect, creating the potential for large social problems. We have an opportunity in Canada because our country is not yet developed to the extent of the United States. Although it is a little larger in geographic area, it is much smaller in terms of population. Because of this, we have an opportunity in all the larger cities in Canada to take a look at the direction in which we are moving. When the minister is considering what is the suitable place for the registry office, I hope he will consider that within the national capital region there are locations outside the central core of the city of Ottawa and even the city of Hull.
There has been an expressed intention on the part of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to diffuse places of employment of public servants, the main group in this area outside the central core, into the smaller towns and villages in the townships of Nepean, Gloucester, Goul-bourn, the village of Richmond and the township of Rideau. This involves their official plans and the over-all planning done with respect to their providing a place for employment and a change of direction in the development of the capital area in such a way that the transportation facilities would be better used. The necessity of developing what might be called super-highways and super-parkways, with all their intrusion into urban areas, could be limited to a great extent. The minister would be doing a great service with regard to the planning of the national capital area if he decided upon a change of direction with regard to this particular agency.
If the minister is looking for a suitable place, I want to remind him of one. At the corner of Baseline Road and Woodroffe Avenue in the city of Ottawa there is a model community planned in terms of commercial operations, office installations and dwelling places being developed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. What concerns me about that whole development is not the fact that it is going there, although that does concern some people, but that to this date there has been no strong federal
Maritime Code
commitment in terms of placing there some installations of government.
Unless the minister feels that a maritime operation ought to be placed on the banks of the Ottawa River, I can think of no more suitable place for the placement of this type of registry system, because it is the avowed intention of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with the general agreement of the township of Nepean and the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, than to have this as a mixed type of community as I have just described.
There seems to be a lack of commitment by the federal government in terms of placing their installations in that development. It is important that we make a commitment to that area, not just because of crowding in the downtown area of the national capital but because there is an opportunity here to show in a rather unique way that there can be places outside the central core, in accordance with these official plans, for government installations that are not farms of laboratories but offices.
The hon. member who represents the great city of Pembroke said it might be a good idea to place this in Pembroke. I could not agree with that because of the particular wording of the statute. If the registry system is to be centralized, as this government seems to think it ought to be, it is not unreasonable to centralize it somewhere within the national capital area. Regardless of the aspirations of the City of Pembroke, it is not within the national capital region.
I know the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) does not have authority for planning within the national capital region. I sometimes wonder who does have such authority in terms of the ministry. But the Minister of Transport is a very influential member of cabinet and I would ask him and his officials, when they are looking for a suitable place, to consider that there might be an equally valid argument affecting the development of the national capital. Are we always to centralize and bring buildings to the downtown core, or are we to take advantage of the amenities which are available in the smaller communities in and around the national capital?
Visiting Washington, I see large government installations outside the capital in the surrounding area. If the city is to be a monument, it ought not to be simply a monument to municipal clutter; it should be a monument to thoughtful planning offering a variety of lifestyles. If the minister is looking for a suitable place, I think he ought to consider carefully what a step he would be taking, in an historical sense, by moving one installation of government-and others would follow-into an area within the national capital to which the government has already made a large commitment in terms of planning. It is important that this be considered.
In closing, I commend the minister upon this amendment, one which I think will go a long way toward at least beginning an approach to the question of the national capital in regard to which it can be said that the government is not doing indirectly what it would never try to do directly.
21419-44%

March 9, 1976
Maritime Code


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. To make sure there is no disagreement or confusion, I think the minister should speak by consent. He moved the motion, and by doing so he is taken as having spoken. I would ask for unanimous consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that what you have said is technically the case, and I appreciate the consent given. I must say I am having an uneasy afternoon as a result of the disposition presently shown by members. The kind words of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) commending me on this change in the bill have shaken me somewhat. I am delighted he has seen the usefulness of moving things out of the central core here. I need not tell hon. members about my own dedication to decentralization, to the notion that a good deal of what is done here can be gradually done elsewhere.
Having said that, I am not sure I would want to look only at the Baseline Road. Since he has decided to march me away from the central core, I will go with the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins) and take a look at quarters in that area. I know that hon. members will wish me to look at other places, too, for example, the banks of the Saskatchewan River in Saskatoon, naturally, if we are not bound to consider a coastal position. I shall certainly follow the lead given me by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton in that regard.
I should like to direct a few remarks to some of the words spoken this afternoon by the hon. member for Carle-ton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) and, in particular, to attempt to make the record very clear in relation to my belief in the necessity for full consultation in connection with the regulations. It should be evident that the discussions between my predecessor and the maritime premiers, and with the Newfoundland government as well, indicated an intention to consult with regard to the regulations. But there was no reservation of any kind about moving forward with the maritime code subject to the assurances on consultation. On September 24, 1973, for instance, a release following a meeting between the premiers and the then minister of transport stated:
The provinces stressed, and it was agreed, that they would participate actively in drawing up regulations governing these safeguards.
It was, therefore, in the regulations that the safeguards were to be found, not in the bill itself as might have been implied. I have, of course, received strong representations from members of parliament as well. For instance, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) has spoken to me many times on this subject, drawing attention to the need to ensure that most significant changes to disadvantaged coastal shipping, or those affected by the freight rates, would be made without full consultation. I have, of course, given such an assurance myself to the ministers in recent meetings both on the west coast and on the east coast-to the eight ministers of the provinces to the west and to the east-that there would be full consultation on the regulations before they were adopted.
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).)
Therefore, in answer to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte, I can say that full consideration will be given to his concern about pricing and cost of shipping before the regulations under this act are adopted. I am very conscious of the desirability of full consultation. My policy is, basically, one of open consultation, and in view of the apprehension regarding shipping costs and my feeling that it is important that all parties should make an input, I have undertaken with members of parliament that there shall be full consultation with them, too, prior to the move toward regulation. Indeed, I have asked for, and received agreement from two hon. members, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers), that they will co-chair an informal committee of members of parliament to look at regulations.
Through this method all members who have an interest in safeguarding their regions can make an input. I know that members such as the hon. member for Carleton-Char-lotte and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) who have shown particular interest in this subject, not necessarily from identical viewpoints, will want to make an input as well.
I simply want to assure the hon. members that as this amendment moves forward, these consultations-which have been agreed to before-are now doubly assured and that it is our intention to hold the widest consultations possible before we move to specific regulations under this act.


J. Michael Forrestall: In addressing myself to motion No. 9,1 wonder if I may make an observation with respect to the reassurances given us just now by the minister. The difficulty faced by the maritime economy, the council of maritime premiers and the government of British Columbia, and certainly, to some degree, by the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland, is that the words of ministers in the government cannot be trusted. Of course the minister is sincere when he says that consultation will take place and he is setting up a committee. I might say I found that absolutely ridiculous-that he was setting up a committee headed by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers). I can understand his naming the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) who does have some interest, but for the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster to head up a committee, with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to produce regulations under the bill, is ridiculous. I doubt whether he has even read the bill or knows anything at all about shipping. I think this would be a great insult to the former member for Saint John-Lancaster who fought both inside and outside this chamber for the re-establishment of a Canadian merchant fleet.
We appreciate the indication given by the minister that he will let the members of this chamber make some consultative input on the question of regulations, but our concern is that the government must demonstrate its intentions in some way or another, and not simply with words, which have nothing to do with what the CNR will charge for the movement of a carload of potatoes or a boat load of lumber from the west coast of Canada to the east coast. The words
March 9, 1976

must be in the statute. I am sorry the minister is leaving. I understand he has cabinet committees and we appreciate his participating for at least five minutes this afternoon.
As much as I support this bill and the concept that we are talking about this afternoon, the words of caution expressed this afternoon, in committee and last week are words that we cannot treat lightly. We have no reasonable grounds, as members of this chamber, to go back to our maritime provinces and to the west coast and to tell the governments, the people and the industries in those provinces that we are satisfied that the government will not let this bill impair the ability of commerce to move goods from one point in Canada to another without seriously affecting the cost of so doing. We all know where that cost will wind up-in the consumers' pockets. It will result in increased prices for homes and vegetables.
I had thought that the least the minister could do this afternoon was to give us, with some emphasis, an outline of what he expected to do with respect to the regulations; to build in words that would import the type of safeguards that we require in the regulations.
As for motion No. 9, Mr. Speaker, it is quite acceptable to us. It is a consequential amendment. With respect to the error that appears in the reprinted version of the bill, I think the authoritative document must continue to be Votes and Proceedings, in which the amendment moved and carried in committee is correctly recorded. Having said, that, I would just echo the sentiment expressed by our distinguished House leader, that it was only the perception of members of the committee that caught this devious attempt to import by way of statute, indeed, to defile the maritime code or attach to it the remotest possibility that at some point in the future the government would say, "We have been doing this for a long time. Look at the maritime code which describes Canada's capital as 'Ottawa-Hull'." We are aware of the origin of the phrase "national capital region" and we are aware of the National Capital Act. I am also pleased that the government recognizes that the maritime code is hardly the statute into which to import the basis and structure for the renaming of the capital of Canada.
With those one or two reservations I think we are prepared to concur in the report stage of this bill. But again I say to the members of this chamber that as much and as strongly as I feel for this bill, as great are its advantages to the development of a segment of the Canadian transportation industry which can stand on its own, a massive industry which could bring back to us $2.5 billion in foreign exchange and create 7,000 new jobs, give us 175 ships sailing the waters of the world, the reservations that have been voiced are even stronger because they affect the commerce and industry of Canada.
We require a much clearer assurance from the Minister of Transport when this matter moves into third reading; otherwise we will have to reconsider how we stand on the matter, so serious is it to us. In closing, I want to express my appreciation to the parliamentary secretary for his many courtesies over the last few months in connection with this particular measure.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Lang) agreed to.
Maritime Code


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is therefore on motion No. 6.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Motion No. 3 having previously been ordered to be grouped with motion No. 2 for the purpose of voting has been entered with the same result as motion No. 2. Motion No. 5 is no longer with us. Therefore, the question is on motion No. 7. Shall motion No. 7 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Forrestall) negatived.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 Windsor West (Mr. Gray)- Immigration-Admittance of members of Palestinian Liberation Organization to Habitat conference-Government position; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacK-ay)-Labour Conditions-Reason for refusal to permit air line employees to prosecute Air Canada; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Transport- Request for assurance of full use of east coast ports.
Maritime Code



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-61, to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Speaker:: I understand that motion No. 9 was carried.
I further understand there is some concern about a printing error in the bill that needs to be cleared up before the motion for concurrence can be put.


Ralph Goodale: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. It is a very simple matter of a printing error. I think there is general agreement in the House about it.
The particular clause in question is clause BII-24 in the third schedule to the bill. It originally appeared on pages 59 and 60 of the first reading edition of Bill C-61. In committee we moved to remove line 41 on page 59 and lines 1 and 2 on page 60, substituting the very simple phrase "shall be established at a place designated in Canada by the minister". That was the amendment. This is clearly recorded in the February 26 edition of Votes and Proceedings. Unfortunately when the bill appeared in its reported stage and reprinted, clause BII-24 contained an additional phrase at the end reading "described in the schedule to the National Capital Act". That clearly is not what was in our amendment. Votes and Proceedings clearly record the decision taken. That additional phrase was simply added in error. I draw that to the attention of the House. It should be deleted upon reprinting.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the observations of the parliamentary secretary are quite correct. We agree with that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this was drawn to our attention earlier. The comment made by the parliamentary secretary is quite correct, namely, that what the committee did is properly recorded in Votes and Proceedings of February 26 at page 1055. I believe that under Standing Order 84 the parliamentary counsel can reprint the bill as corrected.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my understanding, from looking at the bill before me, that the French text did not suffer from the same disability. Therefore the order will go that the bill in being reprinted between the conclusion of the report stage and third reading stage will take note of that difficulty, and the printing error will be corrected.


Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

March 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is not debatable. I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Basford:-That Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violence and other crime, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated earlier, I would be prepared to dispose of the point of order with respect to the bill that was before us and on which I understand debate will resume at eight o'clock this evening. However, I do not want to interfere with private members' hour if it is understood that is going ahead. If there is no understanding about proceeding with it, perhaps I can deal with the very interesting point of order that was raised late this afternoon with respect to the proposed amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I had some conversations with reference to this motion. I am prepared to withdraw the words:
-for the purpose of considering a more proper legislative division thereof.
I ask the consent of the House to make that withdrawal. I understand it will be given.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was the agreement reached with me. What is in effect is the motion in front of you with those words attached.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say, with respect to the action of the hon. members involved, that they probably anticipated pretty accurately what the position of the Chair would have to be in this regard. After some careful consideration I have in any case reached that conclusion.
These, of course, are unsolicited remarks by the Chair at this stage. However, my decision would have been to encourage very much a strict interpretation of the language to be used in the second reading amendment, and to recognize that since this was effectively the first time that any hon. member put before me this kind of motion, it would have been expected in accordance with previous practice, at least the first time a new Speaker had been called upon to make a ruling.
Having found those words to be of some procedural difficulty, I would have earnestly asked the House to grant the request now sought to delete those words, and permit the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), as opposed to any other, to be reduced to the words "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."


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Consent having been so given, the hon. member has the permission of the House to change the words following "That." Therefore the motion as I have just read it will stand in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North and the House will resume debate on that amendment in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North at eight o'clock this evening. It is so ordered.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and I regret that our agreement has deprived the House of hearing your views on the subject.
Order stands.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is some disposition that the House will now move to private members' hour and Order No. 41 standing in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-241, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill as spelled out in the explanatory notes is simply to enable a magistrate, who has imposed a sentence upon a person convicted of an offence of cruelty to animals, also to prohibit such a person from owning, harbouring or otherwise possessing an animal or a bird for a stated period of time, as part of the sentence.
Presently magistrates are limited to fining or jailing any person convicted of cruelty to animals. The vast majority of magistrates are most reluctant ever to impose a jail sentence for this type of crime, and a fine is often an unsuitable punishment since lack of funds may very well have contributed to the cruel treatment which the animals receive in the first place. This kind of provision, prohibiting possession of animals, is a means of meeting this problem.
I am aware that Bill C-71, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which was passed by this House in January and is currently before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, contains in clause 35 an amendment to the Criminal Code which, by and large, achieves the same objective as my bill. However, in debate on Bill C-71, debate in which I took part as a member of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, the attention of members was


March 9, 1976

concentrated almost totally on other areas of the bill, with virtually no discussion on the specific clause I have mentioned. This very absence of debate, I believe, indicates to a large degree the wide agreement on the need for the kind of amendment which my bill proposes and which is contained in clause 35 of Bill C-71.
Nevertheless this House should have an opportunity of discussing the specific proposal prohibiting possession of animals for those convicted of cruelty to animals, and indeed the more general question of cruel treatment of animals. This is my purpose in going ahead with Bill C-241 this afternoon.
The scope of my bill, and also that of clause 35 in Bill C-71, are limited to those offences described under Section 402 subsection (1) of the Criminal Code. Those offences do not touch on the controversial and highly emotional aspect of cruelty to animals, particularly wildlife, such as the trapping and hunting of fur-bearing animals, a subject I shall attempt to steer away from today. Rather, they deal only with domestic animals or birds, or animals or birds wild by nature that are kept in captivity.
The type of person who commits an offence under this section of the Criminal Code falls into one of two categories: either he harbours an animal or bird as a pet, or he harbours an animal or bird for profit. The offender in the latter category is by far the more serious not only from a moral point of view but also, in many cases, in terms of the degree and amount of suffering and injury caused.
It can be argued that the pet owner who causes unnecessary pain to an animal, either directly or by neglect, may do so out of ignorance not knowing the proper means of disciplining, training or handling the pet. The same may occur if the owner finds he simply cannot afford the cost or time required in caring for the pet. Of course this argument has no application in many cases where owners have caused damage or injury to their pets, and even where it does apply it is no justification for cruelty to animals. Nevertheless there are considerations which may be weighed in respect of offenders who are pet owners, considerations which are not relevant when the offenders' purpose in owning or harbouring animals is solely to obtain an income.
For those who make their livelihood in part or whole from animals there can be no excuse for cruelty on the grounds of ignorance or economics, or at least there should not be any such grounds. Common sense tells us you cannot run a business without a sufficient knowledge of all the aspects involved. Similarly if one does not possess the financial resources required to run an enterprise effectively and profitably, he must get out of that enterprise.
The successful pet shop owner, breeder or farmer knows his animals or birds and recognizes that his profits are closely related to the investment he makes in his animals, both in terms of care and money. Fortunately this kind of professional in the various animal-related businesses is in the majority, but there are some who believe they can cut corners with regard to the knowledge or proper care of their animals, an attitude which usually results in injury or damage to the animals. It is at this kind of offender that Bill C-241 is aimed and on which the bill should have the
Cruelty to Animals
most beneficial impact, both as a deterrent and as a means of assisting in enforcement.
A provision prohibiting possession of an animal or bird after conviction for a cruelty to animals offence in effect shuts down an offender's business for a specific period, denying him income from this source. I believe this would be a significant deterrent and I am supported in this belief by a number of people involved with animal welfare organizations. These people have drawn attention to a case in which a farmer showed appalling neglect of a valuable herd of cattle valued at thousands of dollars. At present the only really acceptable penalty for such an offence- ruling out a jail sentence-is a fine. Normally such fines have little value as a deterrent. After all, a fine of $100 or $200 is little more than a nuisance tax when one is talking about a herd of cattle worth many thousands of dollars. If the manner of treatment of an individual's livestock can result in the loss of that livestock, much greater care will be paid to it.
The provision prohibiting possession of animals could also assist officials in the enforcement of the law especially as it relates to repeat offenders. An example of this can best be shown in the most extreme case of animal cruelty, that of the baiting or fighting of animals and birds. It is most difficult for law enforcement officers to obtain sufficient proof of these crimes to gain a conviction, although in many cases the officials are fully aware of the identity of the individuals taking part in these activities. Obviously my bill does not assist in obtaining first time convictions but it should hinder subsequent activities by those who have been convicted once inasmuch as it makes the mere possession of an animal or bird an offence.
There are two other points I should like to touch on briefly although they are related only indirectly to my bill. The first has to do with the importation of exotic animals and birds as pets or for display purposes. This is not a recent development; it has been going on almost since the first days of the colonization of this country. However, in the last ten years or so the number and variety of exotic animals imported into Canada have increased tremendously, giving rise to a good deal of concern for their proper care. The simple fact is that in the case of many of these animals presently coming into Canada we do not know how to provide the care which is needed. Until we know more, and until we have the services of trained, qualified personnel, knowledgeable about exotic species and capable of providing the veterinary care necessary, I believe a greater degree of control and supervision should be exercised with regard to these importations.
My final point has to do with the use of animals for scientific research purposes. Here again we must take a close look at all available information and evidence. This has become an increasingly controversial and highly emotional issue. We must make sure we are not left in a position where we become stampeded in one direction or another.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that an amendment to the Criminal Code prohibiting the possession of an animal or bird by anyone found guilty of a cruelty to animals offence is needed and, more important, is just plain, good common sense.

March 9, 1976
Cruelty to Animals


Mr. Gilbert:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


William Kenneth Robinson: I would not mind being asked a question but there are many others who wish to speak on this measure. Perhaps it could be reserved until later.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) on introducing the bill before us. We have been somewhat negligent with respect to animal cruelty in Canada and it is not until the present parliament that we seem to be making any headway. In the last parliament a special committee was established to deal with animal welfare, but we could not get it off the ground because no Liberals would attend meetings.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


A. Daniel McKenzie: I am certainly pleased that the hon. member should have taken such an interest in animal welfare. He made a good point when he touched upon the importation of exotic species. I have had a considerable interest in the importation of exotic species, as was evident especially in the last parliament. Many problems were raised at that time and I still do not know whether they have been dealt with. As an example I should like to mention what has been happening to air shipments arriving in Canada.
One man is encountering difficulty when making insurance claims for the dead fish he has been receiving. He thinks the fault lies with the Toronto air express base. The situation is disheartening to my constituent since he has to pay freight charges 50 per cent higher than the regular shipping charges. He is experiencing great difficulty settling claims with respect to his fish with Air Canada. He was experiencing heavy losses because fish were arriving dead.
In correspondence with me, officials of the Department of Transport pointed out recently they were setting up a special committee dealing with animal welfare in the course of air transit and that the committee had been established, among other things, to develop more sophisticated facilities on the ground for use by live animals. A move was under way to educate all the personnel involved in the better handling and care of animals. Aircraft environment was to be reviewed and training material was to be produced useful to everyone concerned. Whether these proposals were carried out, I do not know.
Recently the Ontario Humane Society, in co-operation with the Animal Welfare Foundation of Canada, did a survey of the retail trade in exotic animals in Ontario, and the following were the problems encountered in the area of transportation:
Since most pet store owners buy from Canadian wholesalers the transportation part of the survey is inconclusive as far as the questionnaire goes.
They sent out a questionnaire to a number of pet stores.
Method of transportation and transportation time were interprovincial estimates and consequently very few problems were encountered. The most common complaints which arose dealt with the airlines and

express handlers and to lesser degrees the veterinary services at the port of entry. Eleven stores complained of the airlines because:
1.	Handlers (airline personnel) did not know how to handle the animals.
2.	Animals were not crated properly.
3.	Animals did not have proper food or water.
4.	In winter animals are left on the runway or in drafts.
5.	Airlines are too slow in notifying animal owners that their animals have arrived.
6.	Airlines lose animals much like they lose luggage.
We all know how Air Canada loses luggage.
A few shops complained that government veterinarians were not on duty 24 hours a day and if their animals came in late in the day they had to rouse a veterinarian and pay him to inspect the animals. Some charges were laid that the government veterinarians did not know enough about the animals concerned to pronounce them healthy or not and that inspections were carried out in a somewhat cursory manner.
Complaints were also received concerning inadequate housing while in transit. This complaint was somewhat substantiated by an article in the "Pet Dealer".
In a number of American and European cities there are special terminals for properly handling imported animals and pets. This is something that we in Canada must examine. I hope that the bill will be sent to committee where we can question Air Canada officials, and other airline officials, as well as officials of the Department of Transport as to whether animals are properly handled at our terminals across Canada.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member for bringing forward this private member's bill and for his continuing sensitivity in terms of the mistreatment of animals in Canada. I also appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) who said we should reconstitute the animal welfare committee. Perhaps all members of the House, owing to the pressure of time, have not devoted the kind of attention to this subject that it merits, and I welcome the invitation of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to deal with this question on a regular basis in a committee of the House.
The intention of the bill is good, but the hon. member should keep in mind that Bill C-71, which we passed on January 27, provided for a two-year prohibition period. The hon. member's bill appears to depart somewhat from that in that, where there is an order for prohibition after an offence relating to the keeping of an animal, his bill would provide for a period not exceeding two months upon first conviction.
I would take issue with this legislation inasmuch as I prefer the bill that we have passed, which gives a judge discretion to impose more than a two months' denial of possession of any animal. The penalty is greater under the provisions of Bill C-71. I realize the intention behind the hon. member's bill is to provide flexibility in the area of treating animals. I have long believed that the degree of civilization or culture in any country has a lot to do with the way we treat our animals. Canada is not at the top of the list in terms of treating animals humanely. We have a considerable distance to travel in this area, and in those terms the hon. member's bill does seek to continue to move this country forward in a civilized way.
March 9, 1976

I am convinced that the time is long past due when we should eliminate the leg hold trap. In this regard there have been a number of private members' bills presented to this House. I think it is time for the government to bring forward a Conibear trap; and in the area under its own jurisdiction, namely, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, the government should ban the leg hold trap immediately. We can then move on to deal with the question of possible payment of compensation to trappers. They have a problem in terms of the cost of the leg hold trap, but as a civilized country we should not allow use of this kind of inhumane trap to continue in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In conclusion, once again I congratulate the hon. member for his bill. I know of his long felt sympathy for the problems of animals and I am delighted he has again raised the matter in the House. I agree that we should reconstitute the animal welfare committee and I thank him again for his invitation to join that committee.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for introducing Bill C-241. I overheard the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) mention it is unlikely this bill will be passed tonight. I can appreciate his feelings, as there is a zoo in his riding. I also believe in the welfare of animals and I am rising on a matter of principle at this stage to point out that the legislation put forward by the hon. member provides for minimum penalties. In my view it is desirable and a matter of principle to avoid mentioning minimum sentences in the Criminal Code.
We can see in the Criminal Code a reverse trend because the people who are entrusted with administering justice in Canada think that the courts should be given the prerogative of deciding on the penalty which best fits the offence. If a provincial attorney general does not approve of the sentence, an appeal can be lodged.
Without trying in any way, to vindicate cruelty to animals, I believe, once again, Mr. Speaker, that we should not lose sight of the nature of the offence.
If a minimum sentence is provided for under this charge, we shall have to reconsider the penalties applicable to other serious offences against law and order. To provide for minimum sentences for offences which are a patent transgression of a prohibition ordinance by a Court would be giving Canadian judges less credit than they deserve. So, as I have said before, my purpose is not to contradict my learned colleague, the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore (Mr. Robinson) who wants animals protected in this country but rather to comment on a matter of principle with regard to sentencing. He advocates a minimum sentence for repeated offenders guilty of flouting a prohibition ordinance-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members'
Measures Against Crime
business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that it has not been possible to reach agreement under the provisions of Standing Order 75A and 75B in respect of proceedings on the second reading of Bill C-68, an act to amend the Medical Care Act. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 75C, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move that not more than five hours shall be allotted to the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violence and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members know, the House agreed to allow the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) to move an amended version of the amendment he proposed the other day. With the consent of the House, that motion not having been put, I shall now put it to the House. The hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), for the hon. member for Calgary North, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), moves:
That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-83, An Act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime, be not now read a

March 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to make a preliminary remark concerning the bill before us, Bill C-83, as an initial clarification which will prove necessary in the light of my later comments on the spirit of the proposed measures.
When it is time to vote on third reading, I shall probably vote in favour of Bill C-83, even if I have serious reservations as to the merits of certain clauses, because it completes Bill C-71 which the House has already considered and because it is a valuable and necessary updating of our criminal justice and correctional tools.
Indeed, as many of my colleagues have already pointed out, particularly the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), most of the subjects covered are not new legal points, they only result from the normal development of existing statutes. Whether it be amendments to the Protection of Privacy Act, the updating of the rules governing custody and parole, the approval in principle of public inquiries on organized crime, the clarification of the status of dangerous criminals or even the new set of measures on gun control and the regulations governing gun users, owners, one could almost say that we have here the substance of a housekeeping bill. This is why the best forum to debate such legislation would be the parliamentary committee and I hope that the second reading debate will not be too long so that the discussion can be really constructive and the few litigious or controversial elements, specially in the field of wiretapping, can be studied with the attention they deserve by the persons concerned in the presence of experts from the Department of Justice and witnesses or resource persons wishing to appear before the committee.
Even if a few hon. members had some reservations about the combination of the five issues covered, I do not think that on this sole basis we should object at this first stage of the parliamentary study of Bill C-83, and this with all due respect for those who hold opposite views. In this regard, most hon. members have already approved in principle the proposed measures. And the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford) himself, having clearly said that criminal justice instruments like the Criminal Code and legislation concerning parole, the Penitentiary Act and other related statutes were changing constantly I think that the suggestions made by hon. members could be and should be considered by the parliamentary committee to help this government fight efficiently the alarming increase in crime in Canada.
For those reasons and only those, I support Bill C-83.
Where I do not agree however is where Bill C-83 is made to say what it does not say and is made to do what it cannot do. Bills C-83 and C-84 have been given the pompous and mistaking title of "Peace and security program for protection against violent crime".
The first question that comes to my mind is WHY?
Why give so much importance to a mere readjustment of the internal administration of criminal justice instruments, readjustment long since advocated by the Parole

Board, the Commissioner of Penitentiaries and,*he different police corps at all jurisdiction levels?
Why? And the first answer which comes to my mind, shocking and brutal, is that they have tried to coat the bitter pill, Bill C-84, abolishing capital punishment, with what may seen to be and is effectively a tightening of the Criminal Code. Bill C-83, Mr. Speaker, is an exercise in marketing Bill C-84.
Without any intention of judging the merit of Bill C-84, which will come up for discussion later, a discussion impassioned to one's liking, I suppose, if we really want to make people and their elected representatives believe that through the measures proposed in Bill C-83 we can effectively and efficiently stop the thrust of violent crime in this country, I apoligize, but we are trying to deceive the public by means of a sophisticated exercise in organized camouflage. Indeed without referring to the overly narrow approach taken in this struggle by the program in question, I agree with the comments of Jean-Claude Leclerc of Le Devoir, who said in an article entitled: "The illusory protection obtained by life imprisonment", I quote:
... it will be easier to multiply repressive measures than to cover the penitentiary system in the changing process that is required and without which, when the next crime occurs, the public will ask for capital punishment to be reinstated.
As regards the peace and security program itself, and particularly the booklet which features the program highlights and which was circulated by the Department of Justice, one may see with astonishment and incredulity that crime prevention is not given much importance: three tiny paragraphs that cover a quarter of a page, a third of which concerns the defensible space, that is to say:
Marked efforts to better understand the matter of reinforcement of possible crime targets, as well as that of the environment design. Strategy to increase the community resistence towards crime.
Anyone who is seriously involved in an over-all effort to control crime must consider in a comprehensive manner all the aspects of the criminal process, from the causes of the first offence to the reasons for repeated offences, and this includes different concepts, whether it be crime causes, police investigation and indictment, the judicial process including conviction and sentencing, penitentiary life in which penalty and rehabilitation are opposed, and finally, reintegration into society with, in most cases, the rejection of the former inmate.
Well, the peace and security program falls within this framework. Basically, it deals only with penalty and implementation of sentence, without really trying to come to grips with the causes of crime and the roots of community distrust toward offenders and former inmates.
An organized program of crime control should take into account all factors involved in the anti-social or asocial behaviour of some individuals; it should therefore bear on crime causes, social and police prevention, sentencing, penitentiary reform, treatment, social rehabilitation, information and community involvement.
Let us begin at the start, with the definition of delinquency. It was on the assumption that no simplistic definition of delinquency and its features are of any value that
March 9, 1976

criminologists and psychologists developed scholarly theories in normative terms.
Two mainstreams however seem to emerge. One is based on the ecologic theory evolved during the last century. The other, the more recent psychological theory, draws upon fundamental criminology in terms of formal patterns. Supporters of the latter look to conditioning as prime factor in the disposition-forming process.
I draw upon Professor Eysenck, a renowned criminologist, to grasp the impact of conditioning upon individuals. In his book Crime and Personality, Mr. Eysenck, while granting official status to the psychological concept of deliquency, uses a Freudian concept, that of more or less suppressed agressiveness, to strenghten his assertion that the degree of personality extraversion determines the marginal tendency to ward anti-social behaviour. This is where the "conditioning" factor comes in. It can eventually convert that simple disposition into a major personality feature. While reaffirming that his explanation is totally doctrinal and cannot explain the overall criminal process in man, Eysenck draws certain conclusions that appear to be quite pertinent on the possible ramifications of delinquent correction. He thereby attacks the remuneration concept of sentencing relative to the prohibited act that was committed. That result alone of the psychological analysis, if nothing else, would make Eysenck's work valuable.
And to quote the professor:

.. . the effect of reward and punishment depends entirely on whether the behaviour to which they are applied is frustration-instigated or motivation-instigated. In the latter case, punishment may itself constitute a frustrating situation, in which case it will either increase the strength of any frustration instigated behaviour already present, or transform the motivated state into a frustrated one.

Supporters of the ecological theory, on the other hand, favour a demographic and social approach to delinquency. Following analyses of popular environments as opposed to so-called "have" environments, certain constants were stressed, while certain variables were used as parameters.
Through ecology, we can better define the surroundings which might bring about a deficient environment. In the light of these somewhat academic comments, I admit, it will be agreed that poverty, especially urban poverty, has a definite influence on the development in certain individuals of a conscience that is anti-social to say the least.
From the numerous studies on the conceptualisation of the notion of poverty, the following two criteria should be kept in mind: environment and conditioning, both of which are present in all stages of delinquency prevention and remain operative when corrective action is necessary. Since the environment has a direct influence on condition-ning, the only logical way to fight crime is through the elimination of the causes of delinquency. The thing to do therefore is to plan government action and coordinate the various programs, housing, health, welfare, community centres, towards a single objective: the improvement of the living conditions of the underprivileged.
It is in such a context that the rationale for potential rehabilitation and treatment systems can be found. In reality, we shall never be able to completely eradicate the harmful elements which make up individual behaviour
Measures Against Crime
patterns, but once the environment problem is solved, it will be much easier to deal with the psychological causes of delinquency.
The second factor concerns social and police prevention and, in this regard, I have been surprised and shocked by the reactions of policemen and prison guards concerning the order and security program, and especially the abolition of capital punishment.
The excessive conservatism of policemen and prison guards increases violent criminality much more than it decreases or prevents it. It seems that the best way to hide one's own incompetence is to play on the emotions and the ignorance of the population, like some are now doing with regard to capital punishment. In my opinion, policeman and prison guard associations hide behind the death penalty their failure in the areas of prevention and rehabilitation. Police authorities must understand that their role is not simply to apprehend offenders or to make searches in an effort to prevent offences. The image of the policeman has suffered a lot from the military character that police forces have often given it. In fact, we have made a mistake in giving more and more power to policemen, like Bill C-83 is now doing, in return for the peace and safety of the citizens while providing little or no control over their actions.
Police forces have also suffered from the patent lack of recruiting and even training. To be really efficient, policeman should act as a human affairs officers. Indeed, they also seem to suffer from the fact that they have to enforce unpopular legislation and also from the fact that they have dehumanizing and lowly jobs to perform such as giving parking tickets.
The policeman's role should be especially oriented towards two things, first, crime prevention through information programs and education about the role of the policeman, and second, the traditional criminal investigation which could bring about an arrest.
In its report "Sentences et mesures non sentencielles dans le processus penal", the Law Reform Commission of Canada clearly states that, considering that the community should deal with most problems and disputes in an ordinary fashion, that is without having recourse to criminal law and without necessarily fighting in courts, one should encourage police forces, social services and other community organizations to help individuals, families, schools and other groups to solve the problems and conflicts which affect them without taking legal proceedings.
At any rate, it seems obvious that if we want to recruit policemen with some knowledge of psychology or human relations, one will have to entrust them with more responsibilities than those entailed in purely mechanical tasks. We should therefore create a department within the police which should entrust ordinary civil servants with some of the functions which are now in the hands of policemen, such as fines, traffic control, clerical tasks, reports, and so forth. The police would be the first to profit from such a diversion of tasks, the first benefit being to assure them a far better public image.
I would like to quote a passage from The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, a report of the American presiden-

March 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
tial commission on justice administration and application of the law. I quote:
Crime flourishes where the conditions of life are the worst, and therefore the conditions of a national strategy against crime is an unremitting national effort for social justice. Reducing poverty, discrimination, ignorance, disease and urban plight and anger, cynicism or despair-these conditions can inspire, is one great step toward reducing crime.

The third level is sentencing. In spite of the reports of the Law Reform Commission little if anything has been done in this respect, except giving to magistrates again through Bill C-84 the power to extend from 10 to 25 years the minimum period of detention without parole for second degree murder.
As early as 1968, the Ouimet report deplored that no specific and elaborate sentencing policy existed in Canada, with the result that an accused may be at the mercy of a judge who is more or less understanding, and depending on the case he will do two years of penitentiary or remain on parole with the possibility of developing his sense of responsibility and fitting in the community while being guided by a social worker.
The main obstacles to the development of a unified system of criminal law and social rehabilitation have been thus far the absence of a clearly defined sentencing policy and the inadequacy of services and facilities available to a judge entrusted with the key function of this global process.
That policy still does not exist in any case. Until there is a school for judges-without necessarily wanting to attack the process of appointments to the bench-we will continue to have inadequate judges or judges motivated by considerations based on outmoded principles.
This code of sentencing could, for example, provide that certain individuals sentenced for a first offense will all the same have to undergo a certain period of treatment if the conditioning to which they were submitted-and one sees here the role of the report provided by the social worker- was deficient.
All those problems are of a judicial procedure nature. As for the correctional process as such the situation is confused. Although a certain number of positive changes have been made in the last few years in the operation and the administration of penitentiary services the faults afflicting detention institutions prevent most often the achievement of the commendable objectives of those in charge-training and rehabilitation.
Indeed, as long as punishment is mistaken for rehabilitation, there is hardly any hope that the spirit existing in penal institutions will evolve appreciably.
Unfortunately, I am unable to adequately cover the treatment aspect of the correctional process and that is too bad; Bill C-84 will perhaps provide me with that opportunity.
In short, crime prevention should now be based on two principles: to prevent individuals from indulging in criminal activities by the removal of some environmental fac-

tors which seem to have a decisive impact on the development of delinquency; for the offenders, it would be advisable to consider community therapy through the action of social workers and citizen's committees, to think up a new philosophy for the treatment of individuals having experienced a defective or antisocial conditioning.
Finally, it is necessary within the correctional process itself to remove one of the main causes of delinquency: the penitentiary subculture, by systematically promoting the establishment of small institutions such as community residential centres.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-83, though basically sound, does not constitute an efficient weapon in the fight against crime. Only a well defined all encompassing policy might stand a chance of checking the deplorable tendency towards increasing crime, disturbing symptom of an even greater failure, which could be that of our whole society.
In conclusion, I should like to quote an excerpt from the report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada entitled "Sentences et mesures non sentencielles dans le processus penal" which indicates the direction in which we should go.
How will we treat those who violate those fundamental values, those of our society? I quote:
Everyone, legislator or private citizen, must understand that the coercive power of penal law must be used only with moderation since otherwise, we run the risk of generating other social ills. Too great a desire to have law and order can, on contrary, produce disorder. What is basically a manifestation of responsibility can on the contrary lead to irresponsibility when, instead of serving as guidance toward an honest solution of the problems we are confronted with, the rules serve as screens to keep us from understanding them.
Mr. Speaker, that is food for thought. I do hope that all hon. members will understand that it is the duty of each and everyone of us to find such solutions as can check the tide of crime, in our country.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, most people of this country, I suggest, cannot logically quarrel with the concept of some sort of gun control. It is not an alarming concept any more than controlling the use of automobiles, poison, snowmobiles or any other device, or substance that might be considered dangerous. But no issue since I have come to the House of Commons has prompted such a rash of protests from my constituents against the way that the government is implementing what ought to be a very simple and laudable objective.
The so called peace and security package is really a misnomer, I suggest, because to start with it is a joint product of two ministers who do not even agree philosophically. It is an anomaly. My friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), says they are the odd couple. That may well be, but I rather think that Robert Lewis in the current issue of Maclean's magazine sums it up pretty well when he refers to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) as playing a kind of good cop-bad cop routine. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) says he can live with hanging and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) says he cannot. This kind of basic philosophical difference is not doing anything to inspire confidence in the people of this country that this legislative package is a well thought out and valid
March 9, 1976

concept, particularly when it is also billed as some sort of trade off for tougher measures.
It is said that measures on guns, wiretaps, and sentencing are a trade-off for abolishing capital punishment and a sop to the police and prison guards. I think that is too simplistic a proposition, but it is indicative of the type of perception the people of this country have about this kind of legislation, and I think it is a very unhealthy state of affairs.
It seems to me that the government could very easily have found a more logical and simple way of accomplishing a pretty laudable objective, but just as the government did in the case of the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) with respect to lobster regulations, and in the case of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in attempting to bring some logic into the Anti-Inflation Board procedures, it has messed it up again, which it has a propensity for doing. Just as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) have had to admit that they had to abandon their plans for a levy on exports, and just as the Minister of State (Fisheries) has had to modify his lobster regulations, so I fear will the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General-


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I really do not want to contradict the hon. member, but if he had attended the session which most of his colleagues attended, he would have found that we did not change the policy. We simply explained it, and it is proceeding as planned.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I appreciate those remarks from the Minister of State (Fisheries) but I think his troubles are not yet over, judging by the response of the fishermen in my constituency. It may be a little premature for him to say that he will not have to change his policy, judging by the type of reaction-


Roméo LeBlanc: I said we have not changed it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I say that perhaps the minister is a bit premature in assuming that he will not have to change that policy.
In any event, as far as these particular provisions are concerned, I will deal with the bill. I am sure hon. members will appreciate my passing references to the bill, although I intend to mention some other matters tonight involving civil liberties and types of legislation which I am sure Your Honour will find relevant.
The proposed section 103 is a very interesting provision. It provides the following:
Whenever a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that an offence is being committed or has been committed against any of the provisions of this Act relating to prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, other firearms or ammunition, he may search, without warrant, a person or vehicle, or place or premises other than a dwelling-house, and may seize anything by means of or in relation to which he reasonably believes the offence is being committed or has been committed.
To begin with, why without warrant? This sets the tone for all this legislation. I suggest-and this is what people
Measures Against Crime
in my constituency believe-that this legislation is a needless encroachment on the civil liberties of people. Clause 83 of the bill reads as follows:
Every one who carries or has in his possession a weapon or imitation thereof, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
What sort of offence is meant by that?
Then there is another interesting provision clause, clause 86, which says:
Every one who is an occupant of a motor vehicle in which he knows there is a prohibited weapon
(a)	is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for
five years, or
(b)	is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
What about the case of a person being in a car before he knows that there is one of these so-called dangerous or prohibited weapons present? Is he supposed to request the driver to stop the car in the middle of a lonely road so that he can get out?
These are only a couple of examples, and they just underline the ludicrousness of what is attempted to be done here. This is like hunting squirrels with an elephant gun, and I hope the Minister of Justice will do as he did with the criminal law amendments bill-change some sections in committee-and give a little bit of thought to improving and making a bit more workable and a bit more sensible what is essentially not a bad idea, in theory.
As I said earlier, I have been receiving a tremendous amount of mail and telegrams-some orchestrated, some not orchestrated-from people in my constituency whom I know to be honest and responsible people. They are not extremists or people who are alarmed that the government is suddenly going to declare a dictatorship because they do not have any guns with which to defend themselves, but they resent sincerely this further encroachment on what they consider to be a reasonable privilege, that is, to possess rifles, or in some cases pistols, for a legitimate use.
I will read one letter. It is very typical and very short. It is dated March 1, and says:
Dear Mr. MacKay: This is to voice my opinion with regards to the proposed legislation on private ownership of long guns ... This could be just one more case where the private citizen has a privilege lost or restricted. The restriction in my opinion as well as many others would be in vain as common sense no doubt has told you, as it has me, that criminals will be no harder put to obtain such firearms. I fear that government will be swayed by the anti-gun lobbyists whom I am confident do not represent the opinion of the majority. Hoping my opinions are worth your attention. Yours sincerely,
(Signed) James Langille Sunny Brae Pictou County.
Surely there must be a bit of common sense involved here in assessing the priorities of this type of legislation. Some time ago there was a statistical analysis saying that most murders in Canada were committed in the kitchen. Probably the Minister of Justice ought to consider abolishing kitchens; that might help the situation.
There is another school of thought which says that if guns are dangerous, so are knives and so is gunpowder, One could go on to ludicrous lengths, and I do not intend to do that tonight in suggesting dangerous objects that might

March 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
be restricted,-but I do want to say to the Minister of Justice that I hope he will take the type of approach he took when the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario and other concerned people pointed out to him some of the dangers implicit in unduly restricting, in the name of bureaucratic convenience, some of the privileges and some of the rights of his fellow citizens. I think it was the proposed section 440 of the criminal law amendments bill where in the name of bureaucratic convenience it was proposed to do away with some pretty fundamental procedural rights enjoyed by people charged under the law. As I remember it, the minister was going to waive to quite an extent the safe-guards to an accused having to do with procedural rules of court, and he had this section sandwiched in between a section dealing with preserving order and dealing with the public trial of juveniles. I know he did not do it on purpose, but it was a fundamental loss of privilege, and to the credit of the minister, he realized that and withdrew it.
The type of legislation, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) pointed out, which is most needed does not even appear in this package, and that has to do with problems involving the use of hard drugs, the concept of rehabilitation, and doing something about the inordinately high rate of crime in which, unfortunately, native people find themselves involved. These are the types of things that the government ought to be concerned about, and I find it passing strange that it is placing such a priority on guns at this particular time.
I suggest that the government ought to be more concerned about the feelings of Canadians who right now are being confronted with a bewildering variety of bureaucrats, such as the statistician at Statistics Canada who can threaten-with some justification because of that legislation,-that he can put people in jail if they do not give him statistics. Also people are confronted with another type of bureaucrat, the man who comes along and demands to see their books for income tax purposes, and countless other types of the species who are empowered to encroach upon the privacy of people.
There are all kinds of bureaucrats in this country, and Canadians are beginning to resent them more and more. I suggest that in this case what Canadians are most concerned about is the fact that they are getting foisted on them another type of procedure which will interfere with something they consider pretty basic, owning a gun, and I say with all respect that that is not necessary.
I for one have a pretty healthy skepticism of the motives of the government in bringing forward this type of legislation at this time. As far as I am concerned its record in fostering or promoting the well-being of our country leaves much to be desired. The very term peace and security is a semantic trick. I always thought peace and security were the function of our armed forces. If the government wants to give us peace and security in the true national sense it will pay more attention to our defence needs, otherwise we will have the kind of peace and security they have in Russia and Cuba. I suggest it get down to the business of law and order. That is what we are talking about tonight, not peace and security.

When you look at the government's record, and its responsibility for protecting people's peace and security and rights, it is interesting to look at other legislation. Let us look at the Federal Court Act, Mr. Speaker. There is an interesting provision, a fairly recent one, in section 41(2) which says:
When a minister of the Crown certifies to any court by affidavit that the production or discovery of a document or its contents would be injurious to international relations, national defence or security, or to federal-provincial relations, or that it would disclose a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada-
That is interesting.
-discovery and production shall be refused without any examination of the document by the court.
This is a fairly new phenomenon. It used to require a judicial act; at least the court or judge had a right to look at the document and decide whether the Crown's representations were sufficient to stop production of the document. It is a strictly fundamental right-we no longer have it!
Let us look at another type of security for a certain type of Canadian. Take the 15,000, 16,000 or 17,000 people in the RCMP who are subject to the dictates-and I use the word advisedly-of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and regulations. I have had occasion recently to look into the circumstances involved in the discharge of two RCMP veterans who were supposed all of a sudden to be unsuitable after 20 years of the highest type of service. They were discharged under regulation 173 and I think there is a good possibility they were erroneously discharged. But regulation 155 reads:
Where the discharge of a member other than an officer is ordered the commanding officer of the member shall cause a discharge board to be convened.
This was never done in the case of Messrs. McCleery and Brunet. Instead they were tossed down the garbage chute under regulation 173 which provides, the way the minister interprets it that all of a sudden a person can be declared unsuitable and be thrown out of a force he served with distinction for 20 years. This type of conduct does not give me much confidence when considering legislation like that before us, and the motives of the Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: How will these rules and regulations regarding the use of guns by ordinary Canadians be interpreted? How many bureaucrats will it take to interpret them? When this bill goes to committee, and I shall certainly vote to send it there, I hope we will find a way to simplify the provisions and make them more equitable. If that is not done it will cause many Canadians to become law breakers. People who have not broken the law before will, I think, refuse to accept the type of regulation that I see embedded in this bill.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan) had some interesting things to say when he commented on the wire tape provisions in the bill. It seems to me the Minister of Justice would be ill-advised to hurry to change these provisions as they now exist.
I understand that the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice have had occasion to study the national commis-
March 9, 1976

sion for the review of federal and state laws relating to wire tapping and electronic surveillance in the United States, and some mention may be made of these as the days go by in regard to the provisions of these proposed laws in the United States.
It seems to me that people who say that wire tapping is some kind of panacea or some great solution for controlling the activities of the criminal element are exaggerating. I think it is a valuable tool but I do not think the extension of the power merits the consequent menacing of civil rights that this implies. It seems to me that the judiciary must be relied upon to a greater and greater extent in supervising application under this type of legislative application, and indeed in supervising and taking part in the whole structure of law and order as they used to do.
The position of judges today is being eroded. There is no question about that. It seems to me that a judge is about the only one in our system whose only mandate it is to do the right thing. Sometimes politicians cannot do it for political reasons; sometimes lawyers cannot do it because of certain pressures so judges are the persons to whom the average Canadian looks to protect his civil liberties. When the Minister of Justice or anyone else starts to undermine a judge's discretion by introducing the concept of mandatory sentences, even in a small way, it makes me uneasy. You do not have to be a judge to hear a guilty plea and give a mandatory sentence. Anyone could do that.
The way the parole system works now pretty well isolates the judge. I am sure many a competent justice or magistrate agonized over what he considers an appropriate sentence for a particular case, has given what he considers a fair verdict and much to his surprise when going down the street a few months later, meets the person he sentenced to a term of several years.
Surely there must be some way that judges can be brought closer to the parole board in reassessing whether it is appropriate to allow the criminals they have sentenced to be put back on the street. I think the minister should address himself to this.
There is one other thing I should like to suggest to the minister tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I say it without malice and I mean no harm to the Solicitor General either. One of the most interesting things the minister could do in gathering together the elements of law enforcement in this country and the reassessment and readjustment of the judicial and police processes, would be to be less concerned about abolishing capital punishment and more concerned about abolishing the office of solicitor general altogether. That is not an original idea. I am looking back some years at things that were said and the warnings given by a former minister of justice.
In the Toronto Star of December 22, 1965, a former minister of justice, Davie Fulton, was quoted as saying when the Solicitor General's department was taken out of the Department of Justice: It would be far more likely under the new setup that an RCMP report would never get to the Department of Justice.
That is from a former and respected minister of justice in those days who made the prediction of trouble ahead. Another former minister of justice, the former minister of finance who has recently resigned from this place, also had
Measures Against Crime
misgivings about the duality of responsibility between the Ministry of Justice and the office of the Solicitor General. He must have felt, as I do, that it is rather incongruous that the Attorney General of Canada, the chief legal adviser to the government, does not have direct command of the national police force.
In an old newspaper article entitled "Justice Department-How to Re-Create the Image" there are a few very interesting quotes which I should like to put on the record.
For decades, justice was one of the prime seats of power in Ottawa, the justice portfolio ranked second only to the prime minister's job; the minister who held the post had political power and prestige almost unmatched in the federal government.
I think this is particularly vital at this time when public confidence in the administration of justice is, to put it charitably, pretty well shaken. The article continues;
Then something happened. Justice went into a nosedive from which it still has not recovered.
This article appeared in 1969 and there is no reason to believe that justice has made any great strides since then. It continues:
The decline began during the late fifties and early sixties.
The article then refers to some of the factors.
... the damaging involvement of two Liberal justice ministers in the scandals of the mid sixties. The late Guy Favreau left the post under a cloud as a result of the Rivard affair.
It goes on to trace the history and points out that during his brief stint as minister of justice the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) managed to swing the spotlight back on his portfolio by putting through controversial and very famous amendments to the Criminal Code.
The article goes on to say that Mr. Turner, then minister of justice, had several new bills he would like to bring before the Commons. It states what they were. The article continues:
So he's turning his attention to re-establishing justice as a power centre of government-"putting the department back in the ball game", as he calls it.
That is interesting. In 1969 the then minister of justice wanted to put his department back in the ballgame. Instead, he recently left the ballpark. I wonder if that frustration had anything to do with his decision to go. The feeling in the department at that time was that the minister was making some progress. Obviously that was not the case.
I want to say again that this is something the Minister of Justice ought to consider very seriously. He ought to ask himself whether, in billing this piece of legislation as part of a so-called peace and security package, he can honestly do that in conjunction with a minister, however honest and sincere in his feelings, who differs philosophically from him. It is said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. It seems that the Department of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General are pretty well divided against themselves. As these articles point out, justice has lost control over many of the functions that once made it a vital and prestigious department.
The portfolio of Solicitor General has as it its present incumbent a minister who has said unequivocally that he

March 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
cannot live with capital punishment. What happens if the capital punishment legislation does not turn out the way the Solicitor General wants it? Will he resign? If that is the case, the Minister of Justice will have to break in a new sidekick. He should seriously suggest to the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues that he draw back into his portfolio the Solicitor General's duties. If there is an extra cabinet slot around, probably the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) could use it to create a ministry of air. He needs more help in transport than the Minister of Justice, capable as he is, needs in administering justice, as difficult a job as that may be.
I urge the minister to consider changing in committee, along the lines suggested so ably by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), some of the unnecessary and counter-productive things presently contained in his rather cumbersome legislation. I urge him to give a lot of thought to the very fine speech made by the hon. member for New Westminster. He pointed out very dramatically some of the deficiencies in this legislation in the sense that it overlooks completely some of the relevant things that should logically be a much higher priority than interfering with the rights of people, particularly those in rural areas who want to continue having rifles and shotguns which, for the most part, they use very sensibly. In many cases they are essential tools to shoot vermin. They use these guns for purposes which no one, by the remotest stretch of the imagination, could say was a menace to law-abiding citizens.
If a person wishes to commit an act of violence, he does not need a gun. Also, there is no guarantee that if a commissioner of official feels that a person is entitled to have a gun by reason of his present sanity that he may not within a couple of weeks turn into a depraved maniac.
A couple of amendments to the Criminal Code with very minor penalties, at least initially, would have the desired effect of encouraging law-abiding people to register their guns, in a more conscientious way then at present. That is all that is needed.


An hon. Member:: It is not in the bill.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: No, but it certainly could be in the bill. The authorities would then know where any guns happen to be at any given moment and who had them. It is ridiculous to try to equate a trade-off in two separate philosophical areas and set this off to the Canadian people as some kind of tit for tat arrangement, gun control for abolition of the death penalty.
If we should abolish capital punishment, fine, but let us debate it. If we should do certain things to rehabilitate prisoners, let us consider that. If we should regulate guns, let us consider that. However, let us not have a dishonest and semantic practice where something is done in order to compensate for doing something else. That is absolutely dishonest.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Deliberately.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Yes, probably deliberately as a calculated measure. If the minister will let the committee have a long time to study this legislation and permit people from a broad spectrum of society to present their views and opin-

ions, he will eventually become convinced that he is, as I said, hunting squirrels with an elephant gun. He does not need this regressive and restrictive legislation to accomplish that which should be a very laudable objective. Instead, what he has done is arouse a lot of needless alarm, cause a lot of hard feelings and worry among decent law-abiding citizens who have never broken the law in their lives and never will, unless they get caught as a result of some stupid legislative procedure.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate on the peace and security legislation brought in by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), as it is an honour to be a sitting member of the Thirtieth Parliament, a parliament that has been highlighted by controversial but progressive legislation.
All members of this House know that there is a growing public concern about the rising number of firearms incidents in Canada. Statistics show that from one year to the next there are more murders, armed robberies, suicides and accidents than the previous year. In 1974 almost 1,500 Canadians were killed from the use of firearms, an increase of over 30 per cent since 1970. Statistics also show that our population has not increased by 30 per cent. Therefore there has been an actual growth of death from gunshot wounds outside of our normal population increase.
During the same time period, 1974, firearms were used in half of Canada's 543 murders and in 30 per cent of Canada's 15,000 robberies. This, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable, not only to this House but also to the majority of Canadians who are appalled at the indiscriminate use of firearms. Canadian people have asked the government for remedial legislation and I congratulate the Minister of Justice for providing that leadership to bring in tough, but rational legislation to make this country of ours a better place for all of us. As all hon. members know, Canada has had strict controls for many years regarding handguns. In this class of weapons, Canada's record is excellent.
I would like to curtail my remarks regarding the peace and security measures to gun control since my constituency is primarily a rural constituency and the proposed legislation will have a very direct impact on the riding of Comox-Alberni. I might say that the Minister of Justice is aware of this and has hunted in this area.
First, let me state that we in the government realize that long rifles or shotguns are not lethal themselves; it is the person pulling the trigger who may be dangerous, and the proposed legislation deals with the user of the firearm rather than with the firearm itself. This is a correct assessment, in my opinion, and therefore I support the licensing of the individual and not the registration of firearms as the most rational way of dealing with the prevention of abuse of rifles and shotguns.
U.S. studies suggest death is at least five times as likely in an incident involving a gun as opposed to some other weapon. If the government seeks a reduction in the level of firearm violence, it cannot simply be obtained by punishing severely those who are responsible for firearm incidents but a program must be initiated, preventive in nature, to screen out those people who are potentially
March 9, 1976

dangerous or irresponsible, judging from their past histories.
We as a government cannot provide unrestricted access to a means of destruction any longer, and if this is seriously questioned then our whole policy must fail. We must pursue the philosophy of reducing the misuse of firearms. Not one hon. member of this House would suggest that an 8-year old child should be given the care and custody of a rifle since we are all aware that a child of that age does not have the background to operate a weapon safely. Using the example of a child may appear far-fetched. However, we know there are people who are mentally incapable of possessing firearms with any degree of responsibility, yet up to this date we have made no provision for those who are mentally handicapped. We also know that in each of our communities there are people who, because of their aggressive nature, are a danger to their families and neighbours if they are allowed weapons during a moment of rage. To state otherwise would be a complete abrogation of the situation as we know it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: "Abrogation of the situation"? What does that mean?


Hugh Alan Anderson: There are people in our society who are not responsible. By the same token, hon. members of this House would in no way give an absolute right to any Canadian to operate a motor vehicle, knowing there are many people in our society who cannot handle this responsibility.
The right to possess or own a firearm is not an inviolate law of God carved in stone. Rights imply responsibility, and those who do not have sufficient responsibility should not have such rights.
I would like briefly to review the thrust of the government's legislation and comment on the different aspects of this legislation as they affect the average Canadian citizen's use and control of firearms. First, the federal government will attempt to collect guns that are not being used, and encourage Canadians to turn them in. This seems to be an eminently reasonable stance for the government to take since it is well known that many pistols, rifles, and shotguns are passed on from one generation to another, whether there is a need for them or not. Firearms kept in many homes in this country have parts missing, or are slightly damaged and will probably never be used. But the danger still exists that either someone in the family or someone outside the family may be injured or killed by these unwanted firearms, due entirely to the proximity of these weapons during a family argument or, as so often happens with weapons which are left unattended, because children become involved with them.
I understand the government will back up this campaign with a media educational effort and I trust this will be an on-going process, not merely a campaign of one or two months' duration. I believe it is important to carry on gun education on a full time basis in order that we attain a responsible citizenry well aware of the dangers of the uncontrolled use of firearms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Measures Against Crime


Hugh Alan Anderson: The government's position of eliminating certain weapons from the Canadian scene, for example, Saturday night specials, long guns which have been sawed off, and fully automatic weapons, should be supported, and it is my understanding that this legislation will prohibit their use in Canada. As well, tighter controls will be exercised over the manufacture and importation of firearms into Canada. I applaud the intention to issue permits to manufacturers, wholesalers and importers of weapons.
One of the greatest fears felt by my constituents is that the federal government will either restrict the use of long rifles to an extent that would be unacceptable to them or, second, that we in government would abolish their use totally. Registration of long guns, with all the bureaucratic red tape involved, was not seen as a solution to the restriction of firearms by my constituents. I was personally very pleased that the government did not take the bureaucratic route but that it chose the sensible route, not of registering firearms but of licensing the individual.
We are all aware that in order to drive a motor vehicle a licence is required, and this licence is obtained by achieving a certain level of competence on the road. This does not guarantee that everyone who has a driver's licence will behave in a responsible manner. However, it does guarantee that an individual has attained a certain level of competence before being allowed to operate a motor vehicle on the highway. The stand the government has taken with respect to the ownership of firearms is very similar. Basically our position is that if one is competent to own a firearm, then the number of firearms owned is not important. It is the stress on the original licence, showing competence to own a firearm in the first place, in which the government is interested. A federal firearm licence will be required by anyone who owns a firearm, whether he be a hunter, skeet-shooter, or for whatever reason he wishes to own a gun. Persons who have a history of violent behaviour or of drug or alcohol abuse, or mental instability, will not be able to obtain a licence to possess firearms or ammunition. I applaud this measure. As I stated earlier, it is my sincere belief that the weapon itself is not dangerous, but that it is the person who pulls the trigger who can be potentially dangerous.
An application for a federal licence to own firearms will require certification by two guarantors drawn from an approved class of persons-similar to the requirements for Canadian passport applications-who will be required to certify that they know of no reason why the applicant is unfit to possess a gun or ammunition. The application would then be considered by a licensing officer or a registrar of firearms and, if approved, the licence would be issued for a period of five years. The system will be administered by the province and the RCMP, and will be totally self-financed with licence fees set at a level sufficient to cover costs.
I must also commend the government on its provisions governing the revocation of licences: reasons will be provided in writing and a right of appeal to a court of law will exist. The concept of licensing the individual rather than the firearms will, I believe, be accepted by the majority of hunters and participants in gun clubs, as they realize better than anyone else that restricting the use of guns to the responsible segment of our community is not only

March 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
desirable but a necessity in order that law-abiding citizens can continue to enjoy the use of long guns or shot guns. They, above all other citizens, realize that continued abuse of gun ownership would only result in a decline of their freedom, freedom they rightly cherish, and a right they should continue to enjoy as a result of their responsibility.
I realize that the section dealing with the age requirements for obtaining a licence is going to cause a certain amount of controversy, and that the provision that only those of 18 years of age will be able to obtain a firearm licence will be viewed as excessively restrictive, especially to rural areas. I also realize there is a special permit that can be obtained by minors over 14 for target shooting, game hunting, and instruction in the use of firearms; but there again that in itself may be unduly restrictive in rural communities.
I believe that the bill may be better served if a further clause were added to provide that children under the age of 18, with parental approval and when accompanied by an adult, could obtain a special permit without any restriction upon age. This special permit could then be modified so as not to allow for the purchase of firearms or ammunition and could only be used for purposes of target shooting, game hunting or instruction in the use of firearms. I hope the minister will take this into consideration as discussion of this bill proceeds.
Under the new law, Mr. Speaker, in order to implement the licensing aspect of this legislation all dealers in firearms will require a permit to engage in such a business. It is my understanding that this permit will be issued only when the registrar is satisfied that the dealer meets conditions specified in regulations; for example, that the dealer's premises are secure and the firearms and ammunition themselves are secure. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, surely those people who are opposing this legislation cannot oppose a simple, straightforward, and logical situation which requires a dealer in firearms to have a secure premises. We should have had this requirement years ago, yet I have not heard one word said on items in this bill that I think we all agree are necessary and long overdue.
This will impose a certain hardship upon the gun and ammunition dealer since he will also be required to keep a record of all firearm and ammunition transactions in order to ensure that these transactions take place only with valid licence holders. This, of course, is going to be an imposition upon the small businessmen across Canada who are engaged in this type of business. Knowing this I can only comment that the inconvenience of recording these transactions are less severe than a total abolition of guns and ammunition. The present mood of the country is such that without this type of legislation the sale of firearms and ammunition conceivably could have been banned by this parliament.
The government's attempt to ensure that both buyer and seller are responsible is important but is only one half of the answer. Responsibility of those qualifying will not end with the issuing of a permit or licence. Those who possess firearms must use them with all due care for the safety not only of themselves but of those around them. The owner of a gun must take reasonable precaution in its use, carriage,

handling or storage, and will now be liable to prosecution if those reasonable precautions are not taken.
This is again very similar to licensing an individual to operate a motor vehicle. The licence is not an absolute right, and the prosecution and conviction of a person operating a motor vehicle in a negligent manner are well understood in our society, especially by some of the lawyers on the other side of the House. Penalties for the owners who fail to take reasonable precautions in the use of a weapon should necessarily follow, just as negligent driving results in penalties to the owner of a motor vehicle. If there is disagreement with that, Mr. Speaker, then we had better go back to square one and to the law of negligence as it applies to motor vehicles. As I said earlier, I hope a right also carries with it a responsibility.
To those gun owners who may object to this part of the legislation, I would only bring their attention to what they have been saying, which is do not impose penalties on the responsible sector of our community or society. To this I say amen. What the gun clubs have not said is that that responsibility extends to the home and to the storage of these weapons. This, I believe, is a logical step in the carrying and handling of a weapon since most of the time the weapon is in the home and not being used. It is therefore imperative that, during these long periods of time when the weapon is not being used, it should be stored in a safe manner. Again, Mr. Speaker, I feel that is common sense.
Another aspect of the gun control legislation is the proposed change to the Criminal Code that will allow the police to seize a firearm without a warrant if, in their opinion, it constitutes an imminent danger to the safety of some person. An excellent example of why this amendment to the Criminal Code has been introduced is the threatening situation that may arise, for example, if the police are called to a domestic dispute and discover a firearm on the premises. It takes no great amount of intelligence to realize that there is potential danger, and it would be an irresponsible police officer who did not take appropriate action. We are now giving him discretionary power to do so.
Under the old legislation the police were powerless to take action. Under the proposed new legislation the weapon could be seized in order to protect the individual or individuals involved in the domestic dispute. It is my understanding that upon seizure a hearing would be held in court to determine the disposition of such a weapon, depending on the circumstances. It might be returned, destroyed or disposed of, depending on the court's decision. Once again the courts are drawn into it but, as I say, I welcome the discretionary power that is given to the police.
This may be regarded by many Canadians as a step toward a dictatorial government relying upon discretion and not upon the commission of the act itself. It may be argued that this allows too much discrimination to the police, and that if an officer makes a bad decision then it is the law abiding citizen who suffers. By the same token it is ridiculous to allow a group of terrorists to accumulate a cache of weapons and the police have to wait until a crime or act of terrorism is under way before these weapons can be confiscated. I realize the problem of discretionary power given to the police. They can be wrong on occasion. How-
March 9, 1976

ever, the greater weight of evidence would show that most police officers are responsible, and if the seizure of weapons would prevent the loss of life then I think that most members of this parliament would accept the discretionary powers of the police in dangerous situations.
In discussing gun control I, as with other members of this House, must accept the reality that criminal conduct will continue. Criminals must be made aware that the use of a firearm in the conduct of a crime will be severely punished, something that has not been the case to date. The new legislation specifically provides that when a firearm crime does occur the courts must have the power to demonstrate society's repudiation of such conduct. To deter the use of offensive weapons in the commission of crimes a separate offence to this effect will be created.
A person convicted of using an offensive weapon while committing an indictable offence will be subject to imprisonment for at least one year and possibly up to 14 years, regardless of what sentence has been imposed for the actual commission of the crime itself. This in itself should deter criminals from using firearms in the commission of a crime; if it does not, then what will result are longer sentences for criminals using weapons. I believe that this is a realistic step and I applaud the minister for his recognition of this very important fact of criminal life. We all deplore organized crime in our country, and all Canadians, including members of this House, will applaud laws to toughen the law.
In summary, I support the gun control legislation included in the peace and security measures of this legislation. To those who oppose this gun control legislation I say, what are the alternatives? Our society is based on the rights of the individual and the responsibilities of the individual. If, in society, use and ownership of firearms are permitted, such rights must be given with responsibilities attached to them.
For too long we have skirted the issue of gun control. Our neighbour to the south is an example of what can happen when gun control is not enforced. I do not think that we, in this country, want to restrict the use of firearms by law abiding, responsible segments of our communities; on the other hand we wish to restrict the ownership and use of firearms on the part of those not mentally competent, or those who, in their day to day life, have shown themselves to be not responsible. The present gun control legislation will not solve all our country's problems to do with weapons; but certainly it is a significant step forward in making sure that only those who are socially responsible will possess weapons.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to participate in this debate. Since the opening remarks I have listened to it with interest. Let me tell the members of this House, and those who can make any sense of this complex legislation, that its deterrent effect, which is what the government intends, will be negligible.
This House again is being subjected to debate on legislation which divides this great nation. We are debating an emotional issue, misunderstood by too many, but only too
Measures Against Crime
well understood by serious thinking Canadians who find this legislation abhorrent.
This is another example of the deceit and deception the government practises for achieving yet unknown goals. Surely we should discourage the practice of introducing controversial legislation in omnibus form. If the government were sure of its ground, the gun law would be introduced by itself. The government would have tried to sell it to the Canadian people on its merits. But the legislation has no merits. The gun control provisions are part of Bill C-83, and to secure passage the government was forced to introduce it in its present form. Members like myself favour certain portions of the bill. Yet because I cannot support one provision I may be forced to vote against the entire bill. That situation is reprehensible.
The minister knows that not all of Bill C-83 is controversial. Many members can accept and support much of Bill C-83. Why then is it in omnibus form? The reason is simply fear.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) for moving an amendment to sever the 39 pages of the bill to do with gun control from the remainder of the bill consisting only of amendments to existing law. Moving that motion demonstrates the concern of this party in attempting to debate, analyze, and come to reasonable and sensible conclusions on gun control legislation. We do not want to be under the stigma of having been influenced by the issues in the remainder of Bill C-83. We in this party believe certain gun control measures ought to be taken and are long overdue. In my opinion there is a more sensible and reasonable approach to the control of guns than is demonstrated in this bill.
No one denies the sincerity with which both ministers approached this subject. Yet all must agree that they are naive. What is the intent of Bill C-83? As presently constituted, it will require the registration of all firearms known, or prescribed, as restricted weapons. It will require the registration by licence of every gun. The provision will apply to all guns other than restricted guns. But the existing law-I am not talking of Bill C-83 but of law which has existed up to the time of the introduction of Bill C-83- contains provision for registration of sidearms. Guns with barrels shorter than 26 inches are illegal.
The present law does not deal specifically with exotic weapons, which are usually in the possession of private gun collectors who have owned them for years, usually because they served in the armed forces of Canada in one of the last two great wars. These are rifles which have sentimental value beyond evaluation. Some have been in families from one generation to another. This bill will make such rifles, by reason of their function, either prohibited or restricted weapons. None of these weapons has ever been used in the commission of a felony. Now they are on the restricted list.
Sidearms are the most commonly used weapons in the commission of crime. They are available, and have been for years, on demand. The underworld has never experienced difficulty in obtaining whatever weapons it needed when it needed them. The weakness in the law has been that, on arrest and conviction for possession of an illegal sidearm, the penalty has been a small fine and, in some cases, a slap on the wrist with a suspended sentence.

March 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
Instead of licensing sport shotguns and sporting rifles, which are legal game guns, we need stiffer penalties for illegal possession of restricted or prohibited guns. In other words, guns which are today known as restricted, namely, sidearms or weapons which can be fired with one hand, should carry an automatic penalty of five years in prison for illegal possession.
A Canadian should be able to own an exotic gun. If a free thinking Canadian attaches symbolic or sentimental value to that device, he should be able to register it and commit it to a place in his or her residence. The address can be known to the police. Removal of that weapon from its registered address should become an offence, unless authorization is obtained. The government need merely publish a list of restricted and prohibited weapons and request the people of Canada to register these weapons. Failure to comply within a certain time frame should become a serious offence. Compliance would be as under Bill C-83, but the provisions of such law would not challenge the law-abiding Canadian's right to own any number of sporting guns under penalty of a registration fee.
The premise that guns are responsible for so many homo-cides is most irresponsible. So are knives, fists, face towels, and hair brushes responsible for homocides. Is the government to ban all these? Ridiculous, you say. Sure it is. But to say that a registered weapon in a home will never be used in homocide is equally stupid. The problem of homocides in society is not that of guns per se. It is the people who use them, and for what purpose. Registration does not get at the reason for using a gun-


An hon. Member:: Why do you say "registration"?


William Skoreyko: Registration or licensing. Whoever the member is, if he ever owned a gun he would know that licensing is registration. Registration does not get at the reason for using a gun contrary to law. Anxiety, the struggle to keep one's head above financially troubled waters, lead to behaviour patterns we have experienced in recent years. What causes these undesirable behaviour patterns that confuse and compound the problem? The answer is taxation, double taxation as practised by this government, and simply the cost to the wage earner of earning a dollar. Then there is inflation which is the root of family problems in Canada, indeed in the world. The breadwinner works his guts out to better himself and his family, only to find that he is a little short in every pay cheque each month.
Also there is materialism. There is a tendency on the part of younger people in our society to start off a marriage at the top, something that traditionally has taken people of my generation years to accomplish. Sometimes it was never achieved in terms of the amenities upon which one may have targeted. However, that is life. One should set a pace, a pattern for achievement, material and professional. Too many times today we find, because certain projected goals have not been reached in time or seem out of reach, drastic steps have been taken to end it all in a "what's the use" sort of attitude. Government can play a role in easing the burden on society by relaxing controls-less government, not more.

Bill C-83 represents more controls, unnecessary controls, unworkable controls, expensive controls, and controls which can only be described as subversive. If you disarm the populace as was done in Hitler's time, in Stalin's time, and in Ireland, you leave the people at the mercy of unscrupulous politicians. Why do I say this, Mr. Speaker? The evidence is clear.
What kind of bureaucracy will it take to administer the gun control act? Will it take a bureaucracy of 50, 100 or 500 people? What will the cost be to the taxpayer? Since it is clear that the government wants this law to be self-supporting, what fees will be charged for the registration of a gun? What will be the cost of registering all guns? What sort of bureaucracy will be established?
Will it be a bureaucracy like the Anti-Inflation Board in respect of which it was said that no more than 200 people would be required to administer it? The figure is now nearly 500. Mr. Pepin says he will worry when the number goes over that figure.
The price of the Anti-inflation Board is no more than its worth to date, which is nothing. Is the same thing to happen in respect of this new branch of the Department of the Solicitor General? Will there be an additional 500 to 1,000 people; will there be another indirect tax, another intrusion into the Canadian way of life, and another step which will bring the government closer to defeat?
In recent years a burdensome, progressive or graduated income tax has been introduced. The government has abolished the right of inheritance. It has controlled the means of communication and indeed of transportation. The year 1968, by specious argument, contributed to the breakdown of moral virtues, honesty, sobriety, self-restraint, and the pioneering spirit. The government has attempted to shift people's minds off government by focusing their attention on the now infamous imposition of the War Measures Act, the Languages Act, the attack on the business community, wage and price controls, and the outburst in respect of the Quebec premier last week end. Mr. Speaker, what about that outburst?


An hon. Member:: What about the bill?


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is about the junior members of the caucus over there that makes them think that anything we on this side of the House say is not good.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member address his remarks to Bill C-83.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing my remarks specifically to Bill C-83. I am trying to point out, for the benefit of those who do not know, the direction in which we are moving. The outburst in Quebec over the week end was referred to by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) simply as kibitzing on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We do not have to be told that he is a kibitzer. We knew that in 1968. When we have things such as the introduction in this House of the War Measures Act, wage and price controls and the statements during the 1974 election that wage and price controls were not good for Canadians, it is evident that only a kibitzer could be that phony.
March 9, 1976	_______COMMONS DEBATES	__ ____ 11651


Mr. Benjamin:: You voted for those things.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may have tried to fool some English-speaking Canadians of this country, particularly westerners, by what he said in Quebec, but he will not succeed because the Liberal Party knows that his usefulness to that party has come to an end and in the next election the Liberals will enter the election campaign with a new leader.
Worst of all, Mr. Speaker, is what has happened in recent times in this House. The government has attempted to cast a shadow over the judiciary. This is unforgivable. We had the OFY and the CYC. We saw the corruption of the young. We saw them move away from religion and to an interest in sex, alcohol and drugs. Finally we have the registration of firearms on the pretext of elimination of crime in our society, with a further view to their confiscation which would leave our society defenceless. This, to me, smacks of a communist doctrine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, for the vociferous junior members of the caucus opposite let me say that the prospect of an authoritarian government in this country is not an impossibility. The Liberals have effectively controlled one out of the ten provinces for 50 years. Through that power base the judiciary is now regulated; publicity, television and the media are regulated. Transport is regulated, as are magazines. Wage and price controls are in place. In other words, with the passage of this bill the machinery for a demagogue, to be turned into a benevolent dictator, is in place.
The gun clubs of this country are concerned about this legislation. They have had competent solicitors analyze the bill. The message contained in this bill has been conveyed to them. The gun clubs have said that they will monitor the vote on this legislation, and will attempt to defeat at the next election any member of parliament who supports this measure. You know, as I know, Mr. Speaker, that they cannot achieve that end, but God bless them for having the guts to try.
As a Senator said not too long ago, let us start treating criminal as criminals-let us start by replacing bleeding heart cabinet ministers with ones who have enough courage to administer the law of the land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Skoreyko: Let us get away from the attitude that a criminal is an object of sympathy because he committed a crime and could be dealt with harshly. This attitude encourages crime, does nothing to curtail it. Let us not impose upon hundreds of thousands of law abiding Canadians a law which is punitive, unnecessary, and one that will create a bureaucracy that is uncontrolled, unbridled, and unforgiving in the administration of a law which requires citizens to register guns which play no part in the commitment of a crime but which denies the right of citizens to do something they have the right to do, namely, to own a firearm.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Measures Against Crime


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the wide variety of speeches I must conclude that it is a very fortunate thing that we do not carry guns into the House of Commons, otherwise we would have 264 by-elections within a very short time! I imagine that the strength of a democracy lies in the diversity of opinion on many subjects. We have certainly heard a real diversity of opinion with regard to gun control and the other aspects of the bill before us.
The law and order legislation contained in Bill C-83 euphemistically called peace and security is the government's response to increasing crime and rampant violence in Canada and to the serious fears with regard to personal security in the minds of most Canadians today. The five areas dealt with in the bill, namely, gun control, dangerous offenders, parole, electronic surveillance, and special crime commissions are but a tip of the iceberg approach to achieve a society free of fear, safe and secure. The legislation is a reaction to problems rather than an action. It is a response rather than an approach to problems.
What is needed is action in three areas: the area of prevention, the area of detection, and the area of treatment, so that when persons are apprehended and convicted there should be treatment programs based on reformation and rehabilitation in order that when prisoners are released they can take their rightful place in the community.
Now I should like to speak briefly on the question of prevention. Let me say that the bill goes only a short distance with regard to prevention. We do not have legislation here with regard to drugs. I thought that my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt), and the lead-off spokesman for the Conservative party underlined very well the necessity for legislation dealing with hard drugs and the control of people who use them, because we have a very high rate of violent crimes among drug offenders. It is not only legislation that is needed, we also need programs.
Similarly, we do not have legislation and programs with regard to native people. We have heard comments from several hon. members, which is to their credit, emphasizing the need for programs with regard to the native people in Canada. They commented on the need for a change in attitude among them. It is not only necessary to have court workers and community centres. There is also a need for programs to give the native people a positive attitude and a direction within the community.
We also need legislation and programs to control the problem of child abuse, a problem of which we are increasingly more aware in Canada. When I hear of the federal and provincial governments cutting back on health and medical costs, this indicates to me a lack of appreciation of the growing problem of child abuse and of the necessity of having programs to control this problem and to assist in solving it.
I recall the time when, back in 1967, a bill was brought before us with regard to young offenders. This problem has been studied but there is no legislation, and there are no programs to deal with the problems of young offenders. One of the serious criticisms against the last bill on young offenders was directed at the lack of diagnostic and treatment centres. These are vitally important in order that any

March 9, 1976
Measures Against Crime
legislation with regard to young offenders may be effective.
We need legislation and programs on housing, on full employment, on energy, and on inflation, because it is in these areas that the government has been a tragic failure. It is the government which is to blame for the devastating stress and strain on the individual, on family life, and on community life. What we need is priority with regard to spending.
When I hear of the millions of dollars that have been spent on EXPO and the millions of dollars which we anticipate spending on the acquisition of new aircraft it makes me realize that our priorities are probably at fault. The indictment does not lie on the shoulders of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) or the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), but the indictment with regard to the problems of violence and fear lies on all of us. As Canadians we have failed miserably in bringing forth social programs to help solve these problems.
May I direct the attention of members to the problems of violence today, because the violence which we are experiencing in our society is putting fear into the minds of the people, a fear which must be combatted. I recall the statement of the late President Roosevelt who said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. We have this problem of fear with regard to violence.
I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to the evidence given by Professor Greenland before the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare when he set forth some of the research that he has done on violence. Professor Greenland is a professor in social work at McMaster University. He specialized for the past seven years in research concerning violence. He spoke about some of the results of his study and he said that he had studied five different groups-one a group of 100 persons who have committed violent crimes against persons but have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, plus another group detained in Ontario mental hospitals who were found unfit to stand trial. These were serious offences that were committed by these people, offences such as murder, manslaughter and other serious crimes, often involving children.
The second group which he studied was composed of 100 persons who are inmates of penitentiaries and were found guilty of the same offences, namely, murder, manslaughter, and crimes involving children.
The third group was composed of 96 people currently incarcerated as dangerous sexual offenders.
The fourth group were people involved in murder followed by suicide. He pointed out that in Ontario in the last five years 65 individuals murdered, usually their children, then their spouses, and then destroyed themselves. He made a particular study with regard to that.
The final area he studied was the problem of child abuse.
There were four conclusions he reached about the problem of violence which were sent to the committee. The first conclusion was that there is a tremendous overlap in all these groups. In other words, the same people and the same members of families appear in each of the five studies, and

even though violence takes on many manifestations and appears in many different forms, in many cases it involves the same individuals and the same families. That was one striking point.
The second striking point was that almost all the individuals studied had a common experience of severe deprivation in childhood. They were victims of inadequate child welfare and health services which failed to provide them with a basic system of care and protection. He pointed out that this severe deprivation in childhood is a cycle of deprivation which is passed on from one generation to another, with a multiplying effect with regard to violence and abuse within our society.
His third observation was that between one third and one half of violent criminal cases involve alcohol and drug abuse. His fourth was that in one half of all cases involved there was an adequate warning through help-seeking behaviour. In other words, people with mental conditions or mothers who were operating under great stress attempted to acquire help before an offence was committed; there was a failure in providing the proper health and mental care, and the result was that these people committed serious offences.
He underlined the programs which are necessary to deal with the environmental stresses of poor housing, poverty, and unemployment, and the necessity of having research to identify problems and to set forth programs to meet the problem of violence today.
If there is one thing the Minister of Justice should do it is to pay heed to the findings of Professor Greenland and other men within society who have made particular studies with regard to violence, because violence is the base and the rock bottom of many of our problems today. It is the rock bottom with regard to the fears people have, and the rock bottom with regard to the resultant actions.
When I consider the matter of gun control, which is dealt with in this bill, I notice that the main purpose of the gun control legislation is to control the availability of guns, to promote increased public responsibility in relation to firearms, and to increase the penalties for the use of guns during the commission of offences.
Right here and now I should like to give credit to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) who set forth tonight in detail his views with regard to gun control in Canada. He is to be credited for this because it was a detailed explanation.
One of the problems which besets most Canadians is the availability of guns. It is really shocking how easy it is to obtain a firearm. When we consider the figures involved we realize that guns claim one half of our murdered victims, that murders committed with the use of firearms in 1970 amounted to 178, whereas in 1974 they amounted to 272, that one third of Canada's 2,500 suicide victims clearly died as a result of the use of fireams, and that over 100 accidental deaths were caused by the use of firearms. Is it any wonder that we are reaping a whirlwind of violence when we have the availability of guns which exists today?
I am sure that I and most of the hon. members in my party welcome the licensing of persons and limitations on the use of guns by young people. I think the licensing provisions for five year periods are a step in the right

March 9, 1976

direction because having a gun must be a privilege and not a right, and in order to obtain a gun surely people should be able to prove their fitness, should be able to comply with the fitness test, plus produce the recommendation of guarantors with regard to their fitness to have a gun. That is only right and proper.
The expansion of the registration of restricted weapons, which will include pistols, automatic guns, sawed off guns, and Saturday night specials, is welcome, and so is the requirement of a test. The test is the protection of life, but allows the lawful occupation, authorized target shooting, and bona fide collecting. I could not agree more with the expansion with regard to registered guns because it was pointed out very effectively by the hon. member for New Westminster yesterday that in Canada only 10 per cent of murders are committed with registered firearms, whereas in the United States where they do not have registration of firearms more than 50 per cent of all murders are committed with firearms.
I hope that the three year phasing in period concerning licensing, educational programs, and research programs can be stepped up so that all Canadians can become fully aware of the problem.
When I hear some hon. members speak about the unwieldy and bureaucratic procedures which may be adopted for licensing guns I am inclined to think that they are nit picking and failing to recognize that the main purpose of the legislation is to control the availability of guns and to impose responsibility upon the public with regard to firearms. I hope that the licensing provisions will bring with them the necessity of a competency test, because every hunting season there are senseless deaths because of the incompetence of people who have control of guns. This not only applies with regard to the hunting season but also with regard to the accidental deaths which occur in homes.
It seems to me that the Minister of Justice and the committee should study the approach which has been adopted in England where there are strict requirements concerning licensing and registration, because here in Canada there is a sharp difference between people who own guns in the city and people who own guns in the country. I am led to believe that in England people who have guns, live in cities, and belong to gun clubs, obtain their licenses, and their guns are kept at gun clubs. They are not permitted to be taken home and left in closets or other places in the home, something which increases the availability of guns and the possibility of their misuse. I think we should give that some study and give it a try. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) said in the House of Commons on November 18, 1975, that members of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and I quote:
... who are not themselves known terrorists are not denied ministerial permits. They require them and they are granted when the person concerned is invited by a reputable Canadian organization and if the visit is to be a short and specific period.
In other words the policy of the government as stated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration last November 18 was that PLO members who were known terrorists would not be granted ministerial permits to enter Canada for any reason or any purpose.
However, on December 22, 1975, Canada entered into an agreement with the United Nations regarding arrangements for Habitat, the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, planned to take place in Vancouver later this year. Article II of the agreement says that "participation should be open to the following upon invitation or designation by the Secretary General". It goes on to list not only article 11(A) "Representatives of States", but also article 11(E) "Observers from national liberation movements and organizations entitled to participate in the conference". The latter would include the PLO.
Article XVII of that agreement states:
All participants referred to in article II above and all other persons performing functions in connection with the conference, who are not nationals of Canada, shall be granted visas and entry permits, where required, free of charge and as speedily as possible, so as to permit the applicant to participate in the conference without undue inconvenience.
There is no reservation whatsoever by Canada in this agreement of the right to exclude anyone listed in article 11(E), even on the grounds that they are known terrorists and therefore clearly ineligible for entry into Canada under Canadian immigration law and the government's policy for its administration.
But what about Bill C-85 which the House approved some weeks ago? This bill gave the Minister of Manpower and Immigration the authority to refuse to allow visitors into the country without first having formal deportation proceedings and without giving reasons for such exclusion. This bill applies for the period ending next December. But the bill states that the minister "may" use this authority; he is not bound to do so. It is at his discretion.
The minister's use of this discretion will obviously be subject to and limited by the commitment the government made to the United Nations last December 22 when it signed the agreement to hold Habitat in Canada. The wording of that agreement is such that it obliges the government to admit even those the government considers to be known terrorists if they are invited or designated by the Secretary General of the United Nations to attend. The clear words of the agreement seem to clash with the answer given by the government House leader to my question in the House on March 1 when, as Acting Prime Minister on that date, he said:
11654

March 9, 1976
Adjournment Debate
As far as I know, the Canadian government has never changed its view which was that we would admit observers from the PLO, but not known terrorists.
I therefore ask again, Mr. Speaker, as I did on March 1, how can the Canadian government, after signing the agreement with the United Nations last December, continue to say it will exclude from Canada members of the PLO who are known terrorists? That agreement obliges it to admit them when they are invited or designated by the United Nations Secretary General to attend Habitat.
Does not the signing of this agreement mean that to this extent the policy stated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration last November 18 has been changed by the government? Also, how and why has this been done without a word of explanation and justification by the government to parliament and the Canadian people?
A more complete answer to these questions would be of interest, I think, to the many Canadians who, like myself, want to see the Habitat conference held in Canada next summer but who do not believe that to do so it is necessary for the government to abandon completely Canadian sovereignty when it comes to enforcing our law as to who is admissible to our country.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister, and because of the illness of his parliamentary secretary, I have been asked to answer tonight to the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).

When the hon. member for Windsor West raised the question concerning the admittance of members of the PLO to the Habitat Conference to be held later this year in Vancouver, the Acting Prime Minister replied that, as far as he knew, the Canadian government has never changed its view, which was that we would admit observers from the PLO and other groups, but not known terrorists.
I wish to re-assure the hon. member that the government has not changed its policy in this regard and Bill C-85 reinforces, in fact, the government's position on exclusion of terrorists. It is important to point out that the hon. members agreed to Bill C-85. It passed all stages in this House in one day.
The agreement between Canada and the United Nations with respect to the Habitat Conference authorizes the Secretary General of the United Nations to invite observers from groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization. However, we reserve the right to refuse individual members should they be known terrorists.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-REASON FOR REFUSAL TO PERMIT AIR LINE EMPLOYEES TO PROSECUTE AIR CANADA
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on February 26 I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to say what criteria he used for withholding of the granting of consent pursuant to section 194 of Part V of the Canada Labour Code to CALEA to prosecute Air Canada and two of its officials. I became suspicious of the minister's proper use of his power when in 1973 he delayed giving his consent under the relevant section when an application

was made by CALEA to proceed against Air Canada at that time. The minister witheld his consent until the time limitations of the statute made the consent useless and, needless to say, the counsel for Air Canada, Mr. P. E. Armstrong, was not too happy and on September 25, 1973, he stated, by letter to the president of CALEA, the following:
The application for the minister's consent was filed on May 30, 1973 and, as you will recall, remained in the hands of the minister for a considerable period of time, a formal consent being received in this office on July 27, 1973. It is perhaps more than coincidental that by the time the consent of the minister was received, the time prescribed by the Canada Labour Code for filing a complaint with the board had expired.
In 1976 we find another scenario when CALEA once more sought the minister's consent pursuant to Section 194 to proceed against Air Canada. This time the consent was refused and again we find the counsel for CALEA protesting vigorously.
On December 17, 1975, Mr. MacGregor, counsel for CALEA, sent a telegram to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in which he clearly outlined the situation with respect to a required consent so that certain employees of Air Canada, and the company itself, could be taken to task for violating Section 184 of the Canada Labour Code because of their actions in interfering with the representation of employees of Air Canada by the Canadian Airline Employees Association. In addition counsel pointed out that Air Canada and the individuals involved had not followed Section 136 of the Canada Labour Code which grants to the Canadian Airline Employees Association, a certified bargaining agent, exclusive authority to bargain collectively on behalf of employees in the bargaining unit.
On January 26, Shirley Carr, Executive Vice-President of the Canada Labour Congress, contacted the Minister of Labour, pointed out that the CLC had reviewed the supporting material supplied with the application for leave to prosecute Air Canada, the manager of Labour Relations, Mr. Norm Radford, and Mr. Dale Akinson, the general manager of Finance Branch. Mrs. Carr pointed out that on the basis of the information available there appeared to be ample ground to grant leave to prosecute. In any event the minister refused his consent and as Mr. MacGregor, the counsel for CALEA points out in a letter written to Mr. Kelly of the minister's department of February 24 of this year, and I quote, in part:
I do not understand your statement that the minister had little alternative but to deny consent to prosecute when our application follows quite clearly Section 8 of the Canada Industrial Relations Regulations. You have shown us in no area that we have been deficient in our particular application-rather you have attempted to convince us to follow one of two alternative remedies open to us under the Canada Labour Code. For obvious reasons which are outlined above we have chosen not to seek a remedy which would have no effect whatsoever upon the corporation or persons complained against but rather we have sought a remedy which would, if we are able to prove our case, provide to the parties involved and to the public clear indication that those sections of the Canada Labour Code shall not be breached or if they are going to be breached they would be breached under fear of penalty by a court of competent jurisdiction.
At the same time, in addition to alleging a violation of section 136 of the Canada Labour Code it would be quite simple for us to allege a violation of section 148 of the Canada Labour Code covering the duty to bargain with a certified bargaining agent. If such were the case, no
March 9, 1976

doubt the position of the department would be the same-that the Canada Labour Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the issue. I need not repeat my previous remarks about what appears to be a total misstatement of the law, at least to me.
He went on to say:
The reasoning underlying the minister's evident decision in this matter is somewhat hazy but I think it is incumbent upon you to consider that the interpretation of the Canada Labour Code as expressed in your letter of February 18, 1976, is not, in fact, totally correct and does not represent the wishes of parliament in regard to the amendments which were made in 1972 and 1973. Carrying your logic to its ultimate extreme I would say that whenever I act for an employer in a difficult bargaining situation I would feel almost bound to advise my client that he could breach section 184(1), as the Department of Labour does not feel that such a breach constitutes an unfair labour practice which would amount to an offence which could be prosecuted.
Counsel continued:
I would feel bound to tell my client that the Department of Labour has stated that we would go to the Canada Labour Board who could say my client was wrong in doing what he had done and perhaps add that he should not do the same in the future. The damage would, of course, already have been done and the position of the union could be totally destroyed at that time. Such a course would not be followed if that particular employer were aware that he was open to penal sanctions for such action.
That is one scenario, and this is where I come to my point. This is a case where the Minister of Labour and his department are dealing with a powerful Crown corporation and appear to be taking a very generous attitude. Look at the other side of the question. By coincidence, I have documentation of a case where consent to prosecute was given by the minister pursuant to the same section, section 194.
Here is the case of two seamen, Garry Ward and Roland Moreau, employed by Upper Lakes Shipping Limited. They were prosecuted, and on the date Garry Ward was to appear he was in fact anchored in the bay in Toronto Harbour and could not get to shore. On the day Moreau was to appear he was in transit to Chicago, somewhere on the Great Lakes, and could not appear either. A summons was issued in the case of Garry Ward, and he must appear in the Toronto provincial court on April 22 in courtroom No. 37.
I must admit I am astounded the minister would grant consent in such an instance. There is ample jurisprudence to support the proposition that when discretion is exercised, such as was done in this case, such discretion must be founded in reason and must be based upon a reasonable evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances. It would be interesting to know what the positive circumstances were in this case which dictated the granting of consent to prosecute. I hope the minister will enlighten the House as to the criteria he uses in granting this consent because I believe that in this case he has left a lot to be desired.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question the following will serve to explain why the minister refused consent to prosecute Air Canada and two of its representatives.
First, the union's application alleged unfair labour practices by Air Canada and its representatives resulting in a violation of sections 184 and 136 of the Canada Labour Code. Since matters pertaining to unfair labour practices with respect to violations of sections 148, 184 and 185 are
Adjournment Debate
the responsibility of the Canada Labour Relations Board and are not subject to prosecution proceedings, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) could not exercise the authority granted him under section 194. The exemption of section 148, 184 and 185 from prosecution proceedings through summary conviction is reinforced by section 191(2) of the Canada Labour Code.
Second, with respect to section 136 of the Code, also alleged to have been violated, the applicant was advised by the Department of Labour that the minister's decision to refuse consent to prosecute was not directed at section 136 in isolation but to the union's application as presented, taking into account the whole of the union's application which was considered to be predicated on a violation of section 184.
In notifying the applicant of the decision to refuse consent the applicant was also advised that should an application be resubmitted in accordance with the requirements of the Canada Industrial Regulations, addressing itself to section 136 or any other section of the Code other than sections 148, 184 or 185 coming within the Labour Relation Board's responsibility, deemed by the applicant to have been breached, the minister would consider such an application in the usual manner with a view to granting consent to prosecute.


TRANSPORT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF FULL USE OF EAST COAST PORTS
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I hope my speech will be regarded as the opening shot in a fight to have grain and flour traffic continue through Atlantic Canada. It is promised by the government's program recently announced, which was followed up by a question that I and my colleague from Dartmouth-Halifax East asked of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on February 26 last. That is the reason for this awe-inspiring assembly this evening.
I had originally asked, as reported at page 11270 of
Hansard:
In the interests of sharing whatever transportation dollars can be made available among the Canadians, would the minister and the government consider measures which will keep goods moving into or out of Canada moving as much as possible through Canadian transportation systems, not United States ports?
I had in mind when I asked that question the roughly $12 million a year traffic in flour and grain that goes through the port of Halifax, our small portion of the rather massive traffic in one of our greatest products from western Canada. While the minister said that he would not consider any draconian measures against the port of Halifax, the fact is that we know that the subsidy under section 272 of the Railway Act for the carriage of grain and flour to the eastern ports will disappear under the government's program.
This has prompted a telegram from the chairman of the Halifax-Dartmouth port commission, Mr. J. W. E. Mingo, to the Minister of Transport. I should like to point out that Mr. Mingo has been a lifelong supporter of the party to which the minister has the misfortune to belong. The telegram, in part, said this:
21419-45)4

March 9, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Termination of the subsidy and the statutory rates will cost Halifax its export flour trade, estimated at 200,000 tons in 1976, and will greatly reduce the throughput of grain at its elevator, thereby increasing the operating deficit of the elevator to the point where its closure will be inevitable.
I thoroughly agree with Mr. Mingo. It is a very marginal operation. The telegram then makes this point:
Prairie grain moves at statutory rates to Vancouver and Thunder Bay, at an annual loss to the railroads which is now estimated at $150 million or more (and which has to be subsidized by other traffic, including export-import traffic moving to and from the port of Halifax), and from Thunder Bay via the St. Lawrence Seaway at highly subsidized tolls to Montreal, Bay Comeau, and the other river and gulf ports. How is it that this $11 million subsidy on the movement of grain to eastern ports in singled out for termination?
That is a very good question. Why do we get hit, and other places in Canada do not get hit at all? I suggest no political reason for that. Rather, it is a convenient figure to pick out because it happens to relate to a particular region of Canada. If we had been part of the St. Lawrence Seaway system, for example, we would never have been picked out, yet we receive less than one tenth of subsidies paid elsewhere. I think this is an injustice.
I see the Minister of Transport is not in the House tonight, but he will be for the debate, and it is going to be a long one. We will see that the minister is here and that he answers. There will be a day of accounting, and I will tell the House why. There are three main reasons.
First, the government's proposed measure makes the people of Halifax-probably the people of Saint John feel the same way-feel less part of Canada. Anything which limits their ability to participate in the transportation of any one of the great products of this country makes them feel less part of this country.
Second, the government's measure will mean that Halifax is less than a totally effective port. We have been crippled, in one sense, as a small but vital part of our trade is being taken from us. That, very likely, is the position we shall be in.
Third, the government is ignoring the concept that transportation should be a bond holding Canada together. It should bring us together, I am never sure what one means when one says that transportation should pay its way. Heavens, we have all watched the "National Dream" and learned of the great risks our forebears took to unite Canada and to make all Canadians from, in those days, Cape Breton to Vancouver Island, feel they belonged to one country. Now one must talk of all Canadians from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island.
I do not know why the government has suddenly ignored those aspirations for the sake of a small sum here or a small sum there, although the budget is tight. The government's action is one with which we do not want to live.
If we have in mind what we want to achieve together as a nation would it not be better to pay a $12-million shot, and thus make the people of Nova Scotia feel that they belong to Canada? Would that not be better than taking their business away, and leaving them to look at things happening along the St. Lawrence Seaway and elsewhere?

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and I want the parliamentary secretary to assure the minister, that this is the opening shot in the battle. It will be a long battle. The point will be raised time and again. We in Halifax feel that we should be part of the national transportation system. We do not think any minister, or any government, should take that concept away from us.
Earlier I tried to arrange a 30-minute meeting between the Minister of Transport and longshoremen of Halifax for the purpose of discussing this very issue. I wanted the minister and longshoremen to discuss measures which would prevent much of our trade coming through the United States. We are in favour of our trade coming through Canadian ports like Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, and the like. But my request was refused. Now it is war. The minister will have to account for his position.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to the question raised first in this House on February 26, 1976, by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) requesting assurance of the full use of east coast ports. I trust that I will be able to offer my hon. friend some comfort in connection with the concerns he raised.
Several of the ports under the jurisdiction of the National Harbours Board compete for business with ports in the United States. Evidence of any specific traffic leaving from or destined to points in Canada which is handled at U.S. ports is carefully investigated to determine the reason. Action is taken to recapture the traffic at Canadian ports, and the quality of port services is under constant review to ensure that Canada's ports are competitive in every possible way.
It is the policy of the Ministry of Transport that port charges will be based as far as reasonably possible upon the user pay principle. Over-investment or under-utilization of port facilities could therefore lead to increased charges, and the problem facing government is to maintain a balance between the over-all investment in and the demand for such facilities in order to keep Canada's ports competitive. In addition to ensuring that ports are competitive in terms of over-all transportation costs, some other contributing factors are: the ability to provide fast turn around times to vessels, and labour stability. The minister must look at the over-all system on the east coast to satisfy himself that a particular port is competitive with others on the Atlantic seaboard.
To the best knowledge of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), major Canadian ports are competitive, reflecting the continued interest of local government, provincial governments, and the Government of Canada in keeping them as competitive as possible.
At the port of Halifax, which understandably is very dear to the heart of the hon. member, there has been a great deal of publicity concerning expansion of the existing container terminal facilities. The present terminal was completed in 1971 and containerized cargo has increased steadily. In 1975 a total of more than 126,000 loaded 20-foot equivalent boxes were handled, which accounted for nearly 1.4 million tons of cargo. Recent general economic
March 9, 1976

conditions have been responsible for a drop in the level of activity during the past several months, but it is anticipated that recovery will start to take place during the next year and a half or so.
A small joint federal-provincial task force has been appointed to assess the report of a consultants' firm concerning a proposed extension of these facilities in the port. The deputy minister of development of the province of Nova Scotia and the Chairman of the National Harbours Board will direct the work of the task force which will examine the impact of the consultants' recommendations,
Adjournment Debate
review traffic projections, and consider the short-term operational improvements for the port that are outlined in the consultants' report. The task force is expected to report to the minister within the next two months.
The consultants were retained by the provincial government in December after the Department of National Defence advised the government of a number of conditions that would have to be met if the container terminal were to be built in Wright's Cove.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, March 10, 1976