1977-07-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is short and to the point. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House congratulate the public accounts committee on its report on the Polysar affair and further accepts the conclusions of the report urging the government to give prompt and serious consideration to its recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have consistently rejected putting the question on motions under Standing Order 43 calling for congratulations. However, urging the government to give serious consideration to certain recommendations perhaps adds another element. In order that the motion may be presented for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43 it will require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that most aged people experience very distressing housing problems, especially affecting widows of pensioners, that the federal government should grant priority to those senior citizens, and that a new policy in favour of Canadians belonging to that age group has long since been overdue, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House enjoin the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take the necessary steps so that a 60-year old woman who is unfortunate enough to
lose her pensioned husband may draw two thirds of their joint pension till age 65 when she would obtain the full amount of her old age pension.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which I genuinely believe will receive the unanimous support of the House. Considering the magnificent spectacle which takes place daily I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House extend its congratulations to the personnel involved in the Changing of the Guard ceremony composed of members of the Governor General's Footguards of Ottawa and the Canadian Grenadier Guards of Montreal and the regular bands of the Canadian Armed Forces for their contribution to a ceremony which has now become a colourful tradition of international repute in the national capital.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister concerns the incredible statement he made in Vancouver about ministerial responsibility as it relates to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and AECL's $290 million boondoggle about which we heard last week. The Prime Minister said this about this $290 million loss:
If you are in a hotel and somebody down at the end of the line steals something from other rooms, it doesn't mean that the manager has to be fired as incompetent.
80020-1 2'h

July 11, 1977
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister said this as if referring to the stealing of some towels. Bearing in mind the revelations of the past week-and if anyone stole $290 million worth of towels from this government, if it operated a hotel, and I hope it does not, the manager would deserve to be fired-my question to the Prime Minister is this: Is the minister of Energy, Mines and Resources responsible for AECL? If he is not, who is responsible for the agency, from the point of view of the Prime Minister?


An hon. Member:: Put him in charge of towels.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is, yes, he is the minister through whom AECL reports to the House of Commons. As for the matter of responsibility in the case of Crown corporations, the opposition themselves have put themselves on record several times as saying they did not want ministers running Crown corporations. Everytime we attempt to do it, there is objection to it.


Walter David Baker: The Prime Minister knows that is not so, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister should apprise himself of Section 70(1) of the Financial Administration Act which specifically states that the minister is responsible for authorizing the operating budget with respect to this particular Crown corporation and other Crown corporations. Does the Prime Minister agree that this puts an onus upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for the operating budget and as well puts a responsibility on him for the operating deficit, about which he was warned, which amounted to a total loss in operating expenses over revenue in 1977 in excess of $290 million? Is this not a responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and is there any good reason why the Prime Minister should tolerate such an incompetent in his cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with this several times, that is, the problem of interference with Crown corporations by ministers of the government. The rules are quite well established that the minister should not involve himself in the day-to-day operations of the Crown corporation. I have indicated before, and I believe the President of the Treasury Board has also, that we are going to bring in some Crown corporation legislation. Hopefully it will give the government power to intervene in the operation of Crown corporations. 1 look forward to having the support of the opposition on this. Of course, they will have to flip-flop because they have always said we should not interfere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: If there are going to be any flip-flops, we have a great example to follow from this government. We are not talking about the day-to-day operations of the Crown corporation and the Prime Minister knows that.

What we are talking about is the question of accountability to parliament, and the people, of these Crown corporations. That is the issue. Does the government intend, at least as a first step, to require that all future annual reports of all Crown corporations be referred automatically to the appropriate standing committee rather than have to wait the convenience of the government with respect to this matter? We can see what lack of control has led to in terms of AECL.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the hon. member's question, he must realize that an overwhelming portion of this loss was in one contract with Argentina. Surely even the House leader of the opposition would not argue that it could have been the minister's role to negotiate this contract when a Crown corporation was the agency.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIRING AND FIRING EXECUTIVE OFFICERS-ROLE OF DR. FOSTER IN FUTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the minister's statement concerning Atomic Energy of Canada Limited last Thursday that "the board of directors recommended to me that Dr. Foster be asked to step down as president and chief executive officer and 1 have already acted on that proposal" and "a committee of the board is now engaged in a search for a new president and chief executive officer with the business training and experience needed to manage AECL", will the minister tell the House exactly what his ministerial responsibility is in the firing and hiring of presidents and chief executive officers of AECL? in other words, who is giving the orders?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that I accepted my responsibility to appoint and to remove the senior officers, that is to say the chairman and the president, the chief executive officer.


Thomas Gordon Towers: The minister also said "I am hopeful that the company will continue to benefit from his pre-eminent technical knowledge and experience in the nuclear field." Can the minister state now what position Dr. Foster will hold in AECL and will the minister be making that decision?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot give the hon. member a precise answer as to what particular role Dr. Foster will have in the future with respect to AECL. I hope, and I have discussed this with him, that it will be possible to work out some kind of technical consulting assignment so that the corporation will have the benefit of his pre-eminent knowledge in this field.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Will a position be created for Dr. Foster or is one already in existence?


Alastair William Gillespie: With respect to the assignment as a consultant, there is the matter of defining the precise nature of that
July 11, 1977

assignment of Dr. Foster. 1 expect that might take place in about two months time.



ELECTION EXPENSES


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The report on political contributions reveals the fact that Canadair, a wholly owned government Crown corporation, and Panarctic, in which the government has a controlling interest, have both made political contributions to political parties in this country. In view of the fact that the Canadian people would undoubtedly be concerned about agencies supported by public money making contributions to any political party, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks these contributions are appropriate in the circumstances.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 am not
aware of those facts, but if they are as stated it would seem surprising to me that Crown corporations, being wholly owned by the people of Canada, would want to make contributions to any political party. Here again, 1 suppose, we are in the area of ministerial responsibility. We have just heard an indication that in some cases members want the ministers to intervene- it is said the minister should have done so in the case of AECL; in other cases as in the case of Petro Canada, the opposition has argued that the minister should not intervene. I shall try to ascertain from the hon. member what he wants the minister to do-to take the Crown corporation to task over this or to let parliament do it at the appropriate time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have been assured from time to time by the Prime Minister and his colleagues that there were guidelines laying down the manner in which the Crown corporations should carry on their operations. Is there any provision in the existing guidelines which would prohibit Crown corporations from making political contributions? If there is not, will the Prime Minister undertake to see that such a provision is placed in the guidelines and made public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If my memory serves me well, these guidelines were made public in the House a few months ago; perhaps we could both refer to them. My memory is that they have to do with the operation of Crown corporations within the bounds of law and propriety; I do not think they refer in particular to contributions to political parties. I am sure the hon. member would not argue that contributing to political parties is improper per se though perhaps in the case of a Crown corporation, or possibly unions working for Crown corporations, we could make sure there are no contributions of that nature permitted. But I would be interested to ascertain the hon. member's views on this subject.
Oral Questions


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is hardly an occasion upon which 1 have an opportunity to express my views but the Prime Minister surely knows by the nature of my question that I am opposed to Crown corporations making political contributions. What 1 am asking him is whether he is prepared to put into the guidelines a provision prohibiting Crown corporations from making contributions to political parties.
I wish to ask the right hon. gentleman also a question with reference to Polysar which he was told as far back as 1973 had been paying kickbacks into unnumbered bank accounts-a fact which has since been verified by the Public Accounts Committee. What steps has the government taken to make sure that not only Polysar but other Crown corporations will be prohibited from following such a practice in future? Can we be assured that this practice will not continue in Polysar and that it will not be pursued by other corporations? Can the Prime Minister give us this definite assurance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If I may answer the latter part of the question first, I would refer the hon. member to statements made some months ago about Crown corporations being told to operate within the framework of law and propriety. The ministers contacted the various Crown corporations at that time to make sure that these various guidelines would be adhered to. As to the first part of the question, I would remind the hon. member, as I was reminded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on my left, who apparently was informed of these facts, that in the case of Canadair it was apparently not the property of the Canadian government at the time it made these contributions to parties. If that is true, the hon. member's question seems irrelevant. With regard to Panarctic, we are, of course, only minority shareholders and it might be very difficult to ensure that the majority shareholders do not want to recognize what political parties are worthy of their support.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Considering that all members sitting in this House, either French-speaking or English-speaking, have the duty to study very carefully the National Energy Board report in view of the debate that will take place in August or a little later at the opening of the session, considering also that the said report is made up of three volumes, only one of which is available in French, would the minister be kind enough to tell us whether the other two volumes are being translated now? If so, can we hope to receive them at least one week before the debate takes

July 11, 1977
Oral Questions
place, because French-speaking eastern members are just as interested as the others in this matter?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I shall make every effort to see that it is available for the House. While 1 cannot promise it, I can assure the hon. member that I will make the strongest possible representations to the National Energy Board that they supply that information.
On the first part of the hon. member's question dealing with the annual report of AECL, today I talked to the acting chief excutive officer with regard to expediting the French copies of the report, and I hope we will be able to provide them to the House very shortly.



POLYSAR


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of the second report of the Public Accounts Committee, commonly referred to now as the Polysar report. The committee concluded that in its opinion Polysar had engaged in improper business practices which were designed to break foreign laws on tax evasion, currency control and fraud. This, by implication, makes the government of Canada, parliament and the people of Canada unwitting accomplices in the commission of crimes against countries friendly to our own. 1 wonder whether the Prime Minister would advise the House what steps the government is taking to alert the home governments of these Polysar customers engaged in the rebate practices as to the names, dates of involvement and amounts, of cash rebated in each case of improper kickbacks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not read the report of the committee, which 1 understood was brought down last week while 1 was travelling in the fair provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, and 1 am not yet informed as to what disposition will be made.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is encouraging to note that the Prime Minister is not going to leave this decision to the executive of the Crown corporation. The committee also stated that the investigation of the former minister of public works, the hon. member for West-mount, was inadequate and in the same paragraph notes that there was no response to Mr. Henderson's letters, the former auditor general. May I ask the Prime Minister whether this reluctance to reply to Mr. Henderson's letter was a matter of policy, or did the Prime Minister feel that he had no responsibility or obligation to ensure that this extremely important matter would be followed up, a matter about which the auditor general felt compelled to write directly to the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I have not read the report to which the hon. member refers, but my recollection of events is that the auditor general felt it important enough to write to me but not to put it in his report to parliament. Secondly, 1 think my recollection is right that he was no longer auditor general within a very short period of time after 1 had received this letter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is simply this: did the Prime Minister not feel he had an obligation to follow up this very important matter? Did he feel satisfied leaving it in the hands of the former minister of public works, now the hon. member for Westmount? Is he saying that he ignored the letter and left it entirely up to the former minister of public works?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, several months ago I answered these questions, perhaps as much as a year ago. I made it quite clear that I saw the Auditor General's letter and was somewhat dismayed by it. I wrote the former minister of public works and asked him to follow it up. I believe these letters were tabled at the time. This is the way 1 generally run my government, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: It shows.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad to see the opposition finds that it shows. This is the reason our cabinet does not fall apart, as happens on the opposite side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, if I may further refresh the Prime Minister's memory, in the Prime Minister's letter to the then president of the treasury board he asked for the president of the treasury board to investigate and report back to him. The evidence presented in the Public Accounts Committee is that the then president of the treasury board never did. If the Prime Minister runs his cabinet and his office this way, may I simply ask him what provision he is making to make sure that when he asks for a report he gets it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure, as with the hon. member's office, that there is some provision for bringing items forward and seeing that they are followed up.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: After six years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In this case perhaps somebody did ascertain from the then minister of public works that he had contacted Polysar and that he had been given assurances which were then made part of the record.
July 11, 1977



COMMONS DEBATES HER MAJESTY, THE QUEEN INQUIRY AS TO ATTENDANCE AT OPENING OF NEXT SESSION OF PARLIAMENT

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He has been out in Alberta where he witnessed a wonderful reception.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am not speaking of the synthetic or organized one.


Mr. Paproski:: No!


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking of the reception for the Prince of Wales and Prince Andrew which revealed something of the loyalty of the people of Alberta, including the Indians particularly, to Her Majesty. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not arrangements have now been made whereby on this her silver anniversary year she will be given an opportunity this fall to open parliament and to generally carry out the responsibilities which are hers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we hope to make an announcement on this in due course. When we know when parliament closes, then we will be in a position to know when it opens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at the rate the government is going in its unsettled way, I can understand that the Prime Minister does not know where the government is going or where its policies are going.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The government should let parliament know whether she is going to be invited here. Regardless of whether this session takes another week or month, is she going to be invited here this fall? Why is there this unnecessary evasion? Months ago the Prime Minister said that he had this in mind. I now ask him: has it gone out of his mind, or does he intend to have her here?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I should let the right hon. gentlemen in on the secret. He is not a member in full standing of the Royal Society of Canada, as I am.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is worn out.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: However, I think the right hon. gentleman would be interested in knowing that when I saw Her Majesty in London, 1 told her that if there were a new session around that time 1 hoped she would want to read the Speech from the Throne. She accepted with pleasure, but 1 cannot make an
Oral Questions
announcement on it until we know if the opposition is going to co-operate in bringing this session to an end.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister spoke about the Royal Society of Canada, and he pointed out that he is a full sized member of the Royal Society. That, of course, gave him the opportunity to do his pirouette in London.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I rather expected him to do the can-can when he was in Paris. I point out that those in the same position as myself in the Royal Society include two former Governors General of Canada and our predecessors Mr. Pearson and Mr. St. Laurent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It's about the pirouette, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halton.



ARTHUR REPORT-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASING SALE OF AUTOMOTIVE PARTS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the findings of the Arthur report on the North American automotive industry, does the minister intend to consider the possibility of increasing our exports of automotive parts?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we are now working with the automotive industry and the manufacturers of parts to help them increase their production. We had contacts with other countries and we hope to find foreign markets for Canadian automotive parts, as the hon. member is suggesting.



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has confirmed that the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation was also a director of the Manitoba Institute of Management at the same time as he awarded it a consulting contract on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation for which tenders were not called

July 11, 1977
Ora! Questions
and which cost the taxpayers over $80,000, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is satisfied that the awarding of this contract to a company of which the chairman was a director in no way conflicted with the government's conflict of interest guidelines and, in particular, in no way conflicted with the Prime Minister's statement in the House on December 18, 1973 that, and I quote:
Regarding outside employment, public servants are being asked not to accept outside office or employment that could place on them demands inconsistent with their official duties or call into question their capacity to perform those duties in an objective manner.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was apprised of this matter just as I came into the House by the excellent Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. 1 am not sure if he is in a position to report yet, but he told me he was following this up and might be prepared to answer tomorrow.



REASON PRELIMINARY STUDY BY MANITOBA INSTITUTE COST MORE THAN STUDY BY SIBALD

Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in the continuing absence of the Minister of Agriculture 1 will ask a question of the acting Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that although the controversial and thoroughly thorough-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: 1 am so taken aback by the Prime Minister's pirouette that I am lost for words. In view of the fact that the controversial and thorough Sibald management audit of the Farm Credit Corporation cost the taxpayers only $76,892 while the preliminary study by the Manitoba Institute of Management which merely defined the parameters of the Sibald study cost over $80,000, can the acting minister tell the House why the preliminary study cost more money than the final report, and in view of the fact that the Manitoba Institute of Management tendered unsuccessfully on the management audit, does the minister not agree that putting the initial study out to tender might have saved taxpayers a considerable amount of money?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to advise that the Minister of Agriculture is in Victoria today, and for the next three days, with the ministers of agriculture of the provinces, and the hon. member knows that.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Irénée Pelletier: I have discussed this question with officials of the department, and I am advised that Dr. Kristjanson's actions did not involve a real conflict of interest. The Manitoba Institute of Management is a non-profit educational institute, and its selection to define the terms of reference of a management audit, although made initially by the chairman, was ratified by all members of the corporation.



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF WEST GERMANY

Mr. Speaker:: Before carrying on with the question period, 1 know all hon. members will want to join with me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished delegation from the Federal Republic of West Germany, headed by its most distinguished chancellor, His Excellency Helmut Schmidt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who I naturally would like to welcome back from an event where I understand that he too became a "mangeur de hot dog".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: In his discussions regarding Crown corporations the Prime Minister has often talked about changing the relationship between Crown corporations and the government but not their relationship with parliament. Perhaps the Prime Minister missed the question of the House leader of the Official Opposition, who asked the Prime Minister whether it is going to be the intention of the government to require an automatic, regular reference of annual reports of Crown corporations to the appropriate standing committees of the House of Commons so that parliament, too, can be involved in the policy direction of Crown corporations. Will the Prime Minister answer that question and tell us whether his government now intends to change its policy and make regular references of annual reports of Crown corporations to appropriate standing committees of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Leader of the Opposition for welcoming me back from that very festive occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can assure him that 1 have not and have never had any contempt for those who eat hot dogs. As a matter of fact, I just ate some with my family at lunch, and 1 feel fine.


Walter David Baker: How does the family feel?


An hon. Member:: You look a little peaked.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert referred to a pirouette.


An hon. Member:: He is still here.

July 11, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. gentleman has not left the House, but he moved from his place because, I suppose, he was afraid I would take a shot at him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is going back to his seat; fire away.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Having dealt with the preamble of the question of the Leader of the Opposition, the government has no objection to referring all annual reports of Crown corporations, but I do not think we would want to make that part of any law because 1 think the opposition would find its schedule somewhat overcrowded. The opposition complains now that it does not have time to consider the estimates of departments, and if it wants to refer reports of Crown corporations, it will not have time even to do the things which relate directly to the government let alone those things which relate indirectly to the government.


Charles Joseph Clark: One thing this House need never fear is that the Prime Minister might sometime answer questions directly. After the Prime Minister's latest approach to a pirouette would he agree as a matter of policy to recommend a change in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons-we would certainly accept such a change-regarding references of annual reports of Crown corporations to standing committees in a way which would allow the opposition parties to choose those annual reports that they would like to have referred each year, thus ensuring that there would be a capacity in parliament to review the activities of Crown corporations and to participate in policy direction? Would he agree-I see he is consulting with the House leader, who performed in a sterling way in his absence-to that kind of amendment to the Standing Orders to give parliament a role in the direction of Crown corporations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did confer with the House leader and he has confirmed what I said in my first answer, that if the opposition wants to refer any particular annual report and time is made for it in the conduct of the debates, we would gladly entertain that suggestion. 1 would just repeat that it does not seem to be a good practice to make it automatic or to give the opposition the right to select at random. This is an amendment to the Standing Order-


An hon. Member:: We are talking about parliament selecting, not the opposition.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Standing Orders apply, of course, to parliament, but sometimes they can be changed to suit the convenience of the opposition and sometimes they can be changed in the interest of parliament as a whole.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Too many jumps on the trampoline.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have suggestions of our own for changing
the Standing Orders, and if the House leaders want to get
together, they can improve them.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister once again is demonstrating his claim to the title of "Wizard of If". 1 would like the Prime Minister to tell the House of Commons whether he is prepared to have the Standing Orders of parliament changed to allow a regular review of those Crown corporations which parliament chooses to review and, if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we would be prepared to change the Standing Orders in that way if the opposition would be prepared to change the Standing Orders so that the second reading of any bill would last only one day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the exchange between Prince Charles and the Indian chiefs concerning the visit in Alberta at which Prince Charles expressed his concern about many of the hardships endured by native people in Canada and the Indian chiefs expressed their concern with regard to the encroachment of their treaty rights, unemployment, poverty and the problems with alcohol, has the minister any specific programs dealing with some of these critical issues?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I have, Mr. Speaker, but there are too many of them to discuss in the House in the question period.


An hon. Member:: We'll give you time.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, probably the minister should direct his attention to the question of treaty rights and the encroachment the Indian chiefs are alleging. With regard to the discussions that would be taking place in the near future concerning treaty rights, is it the intention of the minister to present specific proposals so that they would form the basis of discussion with the Indian chiefs?


William Warren Allmand: Many things were discussed. Some of them had to do with the treaties, some with economic development, some with local control. I might say that this afternoon we are having a meeting of the joint committee of the cabinet and the National Indian Brotherhood regarding certain matters relating to the revision of the Indian Act, and so on. Furthermore, I have been asked to return to Alberta on September 22, which is the actual date of the signing of Treaty 7, for further discussions on that treaty and what might be done to improve it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Send Alastair to renegotiate it.
Oral Questions



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY

[Stage Direction]
July 11, 1977

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the McCracken report which was prepared for OECD nations making it clear that unemployment and inflation are tightly linked together, would the Minister of Finance indicate what he believes would be the rate of inflation in Canada this year-originally the target was 6 per cent-and could he indicate what the target will be for next year-originally it was to be 4 per cent?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: As I
have indicated to the House several times, we anticipate- principally because of the food price increases in the first quarter-that we would not be able to be within the guideline hoped for under the Anti-Inflation Act. As to what the target would be for next year, as I have often said to the hon. gentleman, it seems to me that given the effect of outside events, it is unwise to try to set precise targets.



SUGGESTED BILATERAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH FOREIGN EXPORTERS TO HELP MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT IN MANUFACTURING

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question is again to the Minister of Finance. Since employment in our manufacturing industries now stands at one per cent lower than last year, can the minister tell the House whether he views the manufacturing industry to be an important source of new jobs and, if so, having regard to the weakened state of some sectors, such as textiles, footwear and electrical products, will he consider at least having bilateral arrangements with foreign exporters which might help to preserve employment in the manufacturing industry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In a
number of cases in the past we have sought such export limitation arrangements. I would have to say in general terms, however, that those kinds of arrangements have been increasingly difficult to achieve in recent years. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that expansion in manufacturing employment is fundamental to continued progress in Canada. We recognize the difficulties that are involved, particularly in the multilateral trade negotiations, of having to make exchanges in certain tariff protection which we have at present. It is for that reason that we are seeking a substantial reduction in foreign tariffs, particularly those of the European Economic Community.



POSSIBILITY OF NEW BUDGET TO IMPROVE CONDITIONS

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that we have the highest unemployment level of any of the large OECD nations, we have high and continuing inflation, the highest budgetary deficit in our history, a low real growth,

only 4 per cent compared with the anticipated 5.5 per cent for OECD nations, and the highest imparted deficit of any OECD nation, would the minister indicate if he is considering a new budget as early as possible to help redeem his record?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon. gentleman voted against the last budget which would create further employment-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is not working.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -and economic growth in Canada while at the same time containing inflation, it is difficult to see how the recommendations of the hon. member for York-Simcoe could be taken seriously by anyone.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport. Canadian National Railways have recently put into effect another fare increase for commuter train service in the Montreal area and the Canadian Transport Commission did not intervene. I would like to ask whether the Minister of Transport considered any action and, if so, why was none taken?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, last October the minister contacted the CN authorities who have already accepted his suggestion to postpone the rate increase and the service reduction. This intervention was conditional on an agreement with transport minister Raymond Mailloux and the various public organizations, so that the Montreal area transportation committee, which has been set up by the provincial government, might table its report in July 1977. Hopefully the province of Quebec will act in the areas of transportation where it has full competence, and advise this committee of its intentions and its schedule for the whole program. I must tell the hon. member that it is the Canadian Transport Commission which authorizes all rate increases it deems necessary and, in this case, the commission had granted this increase.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: My question is for the Minister of Justice. Now that the government has called an inquiry into certain aspects of the RCMP without, of course, a specific reference to the commissioners to assess the
July 11, 1977

responsibility of its political directors, will the minister and the government now have the sense of appropriateness to accede to the requests of the opposition parties for an inquiry into organized crime in this country, because to do otherwise would seem to indicate a curious sense of priorities and a lack of appropriateness under the circumstances?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this was a subject which was thoroughly discussed at the recent federal-provincial meetings of attorneys general. Certainly, from that discussion I drew the conclusion that it would not be appropriate for the Minister of Justice or for the federal government at this time to call such an inquiry. We did issue a joint statement regarding police intelligence and police communications between our government and the various provincial governments.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the minister gave almost the same answer when we requested an inquiry into the RCMP earlier, but there has been a reversal there as well. I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he has been fully briefed on the documentation and other material that the RCMP is prepared to make available into the Quebec inquiry into L'Agence de Presse Libre break-in and whether any process of evaluation or consultation has been set up or initiated between the Solicitor General and his Quebec counterpart following the announcement of the Quebec inquiry, since according to the minister earlier there was none previous to the announcement of the inquiry?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec commission is in the process of being set up and I, of course, will be represented by counsel on that commission.



PRIVACY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Justice relates to the Prime Minister's statement about when the House may recess. The effect of my question would certainly be to shorten Bill C-51. I am not talking about the gun control part of it. I heard the Prime Minister say something about taking a shot at the right hon. member for Prince Albert, but I am sure with his ability he will be able to handle that situation. My question relates to the invasion of privacy. It would seem to me that the police have no business in the homes of law abiding citizens, rooting
Oral Questions
around for information. In relation to unauthorized wiretapping, derivative evidence means evidence outside the conversation would be admissible. Would the minister reconsider his position in light of the statement made by Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Cooper and other members of the Advocacy Society of Toronto, who are benchers? Would the minister repent and tell us now that wiretapping is illegal and if the court gives approval of it they are tacitly agreeing with illegal acts?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would agree totally with the hon. member that unauthorized wiretapping is illegal and surely should carry with it the full sanction and penalties provided for in the law against those who engage in it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, we have heard that answer many times. We have the Rae case in which evidence was declared admissible because it was relevant, however. Is the minister prepared to take the section dealing with the invasion of privacy and the amendment-which he considered a compromise with other members of the committee within his own party-and put that before the Supreme Court by terms of reference to see if it complies with the terms and conditions of the Bill of Rights which guarantees privacy and freedom in this nation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: First, Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was proposed by myself and other members of the committee is in my view along the substance of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, relative to evidence generally. Second, I think I would resist a reference. Obviously, the Supreme Court of Canada and certainly I-at least, as minister-have always endeavoured to keep the number of references to a minimum because that court, like any other, prefers to deal if at all possible with factual situations. Obviously, the amendment and the legislation will have to be certified by officers of the Department of Justice as complying with the Bill of Rights. If someone has a view that such certification is incorrect they would be entitled to take that argument before the court and before the Supreme Court of Canada.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is about Crown corporations and the proposal to introduce legislation reorganizing them. The recent report of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women noted the deplorable record of almost all Crown corporations respecting women in management positions. This oversight probably does not need legislation but could the Prime Minister suggest to his Cabinet colleagues that the Public Service Commission policy-which I presume is government policy in this regard-would fit very well into the

July 11, 1977
Oral Questions
Crown corporations. As of now I regret to say the record is deplorable.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the feeling expressed by the hon. member and the goals he suggests are ones that we share. There should be a better record in the area of employment of women in Crown corporations. Incidentally there should be a better record in the promotion of bilingualism. These are two areas in which Crown corporations have been contacted to enjoin them to more progress. I shall ask the minister responsible for the status of women to bring me up-to-date on the facts and figures as regards women. On the acceptance and promotion of bilingualism, I have already asked for a report.



SMALL BUSINESS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Small Business). On December 9, 1976 I asked the minister when we could expect an announcement on a much needed small business policy and his reply was, "Soon". Nearly six months later, on May 30 this year, with still no semblance of a policy, we spoon-fed the minister, by way of an opposition day, a number of suggestions and recommendations toward the formation of such a policy. I should like to ask the minister once again whether he could report on the progress of at least some form of a paper dealing with a small business policy and specifically when can we expect it to be made public?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I have said on a number of occasions that the target date I had set for presenting a paper to Cabinet was June. The paper is just about complete and should be going forward to my colleagues shortly.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give the House an undertaking that the announcement on small business policy will be made in the proper forum, this House of Commons and not outside?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it would certainly be my desire to make every announcement in the House of Commons, if time permits, but I hope this place will shut down soon so that we can all go home and see our constituents.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who has made several references recently to a policy

statement he proposes to make regarding the north, a policy statement which is apparently to be the framework on which decisions affecting the north will be made in future, such policy decisions as those affecting pipelines, for example. In view of the fact that we will be debating the pipeline soon, can the minister tell the House whether the policy statement will be made in this House on or before July 15?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the policy statement would relate more particularly to the constitutional evolution of the north and not necessarily to pipelines and so forth, although it would have some significance for these other decisions. Whether it would be made in the House or not would depend upon when it is approved by a committee of Cabinet and that has not yet been done.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The minister originally indicated that the statement was to be of a constitutional and political nature. Is it now the minister's intention to enlarge that framework so that in terms of a policy statement it will include the social, economic and environmental concerns in the broadest sense, and not in terms of specific issues? Does the minister now propose to enlarge that statement and the constitutional, environmental policy statement that he originally intended to make?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, it will still deal principally with the constitutional evolution of the north. Of course, it will relate to powers which govern these other subjects but it is principally a constitutional document. It concerns many more ministers than myself and is subject to review and amendment by my Cabinet colleagues.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the promise the minister made a few days ago that he would do his best to get action this year with respect to the provision that denies a widow's pension where the veterans disability pension was less than 48 per cent and also with respect to closing the gap between the disability pension and the base to which it was attached a few years ago, and it is now reasonably clear that the Queen will be reading the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the next session of parliament, will the minister do his best to get that legislation approved in time for it to be included in the Queen's Speech from the Throne in October?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly do my ministerial duty and do what I can with respect to that matter.
July 11, 1977



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs also do his best to expedite the review of the War Veterans Allowance Act, which he announced a short time ago.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last question, the process has already begun. We had our first meeting with the representatives of the veterans' organizations. The hon. member must realize that this has taken a considerable time, but it is already in process.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humbert-St. George's-St. Barbe):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister will recall the request the Newfoundland branch of the Canadian Legion made to him and the then minister of state for urban affairs for funding for a program for veterans and their widows to cover emergency repairs to houses. This has been in process for three years. The minister and the present Minister of National Defence made a commitment to that provincial command of the Canadian Legion. Could the minister explain to this House and veterans of this country the reasons for the inexcusable delay in providing the funding recommended by the excellent survey?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the survey, as the hon. member knows 1 and my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs looked into the matter. I think the hon. member realizes that this comes under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, and it is up to the province to designate certain areas where the program can be implemented and applied. The matter is not exactly under federal jurisdiction but must be worked out with the province. I understand that some delay has been occasioned in this regard, and the program has probably not been assigned to the various areas of the province referred to.



PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Jack Marshall: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has announced his insulation program, and since the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program has been greatly beneficial, its restrictions being lack of funding, would the minister now consider suggestions made
Business of the House
to him, namely, that he should provide, under the veterans housing program, a national residential rehabilitation program for veterans on fixed incomes who cannot afford to insulate their homes or bring them up to a state of reasonable repair?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, housing, today, comes pretty well under the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is responsible for all Canada, and anything we do in relation to housing for veterans would therefore be done under the authority of the minister. We shall have to assess whatever assistance my department is able to give and I shall be glad to see what we can do.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the government House leader his plans for government business this week.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, the plan for the week is easy to state. I should like to dispose of the amendments to the criminal law which will be before the House today, and complete third reading of the unemployment insurance bill and the Air Canada bill. Some bills are at various stages, either in committee or on third reading. I regard them as not possible of attainment this week, so to speak. I wish to place the bills previously mentioned before the House this week, and I would also contemplate calling the bill in the name of the President of the Treasury Board at some point this week.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We didn't hear the last part.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is it clear that the first two bills we shall deal with are C-51 and C-27?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; 1 did not hear the hon. member's question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the minister announced a number of items, but did not make clear the order in which they will be considered. Will the first two bills be C-51 and C-27?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the first is the amendments to the criminal law, which will be before the House today and tomorrow. If it is not completed before the end of the day tomorrow, I shall advise what the next item of business will be.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I asked the Prime Minister a question about the political contribution made by Canadair, he said he was reminded by his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that Canadair at the time was not a Crown corporation. The fact is the Canadian government took over Canadair on January 5, 1976, and the reports filed by the Chief Electoral Officer show that the contribution to the Liberal party was made in the last five months of 1976. I

July 11, 1977
Order Paper Questions
am not accusing either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce of misleading the House. Perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is more preoccupied by the beckoning voices calling from another place. But I object strenuously to the Prime Minister and his colleagues trying to put off and evade a question by giving to the House information not in accordance with the facts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the point is a point of order, but 1 gladly accept the date the hon. member put forward. In that case, my first answer stands. The hon. member may recollect that I only gave those dates after hearing some information from a colleague on my left.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That was a mistake.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously his knowledge of the facts is not as accurate as the hon. member's articulation. I repeat, my first answer stands without any argument as to date.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of references to the administrator, under the Anti-Inflation Act, with respect to Perolin-Bird Archer Limited, the Wellesley Hospital, Silver-wood Industries Limited, and the Arborg Memorial Hospital.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the fifteenth report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 323, 2,054, 2,636. 2,650, 2,730 and 2,752.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many companies are required by the Anti-Inflation Board to report any proposed price increases and how many have filed such reports?
2.	What are the names of the companies who have not filed such reports?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: !. Two
hundred seventy-four companies are presently required to report proposed price increases in excess of two per cent for any given quarter. All compliance companies are restricted to raising their prices only once per quarter. As of September 30, 1976, 131 companies had filed prenotification reports with the Anti-Inflation Board. Approximately 1,000 individual applications were filed by this group of companies. Sixty-one of the companies required to prenotify had not filed reports thus signifying that they have not raised their prices by more than 2 per cent in any calendar quarter since the inception of the board.
2.	See statement following.
November 22, 1976-List of suppliers required to prenotify on price increase which will result in an increase of gross revenue of over 2 per cent for the product category and who have as of November 15, 1976, not notified the AIB of such increases.
02 Chemical Companies: Canadian Liquid Air Ltd., Canadian Oxigen Limited, Liquid Carbonic Canada Ltd.
04 Financial and other services-Property and Casualty Insurance Companies: Commercial Union Group, Continental Insurance Group. Manufacturing and Service Companies: 'IBM, 'Canadian Corporate Management. Life Insurance Companies: 'Confederation Life Insurance Company, 'Industrial Life Insurance Co., Les Prevoyants, Cooperators Insurance Association, Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada. Car Rental/Leasing Companies: Tilden Rent-A-Car, Avis Transport of Canada Ltd.
04	Forest Based Industries: Scott Paper Ltd., British Columbia Forest Products Ltd., Weyerhauser Canada Ltd., Canada Flushwood Door Manufacturing Ltd.
05	Construction Industry: Great West Steel Industries Ltd., St. Marys Cement Ltd., Independent Cement Inc., Lake Ontario Cement.
09	Non-Durables: 'Harding Carpets Ltd., 'Peerless Rug Ltd., 'Warner Lambert Canada Ltd., Ayerst McKenna and Harrison, 'Lever Brothers Ltd., 'Proctor and Gamble Company of Canada Ltd., Consumers Glass Co. Ltd., Gillette of Canada Ltd., International Paints, Merck, Frosst Laboratories, Standard Paper Box Ltd., 'Sklar Furniture Ltd., 'G.W.G.
010	Hotels: Skyline Hotels Ltd., Western International Hotels. Federal Crown Corp.: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Petro-Canada.
011	Transportation Equipment:	Standard Products
Canada Ltd., 'Douglas Aircraft Company of Canada, 'Chrysler Canada Ltd., 'General Motors of Canada Ltd., 'American
July 11, 1977

Motors Canada Ltd., Bendix Home Systems Ltd., Motor Coach Industries Ltd., Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., *Michelin Tire Manufacturing Company Canada Ltd., *John Deere Limited, Versatile Manufacturing Ltd., *Pratt and Whitney Aircraft of Canada Ltd., Marine Industries Ltd., *Racair Ltd., AP Parts Canada Ltd., Allis Chalmers Ltd., Canadian Trailmobile Ltd., Canadian Vickers Ltd., *Canadian Fabricated Products Ltd., National Steel Car Corporation, MLW-Worthington Ltd., *Holmes Foundry Ltd. Total: 61.
*Suppliers so indicated have been required to prenotify only since May 24, 1976.
Some suppliers on this list are required to prenotify for only a part of their total product range.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	For each year (a) 1975 (b) 1976, how much time did CBC give by radio and television nationally to farm news?
2.	How much time did regional stations devote to farm news?
3.	Has there been a drop in farm related programmes and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: 1 am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
Fiscal Year	English Radio	English TV	French Radio French TV	1.	(a) 1975/76	4:00	47:30	86:40	52:00(b)1976/77	11:00	47:30	86:40	52:002.	1975/76	1436:00	157:00	299:15	47:401976/77	1869:00	158:30	335:00	148:40
Note: Edmonton also telecasts a 52 week half-hour program in English produced by the Alberta Department of Agriculture.
3.	No.


Mr. Roy (Laval): 1.	Did CBC representatives (reporters, cameramen, etc.) accompany the Prime Minister to the London Summit in May and, if so, how many?
2.	Were cameras used and, if so, how many?
3.	In the transmission on the English network, via American satellite, of the interview with the Prime Minister, was any American equipment used and, if so, for what reason?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes. One reporter each from the English TV and radio networks and French TV and radio networks.
2.	One camera, owned by a contract crew in London.
3. There were no satellite feeds from London; the film was sent to Canada by air. A joint feed (CTV, CBC English network and CBC French network) was made from Paris
Order Paper Questions
during the Prime Minister's visit there via the international satellite. No American equipment was used.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of Agriculture aware of complaints from farmers in Leeds County and other areas of Eastern Ontario about the slow processing of brucellosis tests and, if so, what steps are being taken to improve the situation?
2.	Do test results take longer than ten days to be returned to the farmer and, if so (a) what is the average length of time required (b) could the time be reduced to ten days or less and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The
department is aware of complaints from farmers in Leeds County and other areas of Eastern Ontario concerning delays in the processing of brucellosis tests. Delays occurred in the late winter and early spring when an increased number of blood samples were submitted to the Departmental Laboratory in Ottawa for testing. The situation is now improved and samples are being processed promptly.
2.	Normally it takes longer than ten days for test results to be returned to the farmers, (a) The average length of time required is about thrirteen days, (b) The processing and testing of the samples at the laboratory requires approximately five days. The results of the test are then forwarded to the local office of the Health of Animals Branch, Agriculture Canada, for processing. The farmer is informed of the test results by mail. The time could be reduced to ten days by advising the owner of the results of the test by telephone and this is done when such a request is received from the owner.
HIGH-POWERED RADIO AND/OR TELEVISION STATION ON ISLANDS OF SAINT-PIERRE AND MIQUELON


Mr. Jones: 1.	Did the government participate in negotiations for the establishment of a high-powered radio and/or television station beamed into Canada and located on the Islands of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and, if so (a) for how long (b) have the negotiations been completed (c) what part did the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Communications or any other department or branch of the government play in such negotiations?
2.	What interference or interruptions is this likely to have with radio and/or television stations in Canada publicly and/or privately owned?
3.	What are the details of any international conventions or agreements covering such negotiations and the establishment of such a radio and/or television station?
4.	Are Canadian interests being protected in such negotiations and, if so (a) by whom (b) in what way?


William Ross Milne: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned: 1. No. However, there were negotiations between France and Canada, which were concluded in 1971, related to television stations limited to provide coverage of the Saint-Pierre and Miquelon Islands only, using the transmission system developed in France, (which is not compatible with television receivers normally used in Canada), (a) In respect to the above noted negotiations, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 1971 relating to the control of the utilization

July 11, 1977
Order Paper Questions
of certain television channels operating in the Saint-Pierre and Miquelon Islands and in those areas of Canada within 230 miles of the Saint-Pierre and Miquelon Islands. The establishment of this memorandum is in accordance with Article 31 of the International Telecommunication Convention. From time to time, when either Canada or France wants to establish a new television broadcasting station or to change the technical parameters of an existing station that may impact on the other country, direct negotiations are undertaken to coordinate the change. Canada is currently negotiating for two proposed new television stations in Newfoundland. The coordination of the operation of radio stations is in accordance with Article 9 of the Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunication Union and Article 35 of the International Telecommunication Convention, (b) The Memorandum of Understanding was signed on November 5, 1971. Negotiations to coordinate the establishment of new stations or changes to existing stations are undertaken as and when the need arises. To date, the following television stations have been coordinated under the Memorandum of Understanding: For France: St-Pierre (2 stations), Miquelon (1 station). For Canada: (a) In Newfoundland-CJWB-TV, Bonavista; CJWN-TV, Corner Brook: CBYAT, Deer Lake; CBNAT, Grand Falls; CBNT-2, Placentia; CBNT-1, Port Rexton; CBNT, St. John's; CBYT-1, Stephenville; CBWAT-7, Musgrave Harbour; CBNT-10, Cla-renville; CBNT-26, ST. Vincent's; (b) In Nova Scotia- CBHFT-4. Cheticamp; CBHFT, Sydney. In respect to radio stations, on Saint-Pierre and Miquelon there are only two. These were established in 1955 and 1963, respectively. Since 1955, Canada has established 22 new radio stations in Newfoundland alone. Also 2 stations established prior to that date have increased power, as have several of the 22 stations. All these actions were coordinated as per 1(a). There are no negotiations underway at the present time regarding radio stations, (c) The discussions were essentially technical in nature and were conducted by officials of the Department of Communications. The Department of External Affairs, which also has responsibility for the negotiation and approval of international treaties, agreements and arrangements, provided advice and was kept informed of all developments regarding the Memorandum of Understanding.
2.	If contemplated station operations are coordinated in accordance with bilateral and/or international regulations and agreements referred to above, there should not be any deleterious effect on radio and television stations operating in Canada from stations on Saint-Pierre and Miquelon.
3.	As explained in 1(a).
4.	Yes. (a) By the Department of Communications and Department of External Affairs, (b). In accordance with the bilateral and international arrangements referred to above, the operational and technical parameters of radio and television stations on the Saint-Pierre and Miquelon Islands must be accepted by Canada before the station is put into service.
[Mr. Milne.)


Mr. Smith (Churchill): 1.	Have any Indian Bands expressed an interest in taking over control of education for their Reserve and, if so (a) are monies available for the Bands to review their existing system and to plan for eventual takeover (b) are monies available for training of Band members in preparation for local control of education (c) is training available through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	Do the provinces have legislation enabling Indian representation on school boards and, if so, which ones?
3.	Does the Department have a policy regarding the building of high schools on Reserves and, if so, what is it?
4.	Is the Department conducting programmes to ensure that all Indians have an opportunity to become literate and, if so (a) what are they (b) what is the present rate of illiteracy?
5.	Do a disproportionate number of Indian students end up in non-academic streams and, if so, what is being done to change the pattern?
6.	Is there a growing number of Indian people pursuing higher education and, if so, is the Department able to meet the financial demands this entails?
7.	Are the Indian Bands involved in deciding the kind of structure they should have for new schools being constructed on their Reserves?
8.	(a) How many student residences (residential schools) does the Department still own that are no longer in use (b) what amount is being spent maintaining such residences each year?
9.	Has the Department built any group homes or hostels for Indian students in the provinces or territories and, if so (a) how many (b) in what locations (c) in what way does the cost compare in the operation of a student residence to that of a group home?
10.	Are there any plans to transfer responsibility of post-secondary education to the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
11.	What is the Department's present policy regarding the employment of Guidance Counsellors?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes, many Bands have expressed an interest in taking over control of education for their reserves. More than 35 bands are now controlling almost entirely their education programs, with the exception of capital expenditures for school construction. Many more bands, an estimated 200, are partially controlling their education programs in varying degrees between the operation of kindergartens to complete control, (a) Most regions have been able to provide limited funds for bands to review their existing educational system and to plan for functional take over, (b) and (c) The department has several methods of providing band members with training in band administration in general and for local control of Indian education.
2.	Yes, the following provinces have legislation enabling Indian representation on school boards: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick. At present such arrangements are being made to enable Indian representation on school boards in the James Bay area in Quebec.
3.	The matter of building high schools on reserves is one which has been and will be under review in consultation with the Indian people. There have been a number of requests from Indian people for the extension of the grade level in their reserve schools to include high school grades. This is necessary because there are factors which must be examined by the Indian people and the department. These include small enrol-
July 11, 1977

merits, geographical areas, limited possibilities for variations in courses offered, etc.
4.	The department does not have statistics regarding the present rate of illiteracy, however, the regions do arrange to provide training according to the wishes and needs of the Indian people in this area. These arrangements may include Basic Literacy and Upgrading programs which are organized by the Department of Manpower to improve the level of literacy on the reserves.
5.	Numbers which would indicate the proportion of Indian students following non-academic streams in relation to the total number of Indian students at the secondary level are not readily available. However, the pattern of academic and nonacademic streams changes according to the goals, needs and wishes of the students and parents. The department and the Indian people ensure, through their counselling services, that sufficient information is made available to the Indian students and their parents to enable them to select the stream which the students should follow. This being the case, the department would not be taking steps to change the pattern.
6.	The number of Indian people pursuing higher education has been steadily increasing. Since 1975-76 when 3,565 Indian students were enrolled in Universities and Post-Secondary training institutions, the number has grown to over 4,000 which representes a percentage increase of over 12 per cent. To date, the department has been able to meet the financial requirements in this area.
7.	While no delegation presently exists to permit Indian Bands and School Committees to plan their own school facilities, Band Councils or their representatives are consulted in the preparation of the project brief and are involved in the preliminary design work as well as in other design stages.
8.	(a) Six. (b) The department is spending $403,500 annually to keep the following redundant student residence facilities operative:
Region	Student Residence	Cost
Yukon Region Lower Post	$ 98,000
B.C. Region	Alberni	29,000
Alberta Region St. Paul's	45,000
Desmarais	51,000
Ontario Region
Fort Frances Cecilia Jeffrey Horden Hall
81,500
74.000
35.000
Sub-total $413,500
less 10,000 revenue from Desmarais
Total $403,500
9.	(a) Yes, the department has built 18 group homes in the following locations:
Order Paper Questions
Region	Location	NumberYukon Region	Ross River	1Upper Liard	1Watson Lake	1Saskatchewan Region	Onion Lake	2Ontario Region	Moose Factory	2Quebec	Mistassini	3Fort George	8
Total
(c) In all of the areas, with the exception of those in Quebec, the per pupil cost of operating and maintaining group homes is as high or higher than the operation of student residences in the same areas. All of the 18 group homes presently in operation are band-operated under the contriubutions to bands program.
10.	The department has no plans to transfer responsibility of post-secondary education to the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
11.	The current policy of the department regarding the employment of guidance counsellors is flexible. Wherever Indian people request the services of guidance/educational counsellors, the department meets their requests subject to the availability of man-years and salary dollars. However the current trend is to engage Indian social counsellors in line with the wishes of the Indian people.


William Ross Milne: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising frequently under the guise of a question of privilege. At this moment it is neither a question of privilege nor is it necessary for the hon. member to so describe it. It is customary to ask, after stating that the questions enumerated have been answered, whether the remaining questions shall be allowed to stand. Hon. members have the opportunity to raise the grievance that certain questions have not been answered, but that is not a question of privilege.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to say there are 22 questions in the name of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) not yet answered, and I intend to move the adjournment of the House tomorrow to show my protest.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 30, consideration of Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before resuming consideration of the motions of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), perhaps I could indicate to the House, further to comments I made on June 30, what I have in mind with respect to the grouping of motions at the report stage of Bill C-51. I have some notes prepared with respect to these groupings, and in order to save hon. members some stenography of their own I can simply read them for the record and provide photo copies for hon. members to consider while they debate these motions. That will give them an opportunity to consider the matter.
As I indicated earlier, motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) was to be debated and voted on separately. However, motions 21 and 22, also in the hon. member's name, are similar in nature and I intend to group them for debate with motion No. 2, so that a vote on motion No. 2 earlier referred to will, I think, dispose of motions 21 and 22. Since the grouping earlier has been somewhat altered 1 should perhaps review the groupings that we have brought forward for discussion up to this point.
Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 will be grouped for debate and, if required, a vote on motion No. 3 will also dispose of motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14 could be grouped for debate and a vote on motion No. 12 will dispose of motions Nos. 13 and 14. Motions Nos. 15 and 16 could be grouped for debate and, if required, voted on separately.
I have since had an opportunity to have a closer look at the remaining motions and it would be my intention to group them as follows. Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 18 and 19 could be grouped for debate but would require separate votes. Motion No. 20 will be debated and voted on separately. I have already indicated to hon. members that motions Nos. 21 and 22 will be grouped with motion No. 2 for debate and vote. Motions Nos. 23 and 24 could be grouped for debate and one vote.
Motions Nos. 25, 26 and 27 should be grouped for debate and, if required, the question will be put on motion No. 25, with an affirmative vote disposing of motions Nos. 26 and 27. A negative vote on the motion, however, will require the question to be put on motion No. 26, which in turn will dispose

of motion No. 27. Motion No. 28 has already been grouped with motion No. 7. Motion No. 29 standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) will be debated and, if required, voted on separately. Motions Nos. 30, 31 and 32 should be grouped for debate, and a vote on motion No. 30 will also dispose of motions Nos. 31 and 32. Motions Nos. 33 and 34 could be grouped for debate and vote.
Motions Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 38 should be grouped for debate and, if required, a vote on motion No. 35 will dispose of motions Nos. 36 and 37. The question on motion No. 38 should be put separately. Motion No. 39 standing in the name of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) will be debated and voted on separately.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on the last occasion this bill was before the House 1 indicated that it was my desire to make a few comments on this clause, and specifically on motion No. 28. For the benefit of those who read Hansard and may wonder what this debate was about, as we have been dealing with other matters for the past week, I wish to read from the order paper. The motion reads:
"(2) Every order in council, regulation or form made under this act shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the order in council, regulation or form, as the case may be, is made or, if parliament is not then in session, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof and every order in council, regulation, or form shall be subject to affirmative resolution of parliament and shall not come into force until published in the Canada Gazette."
I realize that the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and other speakers from this party have indicated very clearly the motion and some of its ramifications. However, sometimes repetition produces the desired results. Stating my support for this motion will add one more voice to the crescendo of requests for the adoption of this amendment.
As we look at the history of this legislation, we see that many amendments have been proposed by the government. A great many were proposed by the opposition parties, but very few of any consequence were accepted by the government. I hope this one in particular will receive the support of all in this House, because it is a very reasonable and logical request when dealing with the Criminal Code of Canada.
If Canadians are to be held accountable, it is imperative that they be made aware of the provisions of the law. Under our system of government it is almost impossible for any person to know whether he or she is living completely within the law as enacted by federal, provincial and municipal governments. Therefore, it is imperative that to the very best of our ability they be made aware of the law and the regulations.
I say this because of the complexity of the system under which we operate. 1 believe the law should be as clear and concise as possible and, as I have said, every effort should be made to acquaint the public with its requirements.
In response to comments by the hon. member for Calgary North, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) stated it is imperative that police officers and customs officials know and understand the regulations so that in dealing with the citizens
July 11, 1977

they are fully aware of the law and the regulations. It is not only important for those applying the law and calling on citizens to account for their actions relative to the law, but it is very important for those who are affected by the law. Law enforcement agencies should be fully cognizant of their responsibilities under the law.
I do not think ignorance is an acceptable defence when a person is charged. I think of a young man who was driving along a highway. He had been driving that highway for a considerable number of years. He was stopped. A few days before, the speed limit on the highway had been reduced. It not only caused this person some inconvenience, but if I recollect correctly it cost him a fine of $30. That was only a minor infraction. However, when dealing with the Criminal Code of Canda, the Minister of Justice and all concerned must ensure that the law is known by as wide a section of the population as possible under the circumstances.
This amendment, which requires that regulations made under this act be laid before this parliament within 15 days, is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. As has been pointed out, when regulations are presented to parliament for consideration and decision, it adds greatly to the knowledge of the law right across the country. The very fact that this subject is being debated will at least enable others to understand what it is we are considering here. I believe this is a very reasonable recommendation. All too often the government bypasses parliament. Indeed, the passing of orders in council has become a usual method of doing so. Even though the intention is to set out regulations, I would remind hon. members that regulations are an extremely important part of legislation.
The opposition has been complaining because on far too many occasions when legislation has been laid before the House, much of the detail is left to be regulated by order in council, with the result that we have no say, as representatives of the people, with regard to provisions which have an important bearing upon the laws we pass. I would, therefore, ask the Minister of Justice to accept the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Calgary North. We are not asking that all orders in council that are passed should be referred to parliament. This is one of the defences the minister has put forward: he has suggested it is not practicable for parliament to undertake responsibility for considering all orders in council. 1 must say, though, I think it might be a good idea, if time permitted. Realizing that this is not possible, we are asking that only those orders in council passed under the bill before us should be so referred to parliament for consideration.
As I said earlier, these arguments may have been placed before the House on other occasions, but I want to express my support for them in the hope that after repetition of these submissions the minister might finally accept the view of the opposition and make the legislation more palatable; or, perhaps I should say, less abrasive, since I do not think anything which might be done to the bill would make it palatable. But
Criminal Code
at least it would not be such an imposition upon the citizens of Canada.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, these amendments go well together, because if you have one you may not need the other. If a public officer is designated, you probably would not need a regulation setting up the designation. In the absence of such designation it would obviously not be necessary to pass a regulation setting out who these people were going to be. I am sure there will be instances when the department might wish to make the factor of a Hudson s Bay post a peace officer for the purpose of this legislation. Or it might be the intention to appoint those who run radio or weather stations in some of our remote areas as peace officers for the purpose of this act. But if this is the case, we should say so specifically and spell out these intentions.
I see no reason why the government should not accept some of these very sensible amendments. It would seem reasonable, to me, that the government should let us know what it has in mind with regard to the delegation of authority. If gun clubs are to be given this authority, let the government say so. As long as this is done by regulation, without the public being told what the government has in mind the only persons who will know what the regulations are will be those authorized to perform these control functions. At some point, obviously, they will have to make this information available to the public with whom they are dealing, since otherwise the entire operation would fail.
The previous speaker said he did not see much reason for not agreeing with the government that not all regulations should be made public. Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a regulation that should not be made public, if it involves people in their relationship with the government. There is, obviously, no point in putting it under a bushel some place. I know this is a poor metaphor, but it seems to me there is no reason to hide it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are getting more biblical as you get older.


William Arnold Peters: It is obvious that when you are making a regulation it should be known to those of the public who are concerned. The motion does not recommend that parliament has to approve. All we ask is that parliament should know of it. I believe that if parliament knew about these things, it might sometimes make a bit of a fuss and certain regulations to which objection was taken would be withdrawn or revised.
I cannot understand the minister's desire to designate these public officers by order in council and then express unwillingness to publish the regulations. It seems to me there is no great security aspect here. Surely it is not in the interest of national security that we should keep these regulations from the general public, since without public involvement the regulations will not mean a thing. It might well be that the regulations could be referred specifically to the statutory instruments committee. Maybe they should get them all and put out a public document

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
which would call attention to the nature of the regulations which have been passed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: They do.


William Arnold Peters: Then what is the argument against making the designation of these officers available to parliament?


Stanley Ronald Basford: They are.


William Arnold Peters: The minister says they are to be made available. It is true some orders in council appear in the Canada Gazette. I suppose we sell some 2,000 or 3,000 copies of the Canada Gazette, but it would surprise me very much if more than five copies were read north of the sixtieth parallel where many of these pseudo peace officers are likely to be needed. I do not think many of the people up there are likely to be reading the Canada Gazette.
I should like to see this information brought before the House once a year so that we might consider the choices the minister has made and express our approval or otherwise. The hon. gentleman says he wishes to be known as the law and order minister of justice. Members of parliament might help him, possibly, by suggesting a reduction in the number of categories of people who are to be given these limited powers of peace officers for the purposes intended in the bill. Members of parliament should know who is to be given these powers and who is not. A similar point arose in our consideration of an earlier bill.
This legislation affects people very directly and personally, so I see no reason why the regulations should not be made public. There may well be some legitimate reason why they cannot be. For example, what happens in the Northwest Territories may be different from what happens in the Yukon, or what happens in northern Ontario may be different from what happens in other parts of Ontario. It may be necessary to have different categories. But I do not think there should be any objection to anyone knowing what the categories are and expressing their opinion on them.
I am not suggesting that we get bogged down in approving regulations, orders in council, treasury board minutes, and so on; but I think we should at least know what they provide. I do not see why the government is reluctant to be more specific in the third clause and to spell out that it will be a peace officer, a notary public or somebody else. Are police, detachment officers in the RCMP, storekeepers above a certain level, going to be given this power? If so, it should be spelled out. Whoever drafted the legislation must have had someone in mind. I am shocked by the position taken by the Minister of Justice. There have been ministers of justice before who were not practising lawyers and had no such experience. But this minister has.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Sure.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member realizes that all of the regulations we are talking about will, under the act, be made public and will, under the laws of parliament, be permanently referred to the standing committee on statutory instruments. The amendment he is debating provides, not that they be made public and referred to the standing committee but that they must be approved, each one of them, by an affirmative resolution of parliament, which is something which he just said he was not in favour of.


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that we would have to affirm them, and I appreciate the minister's bringing that to my attention. The minister says they are going to be made public. Why could the regulations not be attached to the report that is made to parliament, so they could be examined in terms of this legislation? It is true that very few members ever read the Canada Gazette, a piece of literature which we receive but which very few of us read. I suggest that only those who subscribe to the Canada Gazette or to reports of the statutory instruments committee would be made aware of that information.
My point is that if the matter is left to regulation, and if we do not know what the regulations are, then they should be attached to the annual report to parliament, in which case they obviously will become known. I think it is going too far to say that we have to approve them, because if that were the case we would be doing nothing but approving regulations. The government makes thousands of regulations every day, and we would soon become bogged down. Most of the regulations which are tabled, along with reports affecting individuals, do not become known until, as a previous speaker said, someone is charged under a section of the legislation or one of the regulations. This seems unfair since they were not aware of the existence of the regulation.
Rather than leaving it to regulation, I would prefer the legislation to spell out definitely who will exercise this authority under the act. The drafters of the bill, as I say, must have had someone in mind and I should like to know who it is. Otherwise, they are deciding on my behalf at a later date.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I am rising to speak in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) which asks that when regulations are made they should be tabled in parliament within 15 days and then debated. This is very imperative in such matters as gun control. My support for the amendment arises from my deep concern that this government has consistently eroded the parliamentary system in Canada. The Liberal government has constantly abused the power to govern outside of parliament by regulations and orders in council. Many years ago an eminent British judge called government by orders in council the "new despotism". Since that time England has restrained itself in regard to government by regulation, but in Canada this sneaky, undemocratic and all-embracing method of pushing people around has become the Liberals' favourite method of abusing parliament.
July 11, 1977

On various occasions the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has shown his contempt for parliament, and nowhere is it better illustrated than with the abuse of orders in council. In 1976, Mr. Speaker, there were 3,327 orders in council passed and none of them was later brought before parliament for discussion. For the same time period there were only ten orders in council in England, all of them later introduced into parliament for approval. That is a clear indication of the decline of parliament in Canada. It has been proven without a shadow of doubt that certain elements in the federal bureaucracy have used orders in council and regulations for their own convenience, without regard to public rights. The second report of the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments contains carefully documented proof that Canada's parliament is being seriously weakened by orders in council.
Since this issue was first raised in parliament over 12 years ago, Mr. Speaker, parliament has been frustrated and inhibited by these abuses. In blunt terms, the Trudeau government has helped parliamentary democracy turn into an order in council dictatorship, with power firmly fixed in the hands of the executive. If we are to make a serious move to restore the right of parliament as a meaningful body to defend the rights of the public against imperial prime ministership, then we should pass the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary North. As we all know, an order in council can seriously alter the law within days. Since the vast majority of Canadians are not aware of these changes, it makes common sense that all regulations should be brought back to parliament within 15 days and debated. In that way the people of this country would have a better opportunity of knowing exactly what is going on.
With regard to gun control, Mr. Speaker, you will note that Bill C-51 proposes that new laws be put into effect by order in council. When you look at Bill C-51, it is surprising how vague it is with regard to gun control. Gun control should be aimed at the criminal element; but Bill C-51 could make criminals out of many responsible gun owners in Canada. In a short time, gun dealers, gun owners and even the police are not going to know which guns are restricted. That is a concern which many of my constituents, and indeed responsible gun owners from all over Canada, have been writing about to all members and especially to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford).
I seriously wonder why the government is so reluctant to draft these regulations and present them to parliament for approval. Why must they be forced on Canadians? Parliament should make laws for Canadians, and not bureaucrats. Gun control is supposed to be aimed at those who deliberately are out to break the law. Bill C-51 is on its way to making criminals out of law-abiding Canadians who will suddenly find themselves in possession of illegal weapons because they do not read the Canada Gazette and since this government has no intention of bringing these matters before parliament.
Criminal Code
To govern is a trust and, like any trust, there must be an accounting. The bureaucrats who will draft the gun control regulations are not accountable to the people. Unless there is a serious change, we shall see the advent of government by regulation at the whim of a handful of people. I should like to quote from a couple of letters I received from Winnipeg residents with regard to Bill C-51. A young man who has never written to an elected member before summed up the feelings of many by writing the following:
Bill C-51 would make many voters feel like second-class cirizens and a bit like a criminal because of their sport and hobby.
Yes, responsible gun owners are being hindered by this bill. They are very concerned about the intent of the bill. Another Winnipeg constituent wrote the following:
Another unacceptable provision of this legislation is that it gives the governor in council power to formulate law without reference to parliament, in other words, this is open-ended legislation which could be used by individuals in power in government for many purposes completely unacceptable in our society.
Many law-abiding gun owners want to know what the purpose of using regulations through orders in council is all about. The Manitoba Association of Gun Owners stated the following:
At the present time Bill C-51 appears to be aimed at depriving and restricting the honest law-abiding citizens of their right to enjoy legitimate ownership and use of firearms.
I contend that the time has come for the government to come clean with the Canadian people and to cease government by regulation. The motion presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North, would be a step in the right direction. It was interesting to note this afternoon during the question period that the Prime Minister was concerned about when the House was going to recess. We will not be able to recess for some period of time. The Minister of Justice must be going through a very uncomfortable period when he goes home each evening and his children ask him, "Daddy, when are we going to go back to Vancouver? I would like to have a swim at Kitsilano beach". Maybe the minister's wife and his children will have some effect on him, in which case we can all have a holiday this summer.
I should like to quote from a letter I received from Mr. L. Martynec, president of the Association of Automatic Firearms Collectors and Shooters, which outlines the concern they have. Today I received approximately 150 letters from my riding. I am here to speak up for Canadian people when they are concerned about pieces of legislation like this. Returning to Mr. Martynec's letter, it reads as follows:
We decry the injustice of medieval witch-hunts and persecution of "heretics", yet the same principle applies in this case. Unwillingness to understand or tolerate the innocent and lawful activities of others is typical of the dark ages and should have no place in our enlightened and just society.
I am therefore appealing to you, as a Canadian legislator, to give this issue judicious consideration and at the same time urge you to do everything in your power not to allow such wanton mistreatment of innocent human beings. 1 sincerely hope that as a result, you will influence adoption of amendments to Bill C-51 to reflect justice and common sense, thus allowing legitimate, law-abiding owners of automatic firearms to continue enjoying their innocent and harmless activity without further unnecessary harassment.

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
That letter expresses the feelings of thousands of Canadians. It is amazing to realize the depth to which many Canadians have studied this piece of legislation. It is commendable that they are studying various bills going through this House, particularly this one. I received a letter from Mrs. Stella Ferguson, a lady from Lethbridge, Alberta, which reads as follows:
1.	The Criminal code is much too important to have any portions thereof left to order in council.
2.	Why should law-abiding citizens be subject to another high-cost bureaucracy in order to obtain a fire-arms' acquisition certificate which will have little effect on crime control.
3.	Competency courses in the handling of firearms should be made available before any such requirement is implemented.
4.	The U.S. safety council indicates that over 72 per cent of all violent deaths-auto, falling, drowning, shooting, etc.-are related to the misuse of alcohol and drugs. Although not stated by our justice department we have reason to believe the percentage in Canada is even higher. This problem should be looked at before we consider gun control.
5.	Bill C-51, despite the government propaganda, will in no way make sentences any more severe because of all the summary conviction, provisions and the leniency of our justice system that makes a mockery of any crime committed.
6.	I can see no way that Bill C-51 will change our present situation by preventing suicide as any fire department or emergency service will state that prescription drugs are used in more suicide attempts than all other known means.
7.	Homicides in family disputes where firearms are not handy would still occur. A majority would use other weapons, which today are used as much if not more than the firearm in this type of homicide.
8.	The reasons for making a firearm restricted or prohibited are too vague. These reasons should be spelled out.
I urge you to do whatever is necessary to protect my freedom and heritage.
The minister seems to be adamant and stubborn in regard to this particular bill. It is not wanted by the people. It is not the answer to crime. I hope he will give serious consideration to accepting this amendment and let us get on with the summer recess.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate surrounding these motions by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) concerning the regulations to be made under the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with gun control. In the first place, I find it very distasteful that we should give the government any authority to make regulations under the Criminal Code. When people think of the law, the Criminal Code is probably the prime example of law in the country because it sets out most of the crimes that have been declared to be such by the parliament of Canada. By its very nature, the crimes that are declared to be such should be very public, and before the people, so they can understand what they are not to do. They should be publicized at least in the statute books.
I am very concerned about the growing tendancy in this country, which 1 suppose is worldwide-or at least in all western countries-to give more and more power to the executive to make regulations governing the daily affairs of citizens, without any reference to their representatives to see whether the citizens actually approve of those actions. It is particularly

important in this area dealing with criminal law. As I have pointed out, that is the prime example of law in the country.
Lately I have been dealing with crimes created under other statutes, and I would like to give the House an example of what can happen under the delegated authority we have given the government in many pieces of legislation passed by this House. I think it is time we stopped being so free and easy about giving the executive of this country that kind of power. 1 have been involved in defending the manager of an elevator in my town against charges levied against him at the instance of the Canadian Wheat Board.
These charges resulted from a change in policy adopted by the government without reference to this House. As a result of that change of policy, which was not publicly disclosed to the people involved, apparently in the view of the Canadian Wheat Board many managers of country elevators are now guilty of crimes they did not think they were guilty of when they did the things they are alleged to have done. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the governor in council or the Canadian Wheat Board can make regulations. The Canadian Wheat Board does this periodically under the guise of something known as "instructions to the trade." The board sends out letters. They are not even under the seal or letterhead of the government of Canada: they are not on anybody's letterhead, not even on the letterhead of the Canadian Wheat Board. These letters are very innocuous documents, but as a result of them, if people are judged guilty of what they are alleged to have done, it can be very costly.
1 submit that we should stop permitting this delegation in all areas, but we should start with the criminal law. When we deal with the Criminal Code, the law should be stated within the statute. We should not be forced to go to some other source to find out what crime may have been created by some minister of justice somewhere down the line. I suggest that the government does not really want to tell us what the regulations are. If the government was honest about this bill, it would.
I agree with what the previous speaker said. This bill is unnecessary. It is a reaction to something which has received the government's attention. There is an outcry in the country against the rising forces of lawlessness and against what has been happening under the administration of this government over the past number of years, and the government is reacting by producing this legislation. This bill is a watered-down version of legislation we had last session. That legislation was totally unacceptable. Even though it took several months of discussion in this House to convince the government that it was unacceptable, the government finally got the message. 1 suggest that this legislation is unacceptable primarily because it is unnecessary.
It has been my observation that most of the crimes committed with firearms have been committed with hand guns, and hand guns are not even affected by this bill. Our present controls on hand guns go back to the thirties; they are now some 40 years old. They are among the most stringent in the
July 11, 1977

world. Yet we have an ever increassing number of crimes committed with hand guns. Where in this legislation is there anything which would lead us to believe that this government-or any government of any political stripe-could be any more effective in dealing with crimes related to hand guns?
We should not be pursuing the problem with this type of legislation. I do not think the problem can be solved by legislation which purports to regulate only the honest, law-abiding citizens of the country. If gun control is so effective as a means of dealing with the abuse of firearms, why are we having more and more hand gun-related offences when we have very stringent measures on the books? This bill in no way purports to deal with that problem.
Be that as it may, we have this legislation before us. It looks innocuous in many respects, but it contains a blank cheque which the government can sign at any time and in any way it wishes. If the government were honest in what it proposes to do, I suggest it would put its intentions into legislation so that we could all see them now. Failing that, it would at least provide us with the regulations it says it is going to pass. We would like to know the government's attitude and what it is going to do with those regulations.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North, that the government at least lay the regulations before the House prior to their coming into effect, is reasonable. I do not understand why the government refuses to accept such an amendment. If the government's intentions are so great, why does it resist this amendment? That question should be answered. Why does the government refuse to allow this chamber to examine the regulations it wants to bring in in the future? If the government says the regulations are going to be reasonable and effective, surely it should not be afraid to bring them before this chamber prior to their affecting the population at large. I find it hard to understand the attitude of this government. The way it is behaving makes me very suspicious.
I feel we should not give the government what it wants, when it will not take us into its confidence with regard to what it proposes to do.
As I pointed out earlier, there are many examples of abuses by the regulatory authorities of this country. I referred to what the Canadian Wheat Board has done. I am sorry to say that many of us do not catch everything which passes through this House by way of legislation. Until 1972 the Canadian Wheat Board Act was subject to the general law relating to summary conviction offences. There was a limitation. The Crown had to bring charges against offenders under the act within six months of infractions. Unfortunately, in 1972 this House amended that act. I must confess that I was a member of this House then. This House gave the government the right to wait up to two years before laying charges. I was not aware of that change until recently when I became involved with the case to which I referred earlier. I cite that merely to show that even those of us who are members of this House are not aware of every change in the substantive law. By extension, how can anybody be aware of what the bureaucrats are doing and what
Criminal Code
regulations they are turning out? Those regulations do not really get any publicity at all.
It is because of the experience I have had with the Canadian Wheat Board Act that I am very anxious to see this House compel the government to refer all proposed regulations made under the Criminal Code to the House for its consideration before they become binding on the population at large. I hope there will be support from all sides of the House for this proposition because, as I said earlier, if there is nothing to hide, why not let us see it? I certainly hope that before the debate is over the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) will explain to us why we cannot see the proposed regulations now, before the bill is finally accepted by the House.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that most, if not all, fish and game associations are strongly protesting the adoption of this bill which only aims at imposing on fishermen and hunters very strict controls as to the selling, purchasing, giving, lending, using and storing of guns and ammunitions for hunting. A number of hon. members having already had the opportunity to say what they think of this bill, I shall deal only with the few aspects which I feel are of paramount importance, because they seriously affect the civil rights of individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I received recently a letter from a man who wrote, and 1 quote:
This letter deals with Bill C-51 of the House of Commons and more specifically with Parts III and IV, pages 1 to 44, dealing with firearms and other offensive weapons. This bill contains many unacceptable provisions, which were also found in Bill C-83, in addition to a large number of regrettable points whose purpose and text lack clarity.
And here, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote another letter from another man, one of the large number of letters I have received. This letter is written in English; may I be allowed to quote it:

Dear Sir:
I object very strongly to Bill C-51 for the following reasons.
No way should I have to pay $10 for a firearms certificate to prove I'm not a criminal or a psycho.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Hear, hear!


Eudore Allard: The law-abiding gun owner did not make the criminal or the psycho what he is. It is the government's responsibility to deal with these people and not make it look like it is my fault.
Do you think just because a criminal or a psycho doesn't have a firearms certificate it will stop him from doing what he had in mind in the first place?
The $10 fee is simply stealing money from law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this unreasonable bill reveals the centralizing purposes of the right hon. Prime Minister and the ministers who make up the cabinet. So, as some hon. members have already pointed out, while appearing

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
on the surface to be meant to control firearms, Bill C-51, in fact, is intended to restrict the freedom of the individual. Besides, to realize it, one need but read a few clauses of the bill, for it is more than obvious that the federal government has found nothing better to do than to restrict the civil liberties of honest Canadians. Now, to go back to the quotation:

Trying to sneak unacceptable gun legislation through parliament with other possible good legislation is just plain terrible government, pure and simple.
[ Translation]
This omnibus bill is somewhat cunning because it contains some fine provisions but on the other hand, the good is mixed with the bad. Indeed, many provisions of the bill authorize police forces to undertake quite arbitrarily not to say abusively searches or seizures on the ground that individuals who are deemed to be undesirable or are suspected of having violated some provisions of the legislation have guns, ammunitions or other offensive weapons in their possession. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, that if such provisions were added to the Criminal Code, police forces could, if they wanted to do so, under the cover of the law, submit all Canadian citizens and establishments to a systematic search. In my opinion, as I said, such a bill has no place in our so-called liberal society and should not even be tolerated. It is really inconsistent with our way of living. In addition, the bill is unacceptable since it authorizes the governor in council to draft legislation without the previous consent of Parliament.
Thus, it could be quite possible that some members, apparently affluent in the government, use such a provision for a great number of unacceptable reasons in our society. In this regard, needless to say I consider that the discretionary powers conferred on the cabinet, through orders in council, constitute a threat, a kind of sword of Damocles over the heads of Canadians, against the freedom of the Canadian public in general.
As a matter of fact, last year, if my figures are right, out of 3300 orders in council promulgated, only approximately 600 were brought to the attention of the public in the usual way, that is in the Canada Gazette, the others having been kept, as far as I know, from the public. As a result, I could unknowingly commit a crime offence ignoring that such an act has just been declared illegal by the cabinet. This is in part what we, the Social Crediters, have recently done as regards a certain act concerning the financing of political parties.
Mr. Speaker, clause 88 (2) (a) reads as follows:
(2)	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.
And further on, we can read clause 89 (3) (a) in the following terms:
(3)	Every one who is an occupant of a motor vehicle in which he knows there is a restricted weapon, is, unless some occupant of the motor vehicle is the holder of a permit under which he may lawfully have that weapon in his possession in

such vehicle, or he establishes that he had reason to believe that some occupant of the motor vehicle was the holder of such permit,
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.
This clause demonstrates the total nonsense of this piece of legislation. In fact, as we have noticed, Bill C-51 provides that "Every one who is an occupant of a motor vehicle in which he knows there is a restricted weapon is liable to imprisonment for five years". So, if someone gets on a bus with a firearm, I presume that the fifty persons aboard are all liable to imprisonment for five years. That is, Mr. Speaker, the kind of legislation that the government is offering to the population.
Besides, it should be pointed out that provisions concerning the right to appeal are really inadequate in such a bill. As a matter of fact, in many cases the accused is presumed guilty until he proves his innocence. In fact, as I have said throughout my speech, Bill C-51 contains many provisions which are altogether inconsistent with the kind of society in which we are living, let alone with our jurisprudence.
As an example, I will quote one passage of the work of Sir Guy Prowles entitled The Citizens Rights Against the Modern State and its Responsibilities to Him. It says that:

"One of the most important responsibilities the State has to the individual citizen is to provide adequate, efficient and effective mechanisms for the enforcement of his rights, even if this enforcement must be sought against the state itself."

In another work entitled Administrative Laws, one can read the following:

"The greater the power given to the executive, the greater the need to safeguard the citizen's rights against its arbitrary or unfair exercise."

And may I also be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to quote the words of Mr. Henry Puget in The Control of the Administration, as follows:

"The administration must be controlled. Its agents are subject to human weakness, to error, to bias; on some occasions they submit with too much ease to the will of the government and on other occasions, they wrongly thwart policy; the administration makes, willfully or not, mistakes in the application of laws, in the interpretation of laws or decrees which apply to it."

As one can see, Bill C-51 goes directly against what 1 quoted a few moments ago. Nobody will deny that it is more than necessary to control crime. May I be permitted to say that no country, and particularly Canada, has the right to pass such legislation with regard to firearms and other offensive weapons. That is unacceptable because it is inconceivable in a free and democratic country such as ours that the pursuit and punishment of culprits should come before the respect of citizens' private lives.
Before concluding, I would like to add that this bill is only going to create a number of problems for sportsmen and honest citizens in general. Indeed, the proposal to give officers
July 11, 1977

the power to determine who may or may not own a firearm is an alarming example of a philosophy of prohibiting all that is not mandatory. If this bill which I think is ill-conceived were to be passed, firearms in Canada would quite simply be limited to an elite. As I already heard some people say, it would then be easy, even child's play, for a government with delusions of grandeur to confiscate all firearms on the pretence of emergency and thus ascertain, whether people want it or not, the docility of the people. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean by that that this government is already on the road to dictatorship but it is, admittedly, a beginning because every time we take a step in the direction of greater government control, we move toward a future where our children and grandchildren will have no hope.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say a few words on the motion advanced by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I wholeheartedly support the principle of the motion. What bothers us on this side of the House is the growing propensity of government to bring forth legislation in carte blanche form which gives it blanket powers to do anything, incidental or otherwise, with that legislation. The bill before us affects every Canadian, so it is important that in this case the law be clearly defined. In his remarks, the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out that when this measure was introduced in 1976, 3,326 orders in council were passed, and of those 653 were published in the Canada Gazette. That makes it very difficult for those who want to live within the limitations of this law to be sure what the law is at any given time.
As I said, the government has brought many pieces of legislation into this House which point up the increasing amount of power delegated to the governor in council in terms of the proclamation of regulations and taking decisions within the framework of the legislation. There is, for example, Bill C-33, to amend the National Transportation Act, which is currently before the House. It puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of the governor in council, to the point where it can almost dictate the modal integration of the transportation system in this country. It can almost dictate what sort of freight articles will move by which mode to a given place.
Bill C-17, to amend the Air Canada Act, is another example of legislation which places broad discretionary powers in the hands of the governor in council. In many cases the provisions of the bill are so broad that they fortify the powers of the agency, in this case the Canadian Transport Commission. We see similar legislation in the field of communications, and are told that such legislation is to be brought forward in connection with the National Energy Board. This is very disturbing to those who want to live within the law and makes it very difficult to provide a sense of stability and continuity of regulations as they apply to various sectors.
It is interesting to note that at this time when we have a
serious energy crisis in this country people involved in energy,
particularly oil, tell us they have to comply with 375 pieces of
Criminal Code
provincial and federal legislation in order to carry on business. The proliferation of order in council proclaimed regulations makes it all the more difficult for industry to know the state of the law under which it operates.
Undoubtedly the Minister of Justice finds it difficult to obtain acceptance of this bill. Its predecessor, Bill C-83, last year found little favour with rural Canadians and urban dwellers. Bill C-51 is a watered-down version of C-83, and the minister has campaigned vigorously in the hope of securing its passage during the present session of parliament.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He ought to have been in Camrose recently.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, he should have been in Camrose last Saturday to see how vigorously some people object to the bill. I understand his colleague from Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) does not view the bill with favour. I am surprised he has not spoken out against it, for the people of his constituency are not unlike the people in mine and they do not view this bill with favour. Although Bill C-51 is not quite as harsh as Bill C-83, some people still think it is an unknown quantity. We do not know what the regulations will say. As the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) said, at the very least the committee should have been shown the regulations as an indication of what the government had up its sleeve. Many suspect this is but the government's foot in the door.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The camel's head in the tent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It could lead to wider powers. It is the skeleton, the frame if you like, for orders in council, and perhaps for amending legislation in future. Therefore, we must consider this bill carefully and cautiously, especially since many people in rural areas will find compliance with its provisions difficult. The May 10 issue of Farm and Country had this to say on the subject in an article entitled, "Farmers fear bureaucratic rules":
What the urban press has viewed as highly diluted gun legislation, rural Ontario seems unmoved in the thinking the justice minister Ron Basford s new measures are "just the old Bill C-83 dressed up."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a sort of tuxedo bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Without buttons. I continue quoting:
Main bone of contention is that the latest proposals leave so much to the whim of bureaucrats and orders in council, none of which are reviewed beforehand by the House of Commons. Wallaceburg hog farmer, Don Crowe, contends that present gun owners are being ignored, but once the skeleton bill gets passed they could be included at the first public outcry in the press.
I repeat, present gun owners are being ignored. What happened to the concept of participatory democracy so much in vogue in 1968? Some groups which wished to tell the parliamentary committee some of their concerns about the legislation and make suggestions were not given the opportunity to testify. Is it any wonder farmers like Don Crowe fear the implications of this so-called skeleton bill the provisions of which could be expanded at the first public outcry in the press? I continue quoting:
7542

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
Crowe, like many sheep owners and cow-calf owners, thinks that a gun can be legal today and banned tomorrow... "done by some faceless Ottawa bureaucrat." He seeks gun legislation with iron-clad guarantees given farmers and other gun owners, and the removal of all orders in council provisions.
The motion before the House would not go quite that far. It would go part of the way to ensure regulations are brought before the House and published and allow gun owners and others who want to comply with the law to know the regulations. The article continues:
The ideal, besides the welcome grandfather clause offered present gun owners, is that would-be gun owners should get a police certificate stating that the applicant has no police record and is not known to be mentally incompetent.
From that point, Crowe says, the applicant is then referred to a registered gun club or group of proficient local citizens (such as off-duty policemen). This would call for the completion of a recognized firearms course, thus constituting the cooling-off period demanded by the anti-gun lobby.
"However, the government would be out of the picture. And so would the bureaucrats. Hasn't Ottawa caught on to the fact that Canadians are utterly sick of officials sticking their noses into everything?" he asks.
The article summarizes what many Canadians feel. The government intervenes too much in our ordinary businesses and lives. Frankly, when the government does not listen to representations people make on legislation, democracy suffers. Parliament faces a crisis, and the public feels ever more that the politicians in Ottawa forget the people they are supposed to serve in their constituencies. The wishes of constituents are not translated into action taken by the House of Commons. That the provisions of this bill were not fully examined in committee is a clear demonstration of that fact. If democracy, parliament and our system of government are to survive, politicians on all sides must listen to the people. Therefore, I regret that those whom this legislation will affect particularly were not given the chance to appear before the committee in order to place their views on record.
The government's manner of proceeding was clearly evident in its approach to the metric conversion legislation. Rumour has it that the government will buckle under, come to its senses, heed our suggestions and remove from Bill C-23 the provision concerning hectares. We said in January that this provision should be removed. The government said we were filibustering. We were not. We were fighting for the people of Canada then, and we are trying to do the same at present.
I point out that after the hon. member for Crowfoot crossed the floor of the House, the government tried to force this measure through on three different occasions. I thought the hon. member, on behalf of the farmers of Canada, opposed metric conversion. Be that as it may, I am glad the government, after this long and difficult fight in the House of Commons, is at last willing to sit down and negotiate with the opposition. If they had been wise enough to read and follow some of the first speeches on this legislation, they would have found our acceptance of the bill that time had they withdrawn the provision of the hectare which is very offensive to farmers, particularly those in western Canada.
The amendment advanced by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North, is worthy of consideration. Cer-

tainly, it would improve the workings of the bill. It would allay many of the fears expressed by Canadians across the country, particularly those who will be directly affected by the legislation. I hope even at this late stage the minister will see fit to accept this motion. Perhaps we might then be able to help him in some way in getting this legislation through. Failing that, we might be here debating this bill until October or even November. Someone in this parliament has to speak out for, I would not say the silent majority but a substantial majority in this country who find this bill offensive in many ways.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the minister who supposedly represents justice in Canada does not recognize it when he meets it face to face. It is inconceivable that a minister would try to railroad legislation through the highest chamber in Canada that not only is unacceptable to a large number of people but is not necessary. It is absolutely unnecessary for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to act in the unorthodox manner in which he has with this bill and the one previous to it. Members on this side of the House would co-operate with him in bringing in favourable legislation that would be for the good of all people. However, the minister has signified that he has no intention of co-operating. I do not know how he thinks he will get this legislation through the House, when it does not meet with the approval of a large number of Canadians.
I commend the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) for bringing in this amendment. I am sure it will have the support of all clear-thinking, honest members of parliament who wish to represent their people well. We have to consider whether parliament is here to serve the people or whether the government intends to have the people serve parliament. I must impress upon this House that many governments throughout the world have collapsed as a result of adopting the policies upon which the present government has embarked. I refer to imposing itself to such a degree on large masses of Canadian people that eventually they will revolt. There is much disenchantment and frustration within the Canadian populace today because government is imposing legislation and regulations upon them which they do not want.
There are very few people in Canada today who do not want criminals brought under control. However, when you begin to regulate the law-abiding citizen into a state of frustration, you create problems for everybody, particularly the elected representatives of the people. I hope some members opposite will lend their support to those on this side in trying to bring a little common sense to the Minister of Justice. They should put pressure on him to make him change his mind so that we will not have to deal with legislation such as this.
As the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) stated a few moments ago, people in Alberta are being charged as a result of regulations they knew nothing about. The roof fell in on them under conditions which they were not aware existed. That is what will happen with this legislation unless it is amended as proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North. Unless this amendment is carried, people will be charged under regulations put forward by order in council of which
July

they are unaware. We must ask ourselves, who is serving what? Is government supposed to serve the people, or are the people supposed to serve government? Unless governments are a little more considerate, the elected officials in this House of Commons will continue to have a lot of problems.
There is a principle involved here that I hope will receive greater consideration from the government than it has up to the present time. There is a great danger in centralized control and power. Society today has only so much freedom. The more legislation and regulation imposed upon the general public, the less freedom the individual will have. The hon. member for Calgary North has spent a lifetime in the courts of Canada. He is to be commended for recognizing that the freedoms of the Canadian people are being eroded. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to give more cognizance to the obligation of protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians which are being eroded by regulations and legislation put forward by this government. A great many comments were made during second reading of this bill and in committee. We are, perhaps, getting to the point of being a little repetitious. However, if there is to be any justice in Canada, the Minister of Justice must recognize that the rights of the Canadian people should be foremost in the minds of those in cabinet.
I hope the minister will give greater consideration to this amendment. He should, at least, stand it for a while and consider whether it can be incorporated into the bill. The people 1 represent do not want any more freedoms eroded.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my support of the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). It is an issue to which I have addressed myself many times in the past. It is a very fundamental principle. I refer to the problem of regulations which in many instances are the operative part of legislation that is not seen by this House of Commons or the standing committees before the bill is passed.
I might say that perhaps the major ground for complaint among my constituents with regard to this measure is the difficulty of assessing its impact in the absence of regulations. This is not a new complaint; I have discussed it on other occasions. I recall specifically the debate on the animal contagious diseases act. When that legislation was before the House and discussion centred on a whole new clause related to transportation, it was impossible for either the House or the committee to arrive at a reasonable assessment of its implications simply because the regulations had not then been promulgated.
Members who read the statements made on that occasion, both here and in the other chamber, will have noted that earnest requests were made by those concerned with the legislation and with the future of the industry to have the regulations brought forward so that a more informed judgment could be reached with regard to the proposed legislation. I remember, too, that while we were dealing with the environmental contaminants legislation a number of hon. members
Adjournment Motion drew attention to the desirability of having the regulations before us so that we might arrive at an accurate assessment of the impact of the measure.
I have noticed very often that legislation brought forward encompasses regulations which have been passed by order in council and were never debated in the House, yet those very regulations have formed part of bills presented to us for approval. I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of discussing the subject in greater detail at this time, but I wish to object to the manner in which this measure has been introduced and to point out, once again, that constituents in my area are dissatisfied with the restriction which has been placed on the full understanding of the effect of these provisions by virtue of the absence of regulations which will cause them to be operative.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and motion No. 28 also in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division stands deferred.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Transport; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco)-Communications; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs.
80020-1 3V4

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. Before calling the next item, I should like to remind hon. members that when the bill was last before us at the report stage, the House gave consent to stand certain items standing in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher). I suggest we now turn to those items and then follow our normal practice of taking the motions in numerical order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussion with the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) and there is agreement that, with Your Honour's approval, we might proceed with motions 12, 13 and 14 and then move along the lines of the suggestion you have just made. I have spoken with the minister, and he has no objection to this being done. The amendments of mine which are grouped together fall into line, in chronological order, with the debate which has been taking place with reference to the regulations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Then we shall now move to motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 24 and 25 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor: "without lawful excuse".


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin) moved:: 
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 31 to 39 at page 24.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
He said: Mr. Speaker, I intend to direct my remarks today-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear one of my hon. friends across the way say something. I always like to hear from him because he speaks so seldom and I know when I hear his voice that it means so much to his constituency.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which friend is that?


An hon. Member:: He did not identify him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I never like to identify these people because I want them to retain their deposits even if they cannot hold their constituencies. Seriously, though, in speaking to motions 12 and 14 I wish to deal with what I consider to be another important change in the jurisprudence of our criminal law. The terms of motion 12 will have been recorded in Hansard, but I should like to clarify what I have in mind.
Section 102, dealing with offences involving weapons, provides, "Every one who commits an offence without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies with him ..." Let me say immediately that this is most shocking language to the ears of anyone who has ever done any counsel work as a lawyer particularly in defence of the rights of Canadians.
We all belong to one ethnic group or another, Mr. Speaker, and one thing I think I can say in safety, and indeed with sincerity, is that one contribution that the Anglo-Saxons made to the world was to implement a system of jurisprudence which has not only been appreciated by all Commonwealth nations made up of various ethnic groups, but also by nations that are not members of the Commonwealth. This system of jurisprudence provides that the onus of proof shall always lie upon the state. In the United States a case is referred to as "The State v. Brown," or whoever it is. In Canada it is "The Crown, for example Crown Rex v. Jones," because the Crown is the head of this nation. Whether the charge be murder or a lesser offence, the onus of proof is upon the Crown.
That principle did not evolve easily. If you go back in history and read the law of the Romans, Mr. Speaker, you will find there the beginnings of understanding and appreciation. To adopt any other system would mean that we are trying to adopt-and I say this kindly-the Napoleonic system, which means that everybody is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Such a system is not acceptable to our party, nor is it acceptable to the lawyers of this nation or to the law-abiding citizens of the nation.
When a person is charged with an offence, it is true he has to sit in the prisoner's dock. The evidence is called by the Crown, whether the evidence lasts for one hour or day after day, as has been my experience in murder trials, and if the Crown fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then the jury, if there is a jury, has the right to acquit the accused.
July 11, 1977

If it is being tried by a judge alone, then the judge will discharge or acquit the accused. Any other system would mean that an accused, as a compellable witness, must come forward and give evidence. A lot of people say, "Well, what's wrong with that?" What is wrong with that, Mr. Speaker, is this. Remember that when the Crown lays a charge against a person, it brings to bear on that person all its resources of money, police forces and bureaucrats against the little person of Canada who has to rely, if he or she stands alone, upon his own ability to answer the charge. Thank goodness we have gone a long way in the last few years to provide legal aid so he can have a counsel.
It is shocking to me, just as it is shocking to my hon. friend who spoke about orders in council, that a person would have to prove his innocence. That is the Napoleonic code. It is certainly not the system of jurisprudence recognized by this nation and appreciated by all ten provinces, including the province of Quebec just as much as the provinces of Ontario and Alberta. That is important. 1 have many French Canadian friends among the top lawyers in Montreal, and the House can ask them how important that principle of law is. All lawyers and judges in what we in Alberta refer to as our sister province of Quebec will agree that that is a sound principle. I ask the lawyers in this House who sit there in their seats to think about the kind of law which the minister is bringing forward.
I moved motion No. 14 in committee and it did not surprise the minister. I turn to page 24 of the bill, line 31, which provides:
(4) In proceedings under subsection (3), evidence that a person has in his possession a firearm the serial number of which has been wholly or partially obliterated is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that such person has the firearm in his possession knowing that the serial number thereon has been altered, defaced or removed.
In other words, the onus would be on that person to prove that was not the case. 1 was rather surprised to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) say this in the House on June 15 last, as reported at page 6716 of Hansard:
As I have said a number of times in committee and in this chamber, parliament has a duty to deal with this matter without rhetoric, without emotion and without politics.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have news for him. I am going to deal with this matter with a little emotion and I am going to deal with it, I hope, with a little politics-or I should not be here. It is a very serious move indeed which the minister is proposing. As Charles Dickens wrote in "Oliver Twist", when referring to how the law reacted to poor little boys in the poorhouse, "the law is an ass".
The answer given by the minister is that this move is necessary. The minister puts me in mind of a story which perhaps I can put in its proper perspective. A few weeks ago an American came to Calgary to buy farmland. He was taken out by a real estate agent and shown a beautiful piece of land. The American said, "This is a lovely piece of land, but it is full of rocks". So the salesman said there was nothing wrong with that. He said that when the sun shines in Calgary, the rocks heat up and this nurtures the wheat. He said, "When it rains, the rocks disintegrate and add fertilizer to the grain, and that
Criminal Code
is how we get our great crops." Then the American asked, "Why have you got rocks piled up at every fence corner?" The salesman replied, "It is very simple. We have not had time to spread those yet".
This is exactly what the minister has been doing, spreading something across-the-board so far as jurisprudence is concerned.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: He takes off with the rocks, though.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That could be. I hold in my hand "Cross, on Evidence", fourth edition, and I want to read a few lines from the text at page 88 which deals with the burden of proof: The most recent English judgment on this subject-
1 know our courts will agree with it.
-could be treated as authority for the view that the principle under consideration places the legal burden on an accused with "peculiar knowledge". This is a very drastic consequence where there are no statutory words pointing expressly to such a result and, as the court did not refer to the distinction between the legal and evidential burdens, it may be wise to adhere to the following statement by a New Zealand judge:
"If no evidence is given to prove the affirmative in respect of a negative averment which is peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, then the finding ought to be against the accused on that fact. However, when the accused has produced evidence the question of the nature of the burden may require further consideration. Whether it is the same burden as that laid down for proof of insanity, or whether it is merely a burden of producing some evidence and thus throwing the burden back on the prosecution-
Then he refers to the famous case with which every lawyer in Canada is familiar, Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, an old case which says that the burden of proof shall always be upon the Crown and not upon the accused. This is the point I am making. The minister is adopting what I call a sort of slippery way of doing things. I know the farmers will be upset about this legislation. They will have the burden of proof put on them as law-abiding citizens. As the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) stated, we are sorry the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is not here. With regard to Bill C-83 he came to see me all the time, throwing up his hands and saying it was terrible legislation. Now he has left us and everything he said has been reversed and changed because he has joined the group on the other side in more ways than one.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He does not even show up in the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't blame him. I wouldn't show up, either. 1 should like to quote from page 91, which reads as follows:
There is, however, an overwhelming objection to placing the legal burden on the accused in these cases, even after allowance has been made for the fact that the standard of proof would be that appropriate to civil proceedings; it means that the tribunal of fact may be obliged to convict a person of whose guilt they are so far from being sure as to regard the probabilities of the existence of a lawful excuse as equally balanced. The danger of unmeritorious submissions of no case can be met by placing an evidential burden with regard to lawful excuse, etc. on the accused. This is the recommendation of the eleventh report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and it would apply to the common law burden of proving insanity placed upon the accused as well as to existing statutory burdens.

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
The recommended clause could of course be expressly excluded by subsequent legislation-
That is not good enough, because that is what we are facing today in the Elouse. What are the authorities? What do they say the burden of proof is? It is a question of probability, when dealing with civil rights in civil matters. When dealing with the freedom of an individual on a charge as serious as a criminal charge, where your car or your weapon can be confiscated, as law-abiding citizens the onus is upon you. No member of parliament in this House has not had arguments and confrontations with people in departments who say, "That is the law".
If I may digress for a few moments, one of the most difficult cases I had is when I sued the Queen on behalf of a little settler in Lake Louise, Alberta, because the parks authorities took over his land and he was deprived of his rights. They can expropriate without money and without reason. The hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) was in my office at that time and recalls the case. It took ten years to fight it. We dragged them back into court to get them to answer questions on discovery and to get them to produce documents, some of which were never produced. We finally succeeded, after ten years of fighting the state. I have always been proud of the RCMP, but when fighting a criminal case one must remember the sophistication they have in order to turn all their powers and all their technical know-how on a person who must rise in his place and say, "I am not guilty; I will have to defend myself'.
Previously I said it cost $500 a day. Hansard reported it as $5,000 a day, and I corrected it. You need a psychiatrist to prove you are insane in a murder trial. Try to hire one at less than $500 a day. Because of the law of insanity, the onus is on the accused to prove he is innocent. In a murder trial, the onus is on them. How many people across this nation can afford that technical know-how? The state can afford it. If the state makes up its mind that it is going to lick Mr. Brown, Mr. Brown had better hustle, because he will be faced with counsel who is fearless. He must have the finances in order to afford a transcript of the evidence.
I received a bill the other day for a transcript of the evidence of a murder trial which is being appealed. It consisted of three books. What did it cost? The evidence cost $2,500. That is why I do not want the onus put upon the accused. I hope I have the support of hon. friends to my left, and I say that in the kindest manner. I hope they will support this motion on the ground that we must always protect the people to whom I have referred. It is the weak against the strong, the weak against the all-powerful state, the weak against the executive. Yet we have this legislation.
Some will say that we are paranoiac about guns. I am not talking about guns today. I am talking about legislation which happens to be in the gun section of the bill. I will have a lot to say about the invasion of privacy. Today the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he did not know when the Queen could open parliament, because he did not know when it will close.

All the Minister of Justice has to do is follow the rules of jurisprudence and he will see how fast this party will move to co-operate in every regard. It is unacceptable to put in a section indicating that innocence has to be proven. I see my friend who knows something about income tax has just sat down. That same trick is contained in the Income Tax Act. As soon as they walk in on the fellow, he is guilty. They steal all his books. He cannot get them back. He cannot even give them to his accountant. He is told he has to prove himself innocent.
While I am on this point I should like to refer to a case that is going on in Calgary against a lawyer who happens to be very tenacious. He is a Liberal, and he has taken on the government by making it his life's work. I hope these words do not fall, like the parable in the Bible of the sower of seeds, on rock. I am referring to the fundamental principle of jurisprudence-a man should not be found guilty unless the evidence suggests beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. What do we mean by reasonable doubt? We mean the type of doubt that the average man and woman has in everyday life, and not some airy-fairy thing.
This afternoon I was asked what this is all about. It is about freedom, and it is about liberty. If I have done anything in my life, I am proud to stand here in the House, and sometimes in courtrooms, defending people where unusual things have been going on. The truth is not always created by putting on a uniform. Human behaviour does not change with stripes or pips. Honesty exists with the little people as it does with the authorities. That has to be weighed. When the state moves in, it has an advantage because of the tendency to believe the state over other things unless you have some documentation or very strong evidence.
Putting the onus on the accused is beyond my comprehension. I do not think the Minister of Justice put that in the bill. With the greatest respect to him, I think the bill was drafted by somebody in his department. That was done with the Income Tax Act and it is done with the liquor acts of the provinces. If you have ten bottles of whisky in your cupboard and you are charged with bootlegging, you have to prove that you were not selling that whisky. That goes on, and that is because people became all tied up over prohibition. This law evolved over centuries of trial and error; it has not been worked out overnight. Lately we have been in the habit of making changes, but some things have stood the test of time. Some things are like rocks; they do not melt away like the stones in the story I told. They last. Human behaviour has tested the law. "Cross, on Evidence" says:
Several judgments delivered in the course of the second half of the nineteenth century indicate the existence of two standards of proof recognised by the law. They are proof on a preponderance of probabilities, the standard appropriate to civil cases and proof beyond reasonable doubt, the proper standard on a criminal charge.
How did all this come about? As "Cross, on Evidence", and "Wigmore, on Evidence" say, this did not happen one morning: it happened after centuries of testing the law as it relates to the freedom and civil rights of the individual. Anything
July 11, 1977

short of that moves us to a dictatorial state, even if we have the right of elections. It is very easy for a government to say it has a majority and, therefore, a mandate to do anything. If we rethink the mandate of the government in terms of what the government said when the election was on, we would find that the government does not really have a mandate. We on this side were damned and blasted across the country, because of our wage and price controls proposals, as people with a new economic policy which had never before been enunciated. Before the Prime Minister got back to Sussex Street, after the election they were implemented. If that was not a flip-flop, there never was a flip-flop.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Zap, you're frozen.


Mr. Cullen:: Don't lose your cool.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't worry about my cool.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Not your cool, baby.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know the minister was talking to the hon. member for Vegreville. The hon. member is a good friend. I know him well, and so does the minister. He is a man who is very cool, and he keeps his cool. "Cross, on Evidence" also
says:
In civil cases the preponderance of probability may constitute sufficient ground for a verdict; but, in criminal proceedings which took place some seven years later, the jury were told that they must be satisfied of the accused's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt-
That was the famous House of Lords case, Cooper v. Slade. We can go to the Library of the Supreme Court of Canada or to any courthouse and find that the precedents of Canada since the time we became a nation have followed the jurisprudence that the onus is on the Crown and that no one can be found guilty except if guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 do not know what has come over this country. Do we want to change our parliamentary system? Our system has evolved through the centuries. Our system in Canada gives people of all ethnic origins more freedom than the systems of other countries. That freedom is found wherever we go in the Commonwealth.


Mr. Neil:: It's being taken away.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That freedom is gradually being eroded. As the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) says, it is being taken away day after day. Why cannot the Minister of Justice stand in his place today and say that we have a point and that he will accept these two amendments. Once the government makes up its mind-


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: It is like a rock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Absolutely. A former leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) used to tell a story, which 1 will tell and then sit down. I have never forgotten that story. It is a good story to illustrate the kind of stubbornness we now see. A man owned a mule which would not lead, drink, feed, harness or be ridden. The man's neighbour said he was a mule
Criminal Code
specialist. The neighbour told the man to put the mule on a truck and bring him over. The first thing the neighbour did when the mule was brought over was hit the mule between the eyes with a club. The mule's knees buckled. The mule's owner said, "I did not bring him over for that kind of cruelty". The neighbour said, "If you are going to teach a mule anything, the first thing you have to do is get his attention". I want the nation to turn its attention to this legislation. I have said my piece on this very important phase of jurisprudence.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in dealing with this group of amendments. I also want to say something about motion No. 13 because it is related. If it were not for the part of the bill which motion No. 13 attempts to correct, we would not have to debate the legal principles which were spoken about so eloquently by my friend on motions Nos. 12 and 14.
As the law presently stands, people cannot be in possession of restricted weapons on which the serial numbers have been altered, mutilated or ruined without some lawful excuse. I agree with the hon. member for Calgary North that to require an accused to carry any kind of onus where a criminal charge is involved is a wrong principle. In committee, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) said the reason for this requirement was that the accused is the only person who has something peculiarly or uniquely within his knowledge, as if nobody else would know anything about a particular mutilation or alteration. I find that a rather lame excuse or justification for this type of law in the Criminal Code.
If one person kills another, and nobody else is present, I suppose in those circumstances the accused has something peculiarly or uniquely within his knowledge, but in a case like that the accused is not required to present any excuse to a court trying him on a charge of murder. Yet in a case relating to firearms, the government wishes to put that onus upon an accused. As the law presently stands, this requirement applies to people in possession of restricted weapons. I would like to have some explanation as to why this has to be broadened. I agree with the hon. member for Calgary North that it is a wrong principle. We should be deleting the provision with regard to restricted weapons that is already on the books. However, an initiative like that would probably be out of order in this debate. In any event, I certainly would not agree to extend this provision to the general category of firearms. This bill deals with restricted weapons and prohibited weapons. Why is it now so necessary to extend this crime to include all firearms, including the lowly Cooey .22 or any other weapon which is in broad, general use?
What is the government trying to accomplish, except to create many new, potential crimes which present no danger or problem to the nation? That is symptomatic of the whole bill. Why does the government wish to create a great number of new crimes, some that are announced in the bill and many of which will be created by the stroke of the pen of some

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
bureaucrat about whom we do not even know, when there is no clear or present need for the creation of that crime?
The minister did not say anything in the committee. The only thing he said was that we are extending it from restricted weapons to firearms in general. There was no documentation as to why this was necessary. I am getting a little tired of having to deal with measures before the House creating new laws which will result in a bigger bureaucracy for no apparent reason. Don McGillivray of the Southam News Service recently wrote an article stating that about half the population of this country is dependent on governments, primarily those people who are employed by governments at all levels. Of course the federal government is the leader in the explosion of bureaucracy in this country, and unfortunately provincial and municipal jurisdictions, school boards, hospital boards, look at the great example of that wonderful, efficient, federal government!
It is efficient at spending our money and wasting it. Now it comes along with more laws, for less reason. In the process, the government is depriving the citizens of freedom of movement in this country. I am getting sick and tired of this, and I would like to hear some reason for these measures. All they will do is make it easier for the bureaucracy. The government does not even have the courage to tell us what it wants to do.


William Arnold Peters: Make it easier for the police.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: But the police seems to have plenty to do now, without our giving them more jobs to do. I am hoping the minister will have something to say about this further encroachment on the rights of ordinary citizens to exercise what they have grown accustomed to as a way of life in this country. I am distressed by the fact that we are becoming more and more regimented for no good reason. Therefore, I urge all members of the House to examine the bill more closely.
In my remarks earlier this afternoon I noted that Bill C-51 is now being sold as a greatly watered-down version of Bill C-83, and because of that we are told should let it go through without any discussion or even examination. Certainly, the committee did not spend much time on this bill. I was fortunate to have attended two or three meetings of the committee, but there was a real steamroller in that committee not to hear witnesses. Certainly, in the clause by clause discussion very little time was allotted by the government to consideration of the various provisions of the bill. There was no justification given by the minister. All he said was that he wanted to amend the provisions to include firearms in general instead of only restricted weapons.
Why can we not deal with restricted and prohibited weapons? The government wants to further regulate the use of weapons. Instead, we find a great expansion of the application of the gun control legislation to include all types and forms of firearms. No evidence has been given as to the necessity of taking such a step. So I urge all members to examine this legislation before giving it quick and easy passage, because I think hundreds of thousands of people in years to come will be

pointing their fingers at us if we do not do something to bring the expansionary ideas of the bureaucracy in the Department of Justice under some control at this time.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word on this? It has been suggested that this clause brings into the law some new and remarkably dangerous concept. May I point out that section 102(3) of the Criminal Code, which has been in effect for many years, provides:
Every one commits an offence who, without lawful authority, the proof of which lies upon him,
(a) alters, defaces or removes a serial number on a restricted weapon-
That concept has been in the law for a long time. The only change proposed under Bill C-51 is that firearms be included, making it an offence to deface, alter or obliterate the serial number of any firearm. The policy reason for changing the wording from "restricted weapon" to "firearm" is that when the initial section 102(3) was written, many long guns did not carry serial numbers when they were manufactured. Now, in the bill, we propose a provision relating to long guns, in the interest of the safety of the public. It would seem to me wise that long guns also be covered by a section prohibiting the obliteration of serial numbers, as in motor vehicle acts where you have a prohibition against obliteration of engine numbers.
In fact, in a recent meeting with members of a gun club they told me they could not figure out why this clause was limited to firearms. They wondered why there was not a general prohibition against the obliteration of serial numbers on any article, be it a restricted weapon, a firearm, a television set, a refrigerator or anything else, because obviously in those cases-I would imagine in all cases except those involving the repairing of an article where the removal of the serial number may be necessary-the removal of a serial number is done for some criminal purpose. So let us first be clear that the only change in this clause is not the introduction into the Criminal Code of some new concept shifting the onus, but is simply a change from a prohibition against the obliteration of serial numbers on restricted weapons to one covering all firearms.
Second, this is by no means a new concept. I wish the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) had read the evidence more carefully, because the concept is discussed there and it shows that this provision does not shift the onus to the point that the accused must prove his innocence. Under this clause, and under sections of the Criminal Code where these presumptions are used, the onus is still on the Crown to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard of proof which is common to our criminal law prevails under this clause, as it does in other sections.
Obviously where there is a matter that is uniquely and peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused it falls upon the accused to prove it if it is to be used as a defence. The Crown cannot put forward that excuse. If the defence to murder is insanity or drunkenness, for instance, the Crown cannot put forward that defence; only the accused can. The hon. member for Calgary North cited Cross and a case from New Zea-
July 11, 1977

land-which I have not read- to the effect that where there is a defence, the accused has to prove that beyond the preponderance of probability. At that point the onus shifts to the Crown to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard that applies at the beginning of the case and at the end.
To suggest that this is a new concept is wrong. It occurs many times in the Criminal Code. In Section 237, for instance, concerning care and control of a motor vehicle, when the driver's seat is occupied, there is a presumption it is being occupied by the driver who has care and control of the vehicle. Section 254(4), on a charge of bigamy, the accused must establish that the previous marriage was invalid. Section 306(2), in evidence of breaking and entering, where there is prima facie proof of intent to commit an indictable offence; there is a presumption against the accused, as in the case with Section 307(1), relating to entering a dwelling house. Section 197 contains various presumptions against an accused relating to the dependency of women and children where the charge is failure to provide necessities. Section 322(2), fraudulently obtaining food and lodging. Section 233(3), hit and run- failure to stop is prima facie proof of intent to escape liability. Sections 391 and 392, negligently setting of fire. Section 180, relating to disorderly houses and gaming houses-presence of a slot machine leads to a presumption that the place is a common gaming house. Section 195, there is a prima facie presumption relating to living on the avails of prostitution. Section 298(3), the burden of proof is on the accused relating to cattle rustling-and there are many other such sections. They are put into the criminal law where there are matters which are uniquely and peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused.
In each case there is a presumption; in each case there is a defence to be raised by the accused at which time the onus is clearly on the Crown, as it traditionally always is, to prove that the defence is not right and that the accused should be found guilty as charged.
This amendment is not a new concept. All it does is substitute long guns for restricted weapons, for the reason I indicated. Long guns are now made with serial numbers and are used in the commission of crimes, and particularly the crime of murder. In a number of instances the serial number is useful in identification and in the investigation and solution of crime. The concept is not a new one as suggested by the hon. member.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher). I listened with considerable interest to the minister who said that this is not a new concept. There is no question about that, but it is certainly an attempt by the government to extend a concept.
It has always been a basic principle of common law-the law that we use in our courts-that the onus of proof lies upon the Crown and that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. A few years ago the concept of reverse onus was
Criminal Code
smuggled into our law in order to restrict the rights of individuals. It used to be very rare.
I recall when a reverse onus clause was smuggled into the vehicles act in the province of Saskatchewan a number of years ago. It came as a shock to judges and to solicitors practising law that the basic principle of our common law could be altered to make it a requirement that the person charged should prove his innocence. Over the years more and more reverse onus clauses have been written into the law. The result is that the state has been taking away the basic freedoms of the individual citizen. One of the reasons given for this is that it makes it easier for the police to prove their case in court. There is no doubt that is so, but my understanding is, and always has been, that individual freedom is basic and foremost in a democracy, and that this freedom ought not to be taken away.
In most cases the Crown does not have any difficulty proving a case where the burden of proof rests on it. It is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused person is guilty, but with the reverse onus, that is not so. That is what disturbs me so much, not only with this particular amendment but with many of the laws on the books today. There has been an erosion of our basic freedoms and if we, as parliamentarians, allow the government to bring in more and more of this type of legislation then we, especially on this side of the House, are not doing our job if we do not voice our concern and let people know what is happening.
I should like to make a few comments on motion No. 13 to amend Clause 102(3), which extends the offence to include what they call firearms. Previously it referred to restricted weapons.
At present there are several million long guns in the hands of people in this country. Many of them are old, without a serial number. Many of them have been in the owner's possession many years and the serial number has worn off or been obliterated, perhaps when the gun hit the side of the car. Often, if you want to mount a telescopic sight on your long gun, you obliterate the serial number or deface it when you screw the mount on. I venture to say you will find hundreds of thousands of guns in this country on which the serial number is worn off, indistinct, or obliterated, possibly because work was done on the gun.
I foresee this situation arising: one may be hunting in the fall and one of those keen game wardens who check your hunting licence, count the number of ducks or geese you have shot, and so on, will ask to see your gun's serial number. If it is worn off or defaced, I can visualize the gun being seized and possibly a charge being laid. If I could see any reason for extending the section to cover other than restricted weapons I might be prepared to consider supporting it, provided there is no reverse onus.
Guns in this country at present are not registered. There is
no record anywhere of their serial numbers. If you could trace
by its serial number a gun used in a crime, I could see some
7550

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
point to the exercise. However, since there is no record of the serial numbers of guns, what is the use of this provision? What is the good of the serial number registration provision, unless the government's ultimate aim is to force the registration of every conceivable kind of gun people in this country possess? If it intends to do this I tell you, here and now, the public of Canada will not accept such a system.
In closing I suggest that if members on both sides of the House were to read carefully the clause of the bill we are discussing, the speeches of the hon. member for Calgary North and, of the hon. member for Palliser, and some of the other speeches which will be made on this part of the bill, I am satisfied that they in all good conscience will not be able to support the bill as presented by the government.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I am emboldened to take part in this debate because the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in his remarks dealt with certain principles established in law, and the best the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) could do to refute that argument was point to some bad practices which have grown up in the law. Therefore this House, on this question, must decide between principle and practice. I suggest that simply because the government has been able to follow certain courses in the past, perhaps in circumstances which should be judged on their exceptional merits, it does not mean a bad practice is a good precedent to be followed in drafting an amendment to the criminal law or in running the administration of justice. Therefore I must come down squarely on the side of the hon. member for Calgary North with regard to the amendments moved.
In some respects the government has cleaned up its act, as it were. Some of the important powers originally set out in Bill C-83 have been corrected. Nevertheless certain other clauses disturb me, for example the powers to be granted to local registrars, with which I will not deal now. Perhaps we could deal later with some of these powers when we consider the relevant clauses of the bill. Here and now, for reasons eloquently put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North and capably argued by the hon. member who just resumed his seat, and others, I must come down on the side of the angel, principle, rather than that of the devil, expediency.


William Gordon Ritchie: A restricted weapon is a lot different than the so-called long guns. The minister is not letting us in on what he and his department heads are thinking. It is a great deal different trying to compare changing the number on a gun with running a disorderly house or some of the other things the minister suggested the bill is designed to prevent.
The minister has not put forward a very good defence for his suggested change. If he does not intend to have registration, what good is this clause? Obviously it will not help to catch criminals. It will open up the way for a law officer to get at somebody without having to prove some more serious infraction under the law.
I am not a lawyer. I have no training in that field. However, I feel this amendment will help to make the bill a little more reasonable. If accepted, we will not have the situation where a person has to prove his innocence rather than the other way around.
I hope the House will accept my amendment and that the minister will see his way clear to change his thinking. Obviously he is intent on increasing the hold which government has on people, controlling them in this area. I feel that control in this area is far too widespread.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, before the supper hour I was speaking to the amendment I have presented. I should like to add that, after reading what the minister had to say in committee, it is obvious he has not taken the House into his confidence. He said then:
The reason is obviously a practical one in that the authorities, coming upon someone with a firearm on which the serial number has been changed, just as a matter of practical investigation have absolutely no way of determining whether it was in his possession with lawful excuse.
This appears on page 22:40 of the Minutes of Evidence before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on June 16 of this year. He is indicating that somewhere down the road he expects to use this power, and the only way it would be useful to the authorities is through the registration of guns. It would be almost impossible to prove that someone has unlawfully erased a mark or changed a bolt for his own benefit.
The House would do well to consider what the hon. member for Calgary North said, as recorded at page 22:42 of the proceedings of the same committee:
I think this is the little thing that finally smoked out what the philosophy of the department is. Do you know what most people, the wildlife people and the gun owners, believe? That this Bill C-51 which got watered down after they
Criminal Code
opposed C-83 so violently, is like the camel in the tent; once he gets his neck in, you are going to have him all in the tent.
I believe the minister intends to press on with gun legislation at some point. I should like to register my objection, and I hope the House will see fit to pass this amendment. At least it will provide some small degree of protection so that if gun registration does come about it will come about in an honest manner, not by way of back-door tactics.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in this debate in support of the amendments put forward by my hon. friends I wish to make a few remarks, a few comments, relative to the statement made by the minister this afternoon. The minister was not very convincing when he tried to argue that when a person was charged he did not have to prove his innocence.
I could illustrate for you an incident with regard to income tax, where the Income Tax Department contacted one of my constituents and asked for information. The information was sent in with regard to the income of the individual, but the Tax Department took no cognizance whatsoever of the reply and went ahead and assessed him for the tax. In turn, the individual had to hire accountants to protect himself and, even though he was not guilty of an offence or any violation of the income tax law-it was just that he had been assessed wrongly-he still had to prove his innocence. The same thing would happen if this provision were enacted. If an individual is charged, unless he wants to plead guilty he has to prove his innocence.
1 am not a lawyer, just a layman, but I can see what is going on in our society today. In a great many cases people plead guilty because it is easier and cheaper to do so than to fight a case. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is not justice and it is why, as I said earlier today, I am wondering whether justice has vacated our land entirely, with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) continuing to bring in legislation whereby individuals have to prove their innocence when they are charged with an offence.
It seems to me that somewhere along the line either the House of Commons or this legislation is lacking in common sense. Surely in this day and age of abundant technology we have the intelligence to put in place legislation which will be of benefit to all rather than infringe on the rights of individual Canadians.
As I said earlier, the Minister of Justice was not convincing in his argument this afternoon. I am sure that if he were in one of our courts in Canada and approached the issue in the same manner as today, he would not win many cases. I plead with members on the government side of the House to talk to the minister to try to impress upon him that this is not the way to put forward this legislation.
If the legislation were going to control the activities of the criminal, there would be less opposition to it, but there is no guarantee that legislation such as this will do so. Further, those who are charged, whether law abiding or not, will have to prove their innocence.
80020-14 'h

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
At page 24 of the bill section 102(3) provides:
Every one commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him-
It behooves the minister, in fulfilling the commission which has been placed upon him, to bring in legislation which will be beneficial, not detrimental, to the Canadian people. I hope the minister will take a second look at this question. I do not think he has been at all convincing this afternoon; indeed I do not think he even convinced himself. He simply used a little rhetoric in trying to make a case. I urge the minister to stand in his place and accept the amendment put forward by my colleague.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not in my seat at the time. I would not like the House to think-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or to debate the motion?


Robert Hylton Brisco: To debate the motion, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry 1 was not in my seat at the appropriate moment, and I would not want the Speaker to think for one moment that I was receiving tuition or coaching from my expert and knowledgeable friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams). However, there are a couple of issues I want to clear up.
The concerns being expressed by members on this side of the House in regard to this amendment, or more appropriately these amendments taken together, are virtually the same as those previously expressed on an earlier amendment wherein the question arose of government by regulation. On the one hand we have government by regulation; on the other hand we have, in effect, not government by regulation but guilt by association. A person has to prove his innocence.
Under Canadian and British criminal law, as opposed to the Napoleonic code and as opposed to civil law, there must be guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In terms of reasonable doubt this means that the clinician in reaching a diagnosis bases it on a multitude of facts, signs and symptoms, laboratory tests and so on. In reaching the conclusion that a particular project can proceed, an engineer bases his conclusion on sound engineering principles, the laws of physics and so on.
However, according to this bill a person is guilty first and must prove his innocence second. Regardless of the rhetoric in which this provision is couched, that is clearly the antithesis of what we consider to be proper criminal law according to the British system. If the government is interested in adopting Napoleonic law, as we are to infer from this particular clause, then I suggest that it openly declare that that is where it stands. But as it stands now this is wrong.

In addition, the government has, by accident or design, tied in this provision with the firearms legislation or the regulations that follow in subsequent clauses. However, the term "firearm" is very broad. If one takes the trouble to go to the beginning of the bill and reads the broad definition that now applies, we are surely sweeping with a very broad brush; and I suggest that someone who in all innocence may be walking the streets at 11.30 at night will suddenly find himself assumed to be guilty of some offence.
In terms of Napoleonic law, Mr. Speaker, 1 am reminded of a circumstance that occurred some years ago when W. A. C. Bennett was premier of British Columbia. A deputy minister of one of the government departments had the inclination to walk down a street in Quebec City, minding his own business, out for an evening's stroll. All of a sudden he was set upon by a couple of policemen. In the first instance there was, unfortunately at that very moment, a language barrier, and let us hope that that barrier has been reduced. At that time that barrier was very clearly there. The man had proper identification which proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he was a senior official of the government of the province of British Columbia. Yet, because he had some vague resemblance to a wanted criminal, he was dragged bodily into a police car.
He was beaten, harassed, questioned, and received all kinds of maltreatment and held in jail over night. Finally, he was released some 24 hours later. That is the kind of law I abhor. Whether it is the province of Quebec, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island or any other province in Canada, or any city in Canada, I abhor the manner in which that whole case was ultimately dealt with. The police department did not want to apologize for their conduct. They did not want to acknowledge that they had made a mistake. An apology was dragged out of them. Is that the kind of law we want in this country?
I realize I have digressed, but I have demonstrated a point. If the government is interested in Napoleonic law, let it go on the record and say so and change a few other clauses in this bill to further demonstrate its concern and its desire. Otherwise, let us see the minister develop some common sense and good judgment. Let his officials advise him that he is not going to get anywhere with this bill, with this kind of nonsense.
Before I sit down, I should like to say that similarly this minister is not going to get anywhere with this bill until he sees some reason with reference to wiretapping legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to add my voice to those of my colleagues on this side of the House in regard to this particular motion by expressing a great amount of dismay concerning the language used by the people who drafted this clause. Subclause (3) reads as follows:
Every one commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him
(a) alters, defaces or removes a serial number on a firearm; or
July 11, 1977

(b) has in his possession a firearm knowing that the serial number thereon has been altered, defaced or removed.
It has been very alarming in recent years to see the encroachments which have been coming forward on the doctrine of reasonable doubt. We have seen it more and more in provincial statutes where a quasi-criminal law has been changed by legislators to exclude the traditional safeguards of a person not being forced to prove his innocence. It has always been up to the Crown-he who asserts must prove, type of thing, it was alarming enough when we saw it in provincial statutes or in municipal bylaws or some other less than criminal jurisprudence. But to see it in a piece of legislation which is causing such consternation across the country, is a very, very regressive step in criminal law jurisprudence.
When looking at this particular language one can only assume the proof of innocence has to be beyond reasonable doubt. In other words we have a complete reversal of the traditional safeguards for the individual. It is not the balance or probability standards which one sees in civil litigation; it is a complete perversion of the British criminal law tradition. Any person is innocent unless he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To take this kind of Draconian measure and to reverse or completely change such a fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, with the object in mind of simply punishing someone who has in his possession a firearm knowing that the serial number thereon has been altered, defaced or removed, and then to say the only way to satisfy the authorities that this was not done in a culpable way, has to be accomplished by the person charged proving beyond a reasonable doubt his innocence-I do not see how any member of parliament can sit in this place and allow this legislation to be passed by this hallowed institution. As has been said by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and my other colleagues, this particular provision alone would justify any member of parliament, who has the most commonplace respect for some of our legal traditions in this country, in voting against this piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the argument put forth by the minister and by a number of other hon. members. It would be very simple to change this argument by removing this business that the proof of innocence lies with the person charged.
I remember an incident which happened to me not too long ago. I had a flat tire and I was having difficulty getting the tire off my station wagon. I do not know what the problem was. Perhaps it was because it had been on for years. The provincial police stopped and assisted me to take the tire off with a crowbar. In doing so, they noticed the tire was stamped "DOT", which is the Ontario government department of transport. One is not supposed to have those tires on these cars. They were suspicious of where I got the tire. I was able to inform them the whole car came from DOT. I had bought it from them at an auction sale. The other tires on the vehicle were stamped "DOT" as well. It is true, therefore, that in
Criminal Code
many cases you have to prove you are not responsible for something.
Someone mentioned that you should know if the numbers are changed on your motor vehicle. I do not imagine there is a member of parliament who has ever looked at the serial number on his car to see whether it has been altered or not. In fact you have to look in the book to tell where the serial number is.


An hon. Member:: Look just under your windshield.


William Arnold Peters: That is not the serial number of the motor and it is not the serial number of your frame. That is the registration number. Those who are very, very wealthy members, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and who have reasonably new cars-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order, order!


William Arnold Peters: That has only been put on very recently.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My car is two years old.


An hon. Member:: And a Cadillac at that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a Chevy Nova.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You were the first one to buy a Seville.


William Arnold Peters: That is brand spanking new compared with some of the vehicles I have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many have you?


William Arnold Peters: Five or six, but-


Stanley Howard Knowles: As you were saying-


William Arnold Peters: As I was saying, most people have not looked at that. It may be true that you should know whether you are buying a stolen car because usually stolen cars are sold at bargain basement prices. However, if you buy it from a reputable dealer, it might be the same price as any other car, and you will not know-you may even drive it for a long time-that it was stolen. 1 do not really think you should get into very much trouble if you bought the car without knowing it was stolen and had no reason to believe it was stolen. You did not make the disfigurations on the numerical designation of the car, so it can be proved that you are innocent.
I think there are shotguns on which there are not yet numbers, and I do not believe any of the old Winchesters have numbers. Some certainly have not, but I do not think most people look to see whether there are serial numbers. I know it is important to collectors that the serial numbers on all parts

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
of a gun be the same, but whether the numbers on the parts are the same as the serial number of the gun, I am not sure.
In many cases people will not look for those numbers. Gun may change hands many times, and when a person is accused of having an illegal gun because numbers have been erased, that will come as a surprise because that person will not have looked. People look to see how straight the barrel is, they look at the sights, they look to see whether the gun fits the shoulder and so see if the face plate is in the right place. They look at a number of things, but as a rule I do not believe they look at the serial number to find out whether it has been changed.
While the minister is right that much of our legislation falls into the same category as this, that does not make this legislation right. If someone wishes to lay charges against someone for having changed numbers, that fits into a different category. That is usually done for a fraudulent reason, to cover a theft or to do a number of other things, but it does not seem to me to relate to whether a person has a gun or not. While the minister is right that this has been fairly commonplace in a number of other bills, I do not think it makes it right in this case. A police officer should be required to tell an alleged offender: "You have committed some kind of an offence, and we are going to prove it".
An alleged offender should not have to say that he bought his gun from a little old lady who was handy with a file, or something of that nature. That can be established by the person laying the charge. That is the way most law works. That is the way most Canadians think it works, and it seems to me that everything we are trying to do in this bill is going to make it easier for the police to harass people. Even if they harass people only to get them to prove that they did not commit offences or that they did not know they were committed, that is still harassment, and that will really not help the police very much. This bill would allow the police to make everyone prove that they are innocent.
How are police officers going to examine guns in the first place? Are they going to go around looking at everyone's guns? That would be an immense harassment. They really should have some reason for doing that, and if they have a reason for doing it, the reason should not be harassment. It seems to me that everything in this bill is as much for harassment as it is for people who believe in law and order, or for people who believe we should take guns away from everybody in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, if it is all right with the House, it is my understanding that we are now going to proceed in chronological order. We did get out of chronological order because there was an agreement a week ago Thursday with reference to two amendments, the one on orders in council and the one on notice, which we have now covered. However, we will now go in chronological order according to the members, if that is agreeable to the House.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I think motions Nos. 13 and 14 should be called because they were grouped and debated together with motion No. 12.


Stanley Ronald Basford: They have been called.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: They were called together?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: They were called at the beginning. Motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14 were grouped.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 16 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"collection of a".
Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 4 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
"the applicant who is a gun"
Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by sti iking out lines 19 to 22 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
"collection of the applicant who is a gun collector".
He said: Mr. Speaker, these three amendments have to do with the position of collectors of firearms. The amendments are designed to permit continuation of gun collections. The intention of the government in this bill is to phase out gun
July 11, 1977

collections which contain certain types of firearms, primarily those of the automatic variety.
When the matter was discussed in committee there was some concern that it is not quite proper for those who have collected certain types of firearms to be unable to pass on those collections by way of bequest or otherwise unless the collections went to something called a bona fide gun collector. The minister said in committee that that was going to be a judicial interpretation but he did not enlighten us as to who a bona fide gun collector was. 1 suppose that would be something that would grow with the common law. There would be decisions by a judge or a series of judges as to who a bona fide collector was. My submission is that there should be a possibility for people to continue to collect these guns if they wish to do so.
The purpose of our law is to ensure that guns are not used improperly. The minister suggested that while these gun collections should be left to a bona fide gun collector or sold to one, he was not very forthcoming as to who that was. He admitted that over the years probably all the existing collections of automatic weapons would end up in museums or be exported from the country because, as a matter of public policy, the government in its wisdom has decided that Canadians were not fit people to collect automatic weapons. I take exception to that. I reiterate what I said earlier this afternoon: let us find a need for these measures before we pass laws right, left, and centre.
The government seems to think that in order to react to a passing phase in our life it has to bring in a rigid system of regulations in order to satisfy somebody's concern which, I submit, is unenlightened. In any event, I have not seen any example of guns from gun collections having been stolen by criminals which were then useful in the commission of crimes. I would have thought that if there were much of that going on, some evidence of it would have been produced by the government in justification of this amendment to our criminal law, but it has not.
The minister says that he will do it this way as a matter of public policy. I do not think that is good enough. I would think that the government's own experience would be that the facts are otherwise because, while I have not heard of private collections being stolen, I have certainly heard and read about armouries being broken into and large numbers of military weapons being stolen. Armouries are places with a concentration of weapons. If the minister is going to fill up the museums in the country with private gun collections, he will create an enticement for criminals to find a bigger haul. As things are now, there is a sort of decentralization of guns-many small collections all over the country. But the minister in his wisdom, and his advisers in the Department of Justice, seem to think that all these weapons should be concentrated in one spot. My argument is that that is not a sensible way in which to approach the situation.
Criminal Code
Many people collect various things for various reasons. One of the reasons that people collect things now is that they are something to hang on to because the dollar in this country, under the administration of this government, is dropping in value, and it is more important for people to invest their money in tangible things than in the Canadian dollar. I think it is a gross invasion of property rights in the country for the government to adopt such a policy because it thinks, for some undefined reason, that it is a good thing for people not to have collections of automatic weapons. Therefore I submit that the House should give some consideration to deleting that part of the bill which would in effect outlaw private collections of certain types of firearms on the basis that no evidence has been provided that such a provision is necessary.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the advantage of attending the committee meetings and therefore I do not know who the minister said was a bona fide gun collector.


An hon. Member:: That is an advantage.


William Arnold Peters: The provision goes on to say that the local registrar of firearms will provide him with a registration certificate and will make a decision. In talking about the bona fide part of the expression, I suppose it means an actual gun collector. I do not know whether it means someone who has three, four, or half a dozen guns. Some people do not have too many guns but what they have is of a specific class. Incidentally, most of the collectors of restricted guns whom I know are members of the police force. They have a very good way of getting them. When they seize one, the gun disappears and it goes into a collection. Sometimes they build up a fairly large collection of restricted guns.
Other people buy guns such as an M-15, an American gun. In my area the gunsmith told me that most guns are fully automatic or have parts to make them fully automatic. One of the difficulties is that many of the people who bring him a gun for repair do not know that the gun has the potential to be a fully automatic rapid fire gun.
I am quite aware that there is a legal dictionary definition of the expression bona fide, but how does it apply to gun collectors? Does it means someone with six guns or someone with 50 guns, a selection of both restricted and other guns? Most of the collectors in northern Ontario whom I know do not specifically collect one kind of gun. They will pick up any gun. Some guns they keep for the purpose of trading. These guns are called traders. If this provision is passed, these people will be in considerable difficulty to make sure that the man from whom they are buying a gun, they themselves, and their collection are licensed. It seems to me that we should spell out exactly what we mean by bona fide collector.
I do not agree with the mover of the motion with regard to Clauses 2 and 21, and probably Clause 22 as well. I do not believe that if you take out the expression "bona fide" and leave the words "a gun collector" that the provision will be any clearer. I myself probably own three, four or perhaps five guns.

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
I am rather indefinite about how many I own because I am not exactly sure where they are. I have not looked at them for some time. 1 am quite sure a couple of them are in my son's collection. I would not classify myself as a collector, but if I had five Lugers then I would consider myself a collector of Lugers, or if I had a number of Winchesters of the 98, 87 or 84 class then 1 would consider myself a collector of Winchesters.
1 think what a collector is should be spelled out in the bill. Removing the words "bona fide" does not correct the situation. It is not often you come across a gun collector, because of the cost involved in becoming one. I understand that the value of some Winchesters would be as high as four figures, so you would not need too many of those to become a bona fide collector, in my estimation.
The bill could be strengthened if it indicated just what a collector is. Some people may collect guns in general and others concentrate on one type such as machine guns or Sten guns, yet all consider themselves collectors. Unless the bill specifies what a collector is, there is a danger of people being harassed because they do not know what category they should fit into.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my support to this amendment. The government obviously hopes to do away with gun collectors in time by means of attrition. I think the operative phrase in the clause is "bona fide" but the bill does not define what a "bona fide" gun collector is. Presumably it would apply to a person who is already collecting guns, but no provision is made for people who may begin collections in the future.
Collecting is very popular nowadays. Not long ago a lady in Great Britain wrote her banker asking what she could invest her money in in order to preserve the value of her savings. He said he did not know, but he thought antique furniture was as good as anything. Today many newspapers carry advertisements and extolling the wisdom of buying such things as Kruger rands, which are gold. Apparently the Russians are showing interest, and a Canadian company is getting into the business as well.
Of all the things people collect in order to guard their investment, guns are amongst the most popular. People who served in the armed forces have often become interested in guns and started collecting them. As with stamp collecting, they sometimes have managed to make wise investments- sometimes even better than if they had invested in government bonds, particularly when this government is running the economy. Yet this government seems determined to phase out gun collectors as a group.
The government has not defined what a gun collector is; is it someone who has one gun, three, 50 or 100? As the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) said, thefts of guns and ammunition most often occur from an armoury or a sporting goods store, rarely from a private collection. Someone

who steals an automatic will surely have difficulty finding ammunition for it.
To say there is a danger of theft of guns from a bona fide collector is like saying there is likely to be an earthquake in Ottawa today; it could happen but it is a long shot. Presumably there is more chance of criminals finding automatic weapons in military establishments than in any private gun collection.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on behalf of the collectors in my constituency, especially one who has one of the most beautiful collections you could ever see. The guns are very clean and are kept locked in a glass cupboard.
It is evident from the minister's comments that he hopes gun collections will be a thing of the past. As the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) said, such collections are rare and are likely to become very valuable. Does the minister have the right to take a collection away from a family that is very proud of it?
We do not know the effect of this legislation. Let the minister say how many criminal acts have been committed with the use of gun collector items. I suspect there are few such incidents, and therefore do not think weapons classified as collectors' items are much of a danger. Why should the minister use the government's majority to take away the rights of Canadians with gun collections? By trying to establish the rights of one group, the minister would infringe on the rights of another. Surely we should not pass legislation which, under the guise on protecting one set of rights, infringes on another.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I shall begin my remarks by speaking of gun collections, particularly of collections of automatic weapons, and in this regard I share the minister's concern. However, if one reads what the minister said to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on the clause we are debating, it becomes clear that the minister's remarks made sense up to a certain point, after which they went off into never-never land, into limbo. Two hon. members opposite expressed some genuine concern about the legal aspects of some of this bill's provisions. The minister's reply shows he does not understand the basic interest of the gun collector. I do not expect the minister collects guns. I do not know what he collects-butterflies, perhaps.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: No, it's aerosol tins.


Robert Hylton Brisco: The minister cannot be ignorant of the subject. The debate on the previous bill, C-83, broadened his understanding. Perhaps I can do no better than quote something the minister said on June 16 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as reported on page 22:25 of the transcript of the proceedings. He said:
No one is taking those guns away from them.
July 11, 1977

In this case "them" is the gun collectors. I continue:
If they want to get rid of them, they can sell or give them to a museum, they can export them to other sellers; or they can sell them to other collectors. I think, rather than what you suggest, that they are suddenly valueless, the effect of this legislation is that those guns will become increasingly more valuable.
True, rare collectors' items, be they guns, antique furniture, postage stamps of 1830 vintage, gain in value with time; to that extent the minister is correct. But as the bill is written, the bona fide gun collector can only dispose of his guns to another bona fide collector. I can foresee that, ultimately, the collector who survives all his contemporaries will end up owning some 4,500 automatic weapons, enough to equip his own army. Surely the legislation does not contemplate this? Surely the minister does not intend one or two people to wind up owning, say, 2,500 automatic weapons each? But this, precisely, will be the effect of the bill unless it is changed.
The minister is concerned about the bona fide collector, but what about the fellow about whom the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) questioned the minister? What will be the position of the heirs of an estate who inherit automatic weapons, or weapons classed as collector's items? Will they be entitled to retain them? The minister said no, not unless they are bona fide collectors. And here the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont, because of his legal training, focused attention on the great weakness of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, you can walk into many homes in this country and hear an owner say, "Look at this beautiful shotgun, or at this beautiful weapon. It has a Damascus steel barrel, was made by James Riley and Sons, of Bond Street, London; is it not made beautifully?" He will tell you it does not take present day shells or bullets, but is a work of art in its own right. Or he may say, to you, "I have here an old Winchester 44-40 with a hexagonal barrel. It's the sort of gun which won the west. My grandfather left it to my father, and he left it to me." What will that man's position be under the law?
Or, what will be the position of the man who does not know the value of the weapon he inherited from his father, who inherited from his father before him? I am not totally satisfied with what the minister has said in this regard?
This bill will encourage a fellow to take his gun to the local police station, run by federal, provincial or municipal police, and turn it in. I assume he will get a receipt for it. That is the end of the story.
Who gets the guns? The minister has not provided an adequate answer to that question. Who falls heir to these valuable antiques? Once they are in the hands of the police, what happens to them? Does the officer in charge pass them to another whom he happens to know is a bona fide gun collector and has an interest in this type of weapon, a gun that may be worth $500, $600 or $1,000?
Is the gun taken out and destroyed because no one in that particular office appreciates the historical value of that weapon? Is it sold into a collection with the Crown receiving the assets? Does the police officer pass it to a friend who sells
Criminal Code
it to a collection and the police officer gathers the benefits? By making that kind of remark, 1 am not impugning our police officers. I am just saying it is a possibility. The minister has not extended his arguments into that area.
I recognize the very legitimate concern of the minister when it comes to automatic weapons. Plainly it was demonstrated at committee when the minister had at that time an AR-15. It was clearly demonstrated when we had a representative from CASAL appear before the committee and tell about the difficulty he was having packing an AR-15 in the hills. Why he would ever want to pack that in the hills as a sporting rifle really stretches my imagination. Conversely, there are those who have such automatic weapons which they may wish to add to their collection, and who would not be going into the hills. 1 hope they would not be going into the hills.
I suggest to the minister, in answering the genuine concerns of these gun collectors, that it might be helpful at this eleventh hour if he met with them to determine whether they are prepared to take some measure of responsibility and collectively agree that in some fashion, acceptable to them and the ministry, they will deactivate those automatic weapons.
The gun collectors would of course present the argument that to deactivate would reduce the value to the collector. It would also reduce the value to the criminal if the home of a collector should be broken into and such a weapon should be stolen. The minister has indicated that has occurred. It was also clearly demonstrated at committee that not one charge of abuse of the regulations pertaining to these weapons has been recorded against a bona fide collector. That is an area the minister fails to take into consideration as well.
I suggest it might be helpful to the minister to seek an accommodation with those particular collectors. It might help to resolve an issue that will otherwise be resolved with some degree of acrimony and bitterness.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to support the proposition put forward by the last speaker. I say to the minister that I, unlike the government, believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.
I do not believe the government has yet reached the stage in its great design for controlling the lives of Canadians that it has any objection to Canadians owning property. However, owning guns appears to be a heinous thing for the average Canadian. As has been pointed out, there is something intrinsically valuable about them. I do not see why the government and the minister, at least by implication, feel there is something evil about collecting guns. Unless there is some other reason, they would not be bringing this unnecessarily restrictive provision.
What are the statistics with regard to violence involving breaches of the criminal law by people who have gun collections or own guns on the basis of collecting them, formally or informally? The last speaker indicated there were no known violations. That may or may not be so. I suspect that gun collectors as a group are among the most law-abiding of all the citizens of this country. I also believe that among their ranks,

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
as suggested by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), there are many police officers.
It is as fallacious to suggest that gun collectors are prone to break the law because they are gun collectors as to say that antique automobile collectors statistically have more traffic violations than people who do not collect cars, or people who are interested in numismatics, the collection of money, are more prone to currency fraud, or people interested in collecting stamps indulge in post office fraud.
The whole thing boggles the mind. 1 do not see why this provision is necessary. If it is not necessary, why encroach again on the rights of Canadians or indeed the practice of Canadians which, up to this point, has enabled them to own guns as an investment or something of interest? All this type of legislation does is make lawbreakers out of thousands of Canadians who will not accept this type of restriction and see no logic for it any more than to provide an already swollen bureaucracy with a few more jobs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motions Nos. 2, 21 and 22 standing in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The recorded divisions on proposed motions Nos. 2, 21 and 22 stand deferred. The House will now proceed to motions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. These will be grouped for debate. If required, a vote on motion No. 3 will also dispose of motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by deleting the word "five" in line 37 at page 7 and substituting the word "two" therefor.
Motion No. 4.

That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 12 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"not have a registration certificate or who does not have a permit issued
pursuant to subsection 106.2(1)".
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by deleting the word "five" in lines 14, 26 and 40 at page 8 and substituting the word "two" therefor.
Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 20 and 21 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"place named on the registration certificate".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this series of amendments is designed to cover a situation in which the maximum sentence recommended appears to have been fixed without due regard for the gravity of the offence. Indeed, the penalty, five years under the indictable procedure, appears to have been chosen by someone putting his finger at random on a series of numbers.
I believe the penalty for offences related to restricted weapons should differ from that related to prohibited weapons. I also believe there should be a distinction drawn between an active offender and an offender who just happened to be in the vicinity-for example, reference is made to the occupant of a motor car which contains a restricted weapon. Surely the major offender is the actual owner and possessor of the weapon, and a different penalty should apply. In my view, five years is a lengthy period of possible imprisonment to impose on offenders concerned with these clauses I am seeking to amend.
A great deal of debate is going on in the country presently about the frequency with which we resort to imposing terms of imprisonment and the length of the sentences handed out. I do not think anyone would accuse me of not being a proponent of law and order. Nevertheless, I believe there should be some moderation shown here, some distinction drawn. I realize there is room for discretion, since the Crown can always decide to proceed in a summary way and judges, after all, are not obliged to impose the maximum sentence, but there is always the possibility that some judge, perhaps influenced by an over-zealous prosecutor, will determine that the maximum sentence should be applied and I, for one, do not believe there are many situations in which members of the House would feel that the imposition of a five-year prison sentence is justifiable in relation to the type of offence envisaged in these clauses.
I should like the House to consider placing a more reasonable upper limit on the maximum term for these offences which the bill proposes to create. It does not appear to me that sufficient consideration has been given to the implication of these clauses.
Hon. members may recall my earlier remarks this afternoon when I was talking about changes which had been made in the Wheat Board legislation, changes about which I was complete-
July 11, 1977

ly unaware even though I was a member of the House in 1972 when they were made. Among those changes were amendments to the penalties section as a result of which, for certain offences, a minimum penalty of one third of the initial price of the grain involved was applicable. That may not sound very much to some hon. members but it is enough to bankrupt an elevator operator and has to be regarded with great concern, especially when one is dealing with an arbitrary, unfeeling administration, such as the present Wheat Board administration, which goes around the country laying every conceivable charge which it believes it can sustain, even though it is not doing too well in court, subjecting the farmers to a great deal of harassment and expense in the process. Because of my experience with that legislation I made it my business to look at the corresponding provisions in the present bill and, frankly,
I do not think a great deal of consideration has been given to this penalties section.
As 1 say, I believe some distinction should be drawn between penalties relating to prohibited weapons and to penalties related to restricted weapons, which should be less. I hope the House will recognize the distinction between the types of offence with which we are seeking to deal, because if the law does not show this type of sensitivity, this type of responsiveness, I do not believe it will ever be as respected as it should be.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reinforce what my hon. friend from Palliser has said. It does not make sense to me that the maximum penalty should be the same in respect of a restricted weapon as it is in respect of a prohibited weapon.
We have just had a report from the Senate, I believe, on the subject of jail sentences in this country and in North America generally as opposed to Europe. In North America we seem to have gone overboard in sentencing people to jail as opposed, say, to European procedures; it does seem as though we do not always choose the best type of sentencing. I do not pretend to be an expert on penology but I sometimes think things get out of hand in this area.
In this amendment here we are asked to endorse five years for restricted weapons, which does not square with the graver issue of prohibited weapons. Presumably the maximum sentence is so prescribed in order to allow the courts to reduce it at their discretion but I am not convinced that this is a good thing; our sentences are already too severe in certain areas while being lax in others. This is an area where we have gone overboard.
It is as though somebody put in the figure five and the typist kept repeating that figure five without thinking it out. I lend my support to this amendment designed to bring about a more realistic sentencing proposal. Just saying "Make it five years and leave it up to them" does not meet with my idea of justice. The minister could well take another look at this and see whether the judiciary are using it more often than he wants.
Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motions 3, 4, 5 and 6. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 negatived.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, The Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 21 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"certificate or signed copy thereof for inspection by the person".
He said: Mr. Speaker, would you just give me a moment to find my notes.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to take the time of the House. I am afraid I will have to let this motion go; I cannot find my papers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea? All those opposed will please say nay?


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 8 negatived.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 46 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"possess the firearm,
(iv) to a person who owns, lawfully possesses or is otherwise entitled to lawfully possess a firearm where, having regard to the purpose for which the firearm is loaned, the loan of the firearm is intended to be for a reasonable time only; or"

July 11, 1977
Criminal Code
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of motion No. 9 is quite simple and straightforward. The bill now provides that any person who owns a rifle or shotgun-a firearm, to use the terms of the bill-and who wishes to loan that gun to his hunting companion, or any person who wishes to borrow a gun from his hunting companion, must first obtain a federal firearms certificate. It may well be that the majority of sportsmen may go for a number of years without acquiring this particular certificate simply because they are quite satisfied with the weapon they are using and do not wish to purchase another of the same type. But the minute they do decide that they want to add another weapon to their gun collection, or replace their rifle with a newer model of the same or of different calibre, they must apply for a firearms certificate.
Why should a person who for years has had a provincial hunting licence be required under the provisions of this bill to obtain such a certificate simply because he wants to lend his rifle to his next door neighbour, or to someone with whom he has hunted before and whom he knows to be a responsible individual? Ninety-nine persons out of a hundred would not lend their rifle or shotgun to a stranger. Certainly at today's prices they are not going to hand over their rifle to someone they do not know, though quite possibly they would be prepared to loan the weapon to someone they know is responsible.
Let me cite a case in point, though I can give the minister 100 examples if he wishes. Take the case of a hunting party going into northern British Columbia, the Yukon, or Northwest Territories for a period of 10 days or two weeks. They are flown in to some remote lake with all their supplies. Is the minister naive enough to think that a hunting party of three or four men will carry only one rifle each? Of course not; there will be at least one spare rifle-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Certainly.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the hon. member would take note of section 95(2)(a)(i) which is designed to deal with the hunting party situation, where people are hunting together and one may lose or break a gun and may not have one. They can pass them amongst themselves.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, that is quite true. I appreciate the minister's particular point. If he reviews the Committee minutes, I am sure the minister will see that it was I who raised that particular issue with him last year when we were dealing with Bill C-83. Let me point out that that is a hunting party which is under the supervision of a guide.


An hon. Member:: Do not confuse him with facts. His mind is already made up.


Robert Hylton Brisco: In northern British Columbia a resident does not need a guide. In a circumstance where a group of hunters are going into a remote area, they always provide for at least one spare gun, because a shell blocked in a chamber or some

other mechanical failure can certainly happen. The manner in which rifles and other supplies are loaded on to bush aircraft makes damage possible. Because of that, there is usually one spare rifle in the camp.
Is the minister trying to suggest, because it is my particular rifle which has developed a mechanical problem that cannot be resolved at that time without special tools, that I have got to go to the nearest community and get a firearm certificate? Is he suggesting that I have to take my hunting partner with me because it is going to be his rifle that I will be using? If so, that is a little ridiculous. If the minister feels that is an isolated circumstance, then he is out of touch with the people in the hunting fraternity across Canada. Whether it concerns people hunting moose, caribou, duck or geese in the northern part of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Ontario, the same mechanical problems can occur. Certainly I will not omit Nova Scotia. It is not an isolated thing at all.


An hon. Member:: They hunt seals in Nova Scotia.


Robert Hylton Brisco: What the minister is suggesting with his intervention is that we are protecting that isolated situation which can happen in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. I raised that point last year with the minister. I asked him what would happen when a hunter has laid out $3,000 for a licensed guide trip in the Yukon and his rifle is rolled on by a horse? His rifle can be sitting in its holster and the horse decides to roll for some reason or another, or the horse stumbles and falls, breaking the rifle. The rifle is broken, the stock is smashed, the barrel is bent or the sights are destroyed. What happens then? The minister has made accommodation for that very problem, which I thank him for. But the minister has not made accommodation for the circumstance which confronts hunters every time they are out during the hunting season. I could be out in a goose pit in Saskatchewan and have my gun block on me. I could ask my hunting partner for his gun, and immediately I would violate the law. Surely reason prevails. I am quite sure there is not going to be a police officer or a game warden sitting over my shoulder who will observe that transfer.


An hon. Member:: You never know.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Yes, but the chances of that happening are remote. Under the provisions of the bill, the law is broken when that occurs. We know it is broken, and we would rather not operate outside the law. The purpose of this amendment would cover the frequent occurrence of a rifle or a shotgun being borrowed or lent by me if there is a mechanical failure, within the hunting partnership which prevails in the hunting fraternity across Canada.
This amendment is not intended for, nor was it drafted for the other circumstance where the borrower and the lender are strangers, or the borrower and the lender may be bordering on the criminal. That is a rare circumstance. Law or not, if there is criminal intent, it does not make a difference what the legislation says. The law will be violated because that is their intention to begin with.
July 11, 1977

I do not see the purpose of a law put into place which will materially affect a vast majority of people who are operating in innocence and honesty. We do not legislate against the innocent. Yet that is what will happen unless this amendment is accepted. If this amendment is accepted, those people within the hunting fraternity will realize the minister has an understanding of their genuine concerns, that the minister is responsive to those concerns and is not hard-nosed and determined to get the last inch or the last drop of blood out of this legislation.
It would be my hope that the minister would look with favour upon the arguments which I have presented with reference to motion No. 9.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attentiveness to the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), and I fail to see where this amendment would serve any purpose. As I read it, the transfer of a gun-


Robert Hylton Brisco: Et tu Brutus.


William Arnold Peters: Well, I fail to see the purpose of it, unless you have very queer people out there hunting for sheep.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was Bert Herridge's constituency for 23 years. It was without a Tory, and now it is represented.


William Arnold Peters: Well, God bless him, wherever he has gone. It is a fact that those who have guns now do not have to register them.


An hon. Member:: If they borrow or lend them, they do,


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member's amendment refers to a person who owns, lawfully possesses or is otherwise entitled lawfully to possess a firearm. It does not mean he has to have a certificate to do that. He may own a firearm or he may own several of them. If this were applied, it would mean someone would have to look over your shoulder all the time. I do not think even this minister is going to insist on inspections which would stop people in hunting parties from trading guns.
I think subsection 2(b) covers the lending of guns, and surely the hon. member is not suggesting that people who go on hunting expeditions do not know how to handle guns, so obviously those people would be able to acquire gun certificates if they were buying or selling. If this clause is amended as suggested, it will be more restrictive rather than less restrictive. People on hunting parties will be able to exchange guns. To be very blunt about it, when an officer walks up and I have a gun, he is not going to know whether it is my gun or somebody else's. All he will know is that I have a gun. I am not about to tell him I have your gun, and you are not about to tell him that you lent it to me.


Robert Hylton Brisco: You are still breaking the law.
Criminal Code


William Arnold Peters: As long as each of us has a gun, we are not going to help that officer very much. It seems to me that this amendment sets out a condition which would almost make it mandatory for law abiding citizens to feel that they should possess certificates in order to borrow guns from friends. Surely the minister would not restrict a hunting party to having a guide where the guide has the extra gun.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Yes, read the bill.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That's right, Arnold.


William Arnold Peters: Very seldom in a hunting party do one or two of the people in that party not trade guns or experiment with somebody else's gun. That is fairly normal, and I think it will continue. However, it seems to me that if we pass this amendment we would set up another category which would make it more restrictive rather than less. My total interest in this bill is to make it less restrictive. In fact I would like to get rid of the bill and all the restrictions which are in it, and go back to the sensible way of handling guns in hunting parties which we have now in northern Ontario and in most of Canada, except in those big bad cities where people use guns for other than hunting animals and for protection.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one or two comments with respect to this motion. The minister pointed out to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) the provisions of subsection 2(a)(i), which reads:
Subection (1) does not apply to a person
(a) lawfully in possession of a firearm who lends the firearm
(i) to a person for use by that person in his company and under his guidance
or supervision in the same manner in which he may lawfully use it...
When I look at that particular subsection, it seems to me that that provides that when a person who owns a gun gives it to another person, the person who accepts the gun has to be in the company of the person who lent it and under his guidance and supervision. If I were out on a goose hunt, my gun jammed, I borrowed one from a hunter who was at the opposite end of the field and I walked back into the pit, it certainly could not be said that I was under the guidance or supervision of the person who lent me that gun. I ask the minister to re-examine that subsection, perhaps with the idea of bringing in an amendment on his own to clarify it.
I can understand the situation where a person takes his son or a young person out to teach him the art of hunting. That younger person would be under his guidance and supervision, but I certainly do not believe that subsection 2(a) (i) accomplishes the purpose the minister believes it does. I support the hon. member for Kootenay West because it is a common situation back on the prairies for a gun to be lent to a friend or a neighbour who is not a regular hunter but who has the opportunity once in a while on a day off and decides to go hunting. He calls his neighbour and asks to borrow his gun. The neighbour, knowing him personally and knowing that he is a reliable individual with hunting experience, lends his gun.
I myself have lent my shotgun to a neighbour on more than one occasion, and I think it is common practice on the prairies.

July 11, 1977
Adjournment Debate
For example, if a friend comes from outside the province during hunting season and wants to go hunting, I lend him my shotgun or rifle. I make sure, of course, that he has a hunting licence. However, the way this particular act now reads without the amendment, the situation is that you can no longer lend your gun to your friend or your neighbour unless both you and the person who borrows the gun are in possession of a firearms acquisition certificate. Under those circumstances I support motion No. 9.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 16, and on Monday, July 4, I put questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) regarding the report of Dr. Noel Hall concerning Canadian railway pension plans. In my question of June 16, which is reported in Hansard at pages 6742 and 6743, the gist of my question was in this sentence:
Since referring that report to management and the unions does not do a solitary thing for railway workers already retired, both CNR and CPR, will the government take action to make sure those old timers are not forgotten?
The Minister of Transport replied in these words:
Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Labour is putting what analysis the question may require before the government. In the meantime a good number of matters referred to in the report are, by Dr. Hall's own definition, suitable for negotiation.
In my supplementary question I protested that negotiation between management and the unions would do nothing for those already retired, but the answer to that supplementary question was no better than the answer to the first question.
In my question of July 4, which is on page 7249 of Hansard, I again tried to make the same emphasis. It was in these words:
In view of the fact that any action that management and unions might take will not do anything for Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railway workers already retired, and in view of the fact that these pensioners have had no escalation of their pensions at all in 1977, will the minister put pressure on both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to bring in escalation of the pensions of their retired workers this year?
Again the reply of the Minister of Transport was to the effect that this should be the subject of bargaining between the parties. Again I protested, and again I got nothing that was satisfactory from the minister.

The railway workers of Canada, and in particular the retired railway workers, the older ones, are beginning to think that the Hall Commission was a put-off. Dr. Hall was appointed in July of 1974 to make a study of all Canadian railway pension plans. It took him more than two years to make this study and present his report. That report was presented to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) on September 8, 1976, but translating and printing it consumed considerable time, so we did not get it until January, 1977. We are now in July of 1977. It is three years since Dr. Hall was commissioned to do his job.
I have some doubts about the usefulness of the report. It is a summary of the situation, an accounting of the facts, but it does not contain many recommendations. There are a few, and it is true that, in so far as any reorganization of railway pension plans for the future is concerned, Dr. Hall says that management and the union should sit down and do it by collective bargaining. But Dr. Hall also says that the situation for railway workers who are now retired is urgent, pressing, and serious. Most of them have had very little by way of escalation and none at all in the last year or so.
The point of my question to the Minister of Transport-and to the Minister of Labour when I catch him here to ask him about the same issue-has to do with those who are already retired. I want not to be put off with the line that it is up to management and unions to negotiate. When unions negotiate, they do so for their members, the ones who are working. The retired workers, the railway pensioners, do not have anyone at the bargaining table, and Dr. Hall says it is urgent that something be done for them.
My plea to the government is in the following terms: When is the government going to talk in plain language to CN and CP and to any other railways, including those who are responsible for the old Provident Fund in the Atlantic provinces and so on, about the needs of those who are already retired? Asking them to wait until a new scheme has been worked out is telling them they will die, all of them, before anything is done for them.
I am used to this government being heartless, but surely there is a limit. I hope that the one parliamentary secretary who is sitting over there-it is not his department but maybe he has a heart which the others do not have-will be able to tell us tonight that the government takes seriously the recommendation of Dr. Hall with regard to those already retired and the pleas that we are making from this side of the House that we do not want those who are already retired to have to wait forever for a reorganization of railway pension plans.
We want an adequate cost of living escalation of the pensions of retired CN and CP employees now. By now, I say to the parliamentary secretary, I mean tonight.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) puts forward a very persuasive case. In the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Olivier) I have been asked to reply on behalf of the minister.
July 11, 1977

First of all I would like to state that the government and the minister take very seriously the quite extensive survey and report authored by Dr. Hall. I might take this opportunity to remind the House that on May 31, when the minister announced the appointment of Dr. Hall, he took note of railway employees' dissatisfaction with their pension plan and specified the terms of reference under which the commissioner would operate to deal with those concerns.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was in 1974.


William Ross Milne: Yes, May 31, 1974.
To assist these parties in dealing with the complex question of how to protect pensions against the erosion and effect of inflation, the commissioner provided the parties with alternative methods of providing cost of living indexation. The parties themselves, as suggested by Dr. Hall, would be free to make a selection from among the many options according to their own bargaining priorities. I do not think we should take it that it is not a subject for collective bargaining. Dr. Hall said in his report that it should be and the parties have a right to do it.
The commissioner concluded that the existing railway pension plans compare favourably with plans in the public and private sectors. He indicated that while the level of benefits received by recent retirees is adequate, a problem arises for those who have been retired for some time, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre so eloquently pointed out.
In so far as the specific recommendations which aim at granting retired CP employees pension improvements comparable to those granted in recent years by Canadian National, the CP pension committee now has this matter under active consideration. The various cost estimates referred to previously, and the concept of a heritage fund whose principal purpose would be to ameliorate the condition of existing pensioners, were among the options proposed by the commissioner for consideration by the parties. The heritage fund would be paid for through a 1 per cent contribution shared equally by employers and employees. To deal with the question of adequacy on a national level, as it affects all pensions, the government has established an interdepartmental policy review committee to examine all aspects of pensions.


COMMUNICATIONS-POSSIBILITY RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO RECEIVE PROGRAMS ORIGINATING IN UNITED STATES TO BE CURTAILED
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, on June 29, by way of a motion under Standing Order 43, I indicated to the House a problem concerning the Arrow Lake TV Society of Nakusp and the fact that they had received notification from the CRTC that effective-I believe it was September 30-they would lose their licence to rebroadcast Channel 4 Spokane from a transmitter site located some 9,000 feet up a mountain in the small community of Nakusp, which has some 2,000 people.
As ministers and their officials know, a motion under Standing Order 43 frequently provides notice that a question will
Adjournment Debate
follow. My question was put to the minister on July 4. At that time 1 clearly outlined the problem confronting the Arrow Lakes TV Society and the fact that they were transmitting or rebroadcasting Channel 4 Spokane on air and not by cable directly into Nakusp, and that they had been told they would no longer be licensed to do this.
The answer the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) gave to the expression of concern-the same expression of concern that can be repeated across Canada in similar circumstances-was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the freedom of citizens is very well protected right now by the regulating process of the CRTC.
Hah! What an asinine, unfeeling response. By way of a supplementary question I then explained the circumstances surrounding the decision. I said it was a decision by the legal brains of the CRTC, that unfeeling body that is not aware of what is going on in the boondocks. After I had clearly provided the minister with an explanation, the minister responded as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know the details of that decision by the CRTC-
That would indicate that no one had advised her of the motion under Standing Order 43 that I moved the previous week. She went on:
-but I feel that it concerns the need to protect against undue competition those who hold licences to operate a station.
What utter drivel and garbage!
This community established a co-operative society 20 years before the CBC ever thought of providing service to that small community of 2,000, with a transmitter 9,000 feet up in the mountains. For years the people of Kootenay West watched three different channels originating in major centres, all in the United States. The CBC came in recently, and as a result of three interventions on the part of the member for Kootenay West before the CRTC, the CTV network was also able to provide a service to this community.
This co-operative provides the community with three separate channels. They carry the CBC, CTV, and channel 4, Spokane. They were supposed to receive money from the CBC under the accelerated coverage program. The CBC was supposed to provide a signal for that community, but because the co-operative had done such an excellent job the accelerated coverage program people said, "We don't need to provide service to Nakusp. We do not need to spend federal money to provide CBC service." That community did not put in a cable stretching 9,000 feet up the mountain, did not provide "off-air" programming. Instead, it took the less expensive route of providing "on-air" programs. Consequently, the people of the community are now told that because channel 4 Spokane does not meet Canadian content requirements it cannot be licensed.
If their programs had been carried by cable they could watch Spokane forever and a day and would not need to worry about Canadian content. In that case there would not be any hassle with the CRTC's legal division.

July 11, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Many people from that community have written to me indicating that if the government will not use its good judgment and be sensible, they will defy the regulations. I cannot blame them. Mr. Donald Waterfield of Nakusp, who wrote the book "Continental Waterboy" a documentary on the Columbia River Treaty, which is second to none, and who knows all about people being trodden on by the bureaucracy, wrote:
The considerable work and cost of our TV enterprise is all local. It has not cost the government a cent. So, as you will readily understand, we are furious with this quite unwarrantable interference with out private lives.
Mrs. Bert Millner of Nakusp wrote:
Surely in a culturally-starved area such as Nakusp and district, we should be adding more stations rather than reducing the number.
Mr. Aalten wrote:
I regard this action as a callous unfeeling act by a government that would deprive us of the entertainment this channel provides in response to some high-toned speeches and opinions put forward in the name of 'nationalism.'
Mr. Bowman of Nakusp says, "It makes us wonder just how free our free society is becoming."
Mrs. Sicotte of Nakusp writes:
The idea of Canadian TV alone is ridiculous. Outside of one or two good children's programs and a few good documentaries, the Canadian programs are an insult to one's intelligence for the most part, particularly CBC.
Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Ron Heppner of Nakusp wrote:
We feel that we are intelligent enough to be able to choose our entertainment without any help from the CBC and the Canadian government.
The CRTC has painted itself into a corner. It has not determined if a cable company broadcasting from its studio is deemed to be on-air or off-air. What will happen in Nakusp?


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity with which the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) tried to make his case, but I suggest that this situation has arisen for reasons other than those he mentioned. I wish to put the background to this case on record and, for accuracy, will follow my notes closely.
The CRTC returned the recent licence renewal application to the Arrow Lakes Television Society. In a covering letter, dated May 25, 1977, the commission stated that it received legal advice that, based on the regulations issued under the Broadcasting Act, it is unable to issue or renew a broadcasting licence for a transmitter which rebroadcasts a non-Canadian signal.
I understand that the licence in question was issued in 1963 by the Department of Transport on the basis that no Canadian television service was available in Nakusp, British Columbia. In the intervening years, the Arrow Lakes Television Society established two other rebroadcasters which provide full CBC and CTV service. In the circumstances the government cannot interfere with the decision of the CRTC which, in light of the responsibilities defined in law by the Broadcasting Act, felt that it was required to take this action.
The Arrow Lakes Television Society operates three low power transmitters located in Nakusp, British Columbia. Each
(Mr. Brisco.]
transmitter rebroadcasts a signal of another station, one of which originates from KXLY-TV Spokane, Washington. The Department of Transport originally licensed this undertaking on August 6, 1963. The CRTC has renewed the licence on three occasions, with the most recent renewal expiring on September 30, 1977. This licence was originally issued on the basis that no television service was available to the residents of Nakusp. Subsequently, full CBC and CTV service is provided by the two other rebroadcast transmitters operated by the Arrow Lakes Television Society.
In conclusion, the commission obtained legal advice to the effect that, based on the regulations issued under the Broadcasting Act, it was unable to issue or renew a broadcasting licence for a transmitter which rebroadcasts non-Canadian signals. As a consequence, the CRTC returned the recent renewal application with a covering letter, dated May 25, 1977, indicating the above.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE PENSIONS OF WIDOWS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, we who are still here appreciate that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will be replying to this question which is of such concern to veterans in this country.
On March 1 the minister replied to my question with regard to pensions for widows of veterans who were in receipt of a disability pension of less than 48 per cent as he has on countless other occasions, indicating that the matter is under consideration. To be very frank, it is becoming a little embarrassing to me, as it should be to the minister, that we keep playing this broken record periodically in the House of Commons and in committee. It is long past a reasonable time when amendments to the legislation with respect to veterans' widows falling within this unfortunate category should be passed.
It is serious to note, and the matter is getting more serious each day as some 60,000 who fall in the category of between 5 per cent and 45 per cent grow older, that the government is forsaking these widows for no humane reason, and is instead festering a bitterness within their hearts which should be embarrassing to the government.
It is obvious from recent replies to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and myself that we will not see legislation during this session. Perhaps the minister could again appeal to the unpatriotic hearts of his colleagues in cabinet, asking that they repent for their glaring sins by asking Her Gracious Majesty, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when reading the new Speech from the Throne in October to include in that speech amendments to the veterans' legislation to overcome this serious inequity.
I might add that the minister may not get the opportunity to take the credit if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) calls an election for this fall, because my party supports such a move as a first priority in recognition of the sacrifice made by some
July 11, 1977

900,000 proud veteran Canadians who offered their lives to ensure peace, freedom, and national unity for our country.
The main point I want to make tonight is that a provision presently exists in the War Veterans Allowance Act which could overcome this present inequity for many of the 60,000 veterans receiving disability pensions under 48 per cent. One of the criteria for qualification for war veterans allowance is that the veteran is receiving a disability pension of 5 per cent or over, which at present rates entitles him to $34.78. As long as he is now 60 years of age or over and in receipt of a disability pension, he can now qualify for war veterans allowance, if not receiving any other income, up to a maximum of $481.17 at the married rate. A married disability pensioner at 47 per cent is entitled to only $313.10. It is therefore to the advantage of any disability pensioner receiving between 5 per cent and 47 per cent to transfer to war veterans allowance.
When the disability pensioner at 5 per cent to 47 per cent dies, his spouse is not entitled to a widow's pension unless his death was attributable to his pensionable disability. However, when the married recipient of war veterans allowance or civilian war allowance dies, his wife is entitled to the married rate of up to $481.17 for one year and is then entitled to the single rate, presently $281.07, for life. The widow in the same category is cut off when her husband dies, receiving less than 48 per cent.
This means there is an automatic protection for the widow under war veterans allowance which does not exist under a disability pension, and until the minister and the government decide to amend the Pension Act, veterans falling into the categories mentioned should apply for WVA in order to protect an assured income for their spouses. It is there in the Pension Act now, it is there in the War Veterans Allowance Act now, and it is only a matter of the minister and his staff advising those who fall into this category that they can qualify and can thus protect their wives, when they do not qualify under the disability pension legislation but do qualify and can
Adjournment Debate
qualify because of the variation between the disability pension provisions and the War Veterans Allowance Act. I hope the minister will recognize this and will portray it to veterans so that they can protect their widows in the circumstances to which I have referred.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for again bringing to the attention of the House the matter he has raised this evening involving widows of pensioned veterans whose disability pension is assessed at less than 48 per cent.
As he knows, widows' pensions have received serious consideration by myself and by my department for some time. I replied to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) during the adjournment debate on the same subject on April 25 of this year and pointed out that the whole question of veterans benefits, including widows' pensions, is always under constant review by the department and by the Canadian Pension Commission and the other agencies of my portfolio, to determine what changes can be made to improve the lot of veterans and their dependants.
The hon. member does recognize that the WVA Act is available to widows and to married couples and those who are receiving a pension as low as 5 per cent. I should inform the hon. member that most of our clientele are in this respect aware that they are receiving WVA. They apply for it and they receive it and, as the hon. member has already said, it is income tested. Many of our veterans and widows are now in receipt of war veterans allowance; they apply for it and, unless their income stands in their way, they receive it. As the hon. member stated, they get the full rate for the first year and the single rate each year thereafter. Then if they have children or dependants, they also get something.
I am very happy that the hon. member has brought this question up. I have brought it up myself on various occasions. As far as making it more known to our widows and our pensioners is concerned, I certainly agree with his statement.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Tuesday, July 12, 1977