1977-07-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In the light of the continuing evidence of economic disarray in our country confirmed by today's CPI statement, and of the urgent need for leadership to halt our economic destruction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That this House calls upon the government to begin immediately a program of economic reconstruction which shall include the following:
(1)	A commitment to stable monetary policy.
(2)	A commitment to increase the relative size of the productive element of the economy, i.e. the private sector.
(3)	A cut in the federal sales tax on building supplies to stimulate demand for housing and thus create jobs in the construction industry.
(4)	An emergency job creation program.
(5)	Long term tax incentives for firms investing in Atlantic Canada or Quebec.
(6)	Specific tax assistance to encourage small and medium-sized businesses, and
(7)	A new budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of the Standing Order the proposed motion can be put to the House only by unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


REQUEST FOR PROGRAM FOR ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 prompted by the urgent necessity of turning around this government's so-called anti-inflation policies before the social and economic fabric of our country suffers further irreparable harm.
Believing that Canadians cannot for much longer tolerate policies which use mass unemployment to fight inflation, print money at record rates to fight mass unemployment and, finally, blame the private sector, which must live with the
results of government mismanagement on this colossal scale for not investing more in permanent job creation, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House deplores the government's record of nine years of economic failure and calls for an immediate program of economic reconstruction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be put. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


CONDEMNATION OF POLICIES WHICH RESULT IN REDUCED STANDARD OF LIVING-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move a motion seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
In view of the escalating cost of living as reflected in this month's increase in the CPI of 0.7 per cent which brings the increase for the first six months of 1977 to almost 5 per cent, and in view of the coming increases in oil and natural gas prices, which will lead to another significant increase in the cost of living so that the increase for 1977 is expected to be between 9 per cent and 10 per cent, and whereas wage and salary increases for this year have been limited to 6 per cent, I wish to move:
That this House condemns the government policies which will mean a reduced standard of living in 1977 for most Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Before a motion can be presented under the terms of Standing Order 43, unanimous consent is required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to beg leave to move a motion about an urgent matter.
Considering that Mr. Jean-Marc Poliquin is a newspaper man of many years experience reporting parliamentary activi-

July 13, 1977
Gun Control
ties, that during these years he has made many friends among members of parliament, that his family suffered a grievous loss this last weekend, the death of his 24-year-old son, Marc-Andre, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House extends to Mr. Jean-Marc Poliquin's family its most sincere condolences on the occasion of the grievous loss it has suffered this last weekend.
Mir. Speaker: The presentation of such a motion can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not own and operate an English language television station in the Province of New Brunswick, and in view of the fact that New Brunswick is the only province in Canada which does not have an English-language CBC-owned and operated television station within its boundaries, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House express its dismay and request the Secretary of State to cause the CBC to take immediate steps to rectify this serious omission.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent if it is to be put to the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Hon. members cannot help but be aware of the terrible shooting incident which occurred the night before last almost within earshot of this House, which has so far resulted in the death of at least one police officer and the serious injury of three others. In view of the fact that this shooting was committed with a recently purchased long gun-


Some hon. Members:: Shame! Let's debate it!


William Ross Milne: -and might, therefore, have been avoided had a firearms acquisition certificate system been in existence as proposed in Bill C-51, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail):
That this House resolve not to rise for the summer recess until Bill C-51 has been read a third time, and also give consideration to sitting this day until the bill has been read a third time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The purpose of Standing Order 43, of course, is to seek the setting aside of the regular business of the day in order to debate a certain subject matter. In view of the fact that the very bill which is the subject matter of this motion is in fact before the House at this time, I scarcely see how I can put the question.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity concerning Senator Keith Davey's directorship of Hydroculture Luwasa Limited, the fact that this company has received government business and may shortly receive more, and the additional fact that the company's treasurer, Marco Muzzo, has stated to the royal commission on certain sectors of the building industry in Ontario he is not opposed to bribery as long as it works. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House deplores the giving and further negotiation of government business to Hydroculture Luwasa Limited whose treasurer has admitted indulging in bribery and pay-offs, in one case amounting to $19,500, and calls for a parliamentary inquiry into whether Mr. Muzzo has attempted or is attempting to pursue similar actions with government officials; whether Senator Davey has made any direct or indirect representations to the government on behalf of his treasurer, Marco Muzzo, or Hydroculture Luwasa Limited; and finally whether or not a former director, James Coutts, principal secretary to the Prime Minister, is still a shareholder of the company.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation for debate of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 13, 1977



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister, perhaps I could put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. 1 would make reference to the statement made by his colleague the President of the Treasury Board yesterday to the effect that "there does not yet appear to be the kind of response we are looking for" by the private sector in creating jobs. Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether it is now government policy that lack of job creation in the economy is the fault of the private sector?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that what the President of the Treasury Board had in mind were the measures taken in the budget which had as one of their main purposes the stimulation of activity in the private sector. Certainly, it is the main objective of the government that job stimulation take place in the private sector, as the main source of employment in Canada. That is what the minister had in mind.


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES TO CREATE JOBS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Since the President of the Treasury Board indicated yesterday that it might be necessary for the so-called governmental restraint to come to an end in the interest of further government spending, would the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether such increased spending is going to be undertaken? Is it proposed by the government to make any major shifts in its fiscal stance, in the form of holding back spending on some government plans in the interest of spending money with the desired objective of creating some jobs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the President of the Treasury Board talked about possibilities, and one of the possibilities has been mentioned by the hon. member. At the present time, the government is still assessing the effect of the budget on the economy. No major decision or shift has been made in government spending priority or in the fiscal framework as such.


INFLATION-GOVERNMENT TARGET FOR THIS YEAR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Acting Prime Minister who, in response to both my earlier questions, referred to the current budget which is still being processed through the House. In view of today's very discouraging figures, would the
Oral Questions
Acting Prime Minister indicate if the target of 6 per cent for the inflation level this year is still the desired target? More importantly, are they going to shoot for the 4 per cent inflation target which was contemplated in the earlier anti-inflation program papers?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, today's figures are not discouraging. In fact on a seasonably adjusted basis, they represent the smallest increase in several months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The figures released today increase the government's confidence that it will be possible, if not to reach the 6 per cent target set for this coming October, to come very close to it.


JOB CREATION PROGRAMS-REASON FOR FAILURE TO ANNOUNCE NEW PROGRAMS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Considering for the first time that a minister of the Crown has admitted outside the House in a speech in Toronto something we have been saying for months, namely that unemployment is a major contributor to national disunity, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the President of the Treasury Board was speaking as a spokesman for the government as a whole? Does this reflect a change in government policy? If it does, and if the government is at long last serious about recognizing unemployment as a source of disunity, would the Acting Prime Minister tell us why the plans the government is allegedly working on are not now announced in the House so that we can start creating jobs for this fall and winter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the President of the Treasury Board was making any new statement of policy in relating the existence of unemployment to possible strains to the unity of the country. It has always been widely regarded that regional economic disparity could be a destabilizing factor in the country, and that is something new. It was stated in the debate last week by the Prime Minister and other hon. members, and particularly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
With respect to the announcement of further job creation programs, that is a matter which will be taken care of in due course by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


MANPOWER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the Acting Prime Minister has said, I

July 13, 1977
Oral Questions
am sure most members on this side of the House will recognize a shift in public policy by the government in the speech of the President of the Treasury Board in Toronto last night, when he talked about disunity and talked about the government's failure to create jobs.
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who inadvertently acknowledged yesterday that the government is working on plans. As reported in the press, he said that they are working on plans to offset fall and winter unemployment. If the government is working on plans, I should like to ask the minister when these plans will be announced? Will it be soon? If legislation is required to implement them and to have them in effect this fall and winter, will the minister say when we are called back here in August that we will have legislation before us which will do something about the serious unemployment question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to this House on more than one occasion, it does not take the catalyst of an unemployment statistic to move this government to action.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That seems to be the situation with the opposition.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Tell that to the unemployed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, so far as programs for this year are concerned, we had already announced that $458 million would be devoted to direct job creation. That figure represents a $100 million increase over the original amount of last October. I said that we would probably announce phase 2 some time this week, and each individual member will receive notification of the amount available for his or her particular riding. We are looking at our job experience training program, the summer component of which worked so well and about which we have received so many compliments from the business community that we are now considering putting in place a winter component of the program.


An hon. Member:: Yes, Canada Works.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if the opposition is interested only in making catcalls I will not give them all the information they want.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering that 1.3 million are unemployed, I find it astonishing to hear the minister say his programs are working well. Since the minister expressed his intention of telling the House what is going on, will he now release his department's confidential study which forecasts increased unemployment in the coming winter months both for males and females in the age group 25 to 54?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I respect a confidence, and when something is given to me in confidence, that is how I treat it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I do not think even the Leader of the Opposition, or the leader of the New Democratic Party, would suggest that the total gap should be filled by the federal government alone. I say we all have a role to play; we are playing that role well. As the President of the Treasury Board said, private enterprise has a responsible role to play. Each of us has his obligation, which each of us must live up to.


Mr. Paproski:: The NDP infiltrated your department, Bud.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary.
Last week, at the Quebec National Assembly, the hon. member for Beauce-Sud put a question to the Minister of Agriculture asking him what was holding up the signing of the Ottawa-Quebec agreement on the $35 million subsidy to grain transportation. The minister replied that Ottawa was responsible for the delay. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether that is the truth of the matter and, if so, can he also tell us why that agreement has not been signed as expected?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I do not have with me the information requested by the hon. member. Still, I can tell him that the federal Minister of Agriculture is meeting his Quebec counterpart in Victoria today and that some of those questions, of which that of the hon. member, are on the agenda and will be discussed by the two ministers.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
The answer of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture dealt precisely with the possibility of discussions in Victoria. But Quebec is where things happen and Quebec producers are concerned. They want to know, as soon as possible, why that agreement has not been signed, when funds are available and have been earmarked for Quebec transport; the parliamentary secretary should be in a position to advise the House on the matter since it has been the topic of discussions for several weeks now.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this matter will be discussed today. But I must tell the hon. member that apparently the minister recently asked some of his officials not to communi-
July 13, 1977

cate with the civil servants of the Department of Agriculture of Canada. If there is a lack of communication, it might be advisable for the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec to inform his officials that they can contact us. We are not uncivilized; we can talk to them.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in a week when record unemployment is being announced-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: -and record inflation has been announced this do-nothing government-and none of the ministers in the House to face the music-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: -we are not going to be satisfied with answers from parliamentary secretaries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?


William Heward Grafftey: My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, not to a parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are a little jealous.


William Heward Grafftey: My point simply is that with record unemployment and record inflation, none of the responsible ministers are here to face the music.


An hon. Member:: And record polls.


William Heward Grafftey: My question to the Acting Prime Minister is the following. Considering the consumer prices have already risen by 5.7 per cent since October 1976, will the minister now concede that there is absolutely no hope that the rate of inflation will be less than the 6 per cent target for the second year of the anti-inflation program announced by the Minister of Finance, and as prices have been increasing at an annual rate of 10 per cent in the past six months, accompanied by record unemployment, can the minister tell the House what factors he expects to slow down this rapid inflation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is a difference of opinion between the hon. member and myself as to the interpretation to be accorded to the CPI figures which have been released today. As the parliamentary secretary has indicated, the month to month increase in the seasonally adjusted CPI is the lowest this year and indicates a downward trend.
Oral Questions


Miss MacDonald:: Tell that to the old age pensioners.


William Heward Grafftey: My supplementary question to the minister is: Now that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has allowed the money supply to expand at an annual rate of 34 per cent over the past three months, and now that the President of the Treasury Board has threatened to reopen the flood gates of federal spending in the fall, can the minister tell the House whether this administration still retains its rather weak commitment to fiscal and monetary responsibilities?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All I suggest is that hon. members on the front bench should get together and try to correlate their various economic proposals because the whole symphony or the whole chorus on this point has been very discordant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it refers to statements made yesterday by the Chancellor of West Germany that the Prime Minister said that Canada would be prepared to consider interim arrangements which would enable supplies of Canadian uranium to go forward to Euratom countries for the duration of the evaluation study on the safety of reprocessing. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs explain to the House the terms of these interim arrangements which the Chancellor of West Germany says have been agreed to by the Government of Canada?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I will do my best in the constraints of the question period. I should point out that it is not an agreement, except in the sense that it is a matter which we had agreed to put before the negotiators to see if it can be made into a final solution to the problem. The position is that in view of the INFCEP study, that is a complete fuel safeguard study, the proposition has been advanced that it may be possible for us to resume shipments to established customers on a consulting basis, that is that they consult with us in terms of the possible reprocessing or further use of the material on a limited basis and purely for the time during which the study is underway. We undertook to have these questions referred to the negotiators for both sides to see whether some solution within that framework might be possible to work out.


INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS FOR SALE OF URANIUM TO WEST
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said is

July 13, 1977
Oral Questions
that Canada has now changed its policy of January and is discussing shipments. He talks about discussions. He talks about a limited basis. I remind him that on April 5 in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands he said that, and I quote:
Unless the agreements-
Which would include an agreement between Canada and West Germany.
-bilaterally are of the nature which prevents the transfer to other member countries within the European community, we will not sign that agreement and those supplies will be held up.
I would like to know whether that is still the position of the government of Canada, and I would like to know whether the interim arrangements which Canada is now prepared to discuss will specifically prohibit the transfer of Canadian uranium to other countries within the EEC, and particularly to France, which has not signed the NPT.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that is yes. Let me go on to emphasize that what was discussed with the Chancellor of Germany was purely and simply the question of the resumption of shipments. There are several other elements in the negotiating process at the moment which also have to be resolved before any resumption, even on a limited basis. One of those is the question of retransfers within the community, and in so far as we were able to determine as of yesterday it appears that there is a willingness on the part of the community members to accept Canada's conditions in this regard. Since the Leader of the Opposition specifically mentioned France, indications are that France would be prepared to accept those conditions. However, I emphasize that that is a related but separate issue from the resumption of shipments per se.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister speaks quite generally, particularly in relation to France. Is it the absolute position of the government of Canada that there will be a prohibition upon the transfer of materials to France until France agrees to Canadian safeguards and standards? Does that continue to be the position of the government of Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered, but unfortunately perhaps I did not do so adequately. There has been no change in the position, and therefore, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated, that is the position. I emphasize that that was not part of the discussions with the German Chancellor because we were dealing expressly with the resumption of shipments. Incidentally, there are three or four other elements of significance which have not yet been resolved, and as the Leader of the Opposition stated, our position is as we have declared it to be since the first of the year.


SALE OF URANIUM TO EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET COUNTRIES-MAINTENANCE OF CANADIAN VETO OVER USES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if in the discussion which took

place, Canada expressly put forward the position that it wishes to retain its veto over the uses of Canadian uranium within any of the countries of the European Common Market to which shipments would be resumed. Did Canada ask to retain its veto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but is the hon. lady referring to a veto over transhipment?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Over transhipment, over reprocessing and over uses to which West Germany could put Canadian uranium.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The proposal which was discussed at the meetings, I emphasize, was the new element of a study to be undertaken internationally and to which as a result of yesterday's talks the Federal Republic of Germany is committed. This study is likely to take somewhere between a year and a half and two years. This raises a question as to whether the so-called veto should be imposed during this interim period over limited stocks.
I emphasize that we have not accepted that position. I want to make that perfectly clear to the House. The proposal which has been put forward is that we might consider some interim arrangement which would clearly involve consultation with us, but we have not-and I am being perfectly frank and candid- yet through the negotiating process determined whether this is an acceptable proposition. But we do recognize that there are complexities which have been introduced into this issue, far beyond those which already exist, as a result of the international study because this will determine, presumably within 18 months to two years, whether the so-called plutonium economy ought to be encouraged or discouraged, or whether it is practical.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: While I understand the complexities of the situation, I also understand that there is a vast difference between the word "veto" and the word "consultation". I would like to ask the minister if in the negotiations, the purpose of which I understood was to stiffen safeguards rather than to loosen them, it was taken into consideration that in recent days France, West Germany and three other European nations signed an agreement to develop and export fast breeder nuclear reactors, in open defiance of President Carter's effort to ban such atomic devices. What is the rationale for resuming uranium shipments to West Germany at a time when countries such as West Germany and France are increasing their activities in the field of nuclear proliferation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, without trying to assume your prerogatives in any way, this is an argumentative question which would take a very long time to answer. Of course, we are aware of this move in the European community and elsewhere toward the so called fast breeder reactor. We are also aware that the view of President Carter is that this kind of reactor and reprocessing is not desirable. However, at the same time there is an equally strongly held view, which has very strong technical and scientific support, which supports the
July 13, 1977

position of the Europeans. This is why the study is being undertaken. We have not said that we will resume. A proposition has been put forward to us which would contemplate very limited supplies during the period of the study, and we have said we will consider it. I emphasize that there has been no negotiation on that point as yet.


POSSIBLE DATE OF INTERIM AGREEMENT WITH WEST GERMANY ON SALE OF URANIUM
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when does the minister think he will be in a position to give a definitive response to the House as to when any such agreements will be arrived at?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the general question of the whole debate now going on universally on nuclear proliferation I think hon. members opposite know that I have had a statement in preparation, and for thoroughly understandable reasons it has not been possible to get all interested members in the House at an appropriate time to make it. I would be glad to make that statement available to hon. members or table it if, indeed, we rise before I have a chance to make that statement on motions. However, as far as the negotiations are concerned, it is contemplated that a conclusion of those negotiations ought to come within the next two or three months.


SALE OF URANIUM REPROCESSING PLANT TO BRAZIL BY WEST GERMANY-DISCUSSIONS WITH CHANCELLOR SCHMIDT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs can inform us whether there was any discussion either between himself and Chancellor Schmidt or between the Prime Minister and Chancellor Schmidt with respect to the very grave concern about the sale of a full nuclear system to Brazil, with respect to the opposition to that on the part of the United States government and, in fact, its refusal to participate in that sale, with respect to the impact any future supplies of uranium or materials to West Germany from Canada might have and with respect to the very dangerous precedent being established in Brazil, which is ruled at the present time by a military dictatorship which is known to be not entirely responsible in the area of human rights.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the second part of that question first. There is no contemplation that any Canadian supply of materials would in any way find its way out of either Germany or the European community to Brazil or to any other country. There is a clear safeguard in place in that regard, and there is no problem ensuring that Canadian materials are not used in reactors abroad. On the larger question, the matter of Brazil did arise. I think the hon. member knows it is central to the very fundamental differences that exist-and I repeat, I think they are legitimate differences-at the moment in scientific terms as to the wisdom or otherwise of proceeding with
Oral Questions
reprocessing. The Federal Republic of Germany has indicated it will not provide any other countries with the kind of arrangement it has with Brazil but apparently it has no intention of reneging or withdrawing from its commitment with Brazil.


SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES POSITION ON DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE
James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On his return from the London summit conference the Prime Minister was asked about the relationship of Canada to the United States' position with respect to safeguards and so forth and he made it very clear that day that the Canadian position and the American position were the same and that we are moving ahead on that ground. Do I understand from the minister today that the question is now open and that Canada is no longer supporting the position put forth by President Carter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at Hansard to find out precisely what was said. I think I am reflecting the position of the Prime Minister and the government clearly, however, when 1 say there is no difference of opinion between ourselves and President Carter on the principles and objectives of nonproliferation. I do not believe we have ever said that we were as assured as is President Carter that reprocessing and similar activities ought to be abandoned totally. What we have said, and this was re-emphasized in the meetings with Chancellor Schmidt, is that the essential element here is a thorough study of all aspects of this matter by the recognized world authorities including many more countries than the seven who were present at the summit-


An hon. Member:: Why change the policy?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member has asked "Why change our policy?" 1 have said at least five times this afternoon that there has been no change of policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In conclusion, I say once again that we have been asked to consider a possible interim arrangement and we have said we will. Up to the moment there has not been any change. I should remind hon. members opposite also that the United States at this moment is shipping enriched uranium to the same customers in Europe and of course the end result of that kind of shipment in reprocessing terms is precisely the same as getting the uranium from Canada.


INTERIM ARRANGEMENT FOR SALE OF URANIUM TO WEST
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Chancellor Schmidt is quoted directly as saying a positive interim arrangement now seems fairly easy to

July 13, 1977
Oral Questions
achieve. That is the arrangement which would change the Canadian position adopted in January. Is it the position of the Government of Canada that that interim arrangement which would change our January ban, now seems fairly easy to achieve?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to go as far as Chancellor Schmidt did in that regard. 1 do not want to preempt the position of our negotiator. What we have said is that this seems like a basis that is worthy of discussion, if we can put certain restrictions in for a period of 18 months or two years during the period of this study. I should emphasize also that there is no likelihood that any uranium supplies from Canada or new supplies from any source at the present time are likely to be reprocessed in Europe until the mid-1980's. The practical effect of any arrangement we make short-term, therefore, is not going to be reprocessing; it is the principle which is involved and I thoroughly agree with what I detect to be the position of hon. members that the principle is very important.


SALE OF URANIUM TO EUROPEAN COUNTRIES-ALLEGATION OF CHANGE IN POLICY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the policy in January was that there were to be no shipments of Canadian uranium into Europe, the EEC or any individual European country until they met with our safeguards and if the minister now tells us that they are seriously considering abridging that policy to permit the shipment of uranium until the study is completed, how can he come here today and tell us there is no change in that policy?


An hon, Member:: There is no policy.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If serious consideration is being given to abridging that policy is that not a break with the policy? What has happened since January that has caused the minister and the Prime Minister to change their minds?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member came to a straightforward question at the end of his discourse because I am in a position to answer. What has happened since January is a very significant commitment, first of all, on the part of the countries present at the summit and yesterday a reinforcement by Chancellor Schmidt, 24 hours before he goes to Washington, to full participation in the full cycle study which was not in existence in January and which was only proposed-


An hon. Member:: That is not meeting your commitment.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect if the hon. member would only permit me to finish the answer he might spare this House the opportunity-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to be the essence of convoluted logic to argue that because you are prepared to talk to someone about a new proposition, you have already changed your policy. It simply makes no sense to argue that way. I think it is important, however, that the House understand that this study to which the United States attributes enormous importance-and in this respect we are totally in agreement with them and Chancellor Schmidt and the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that they are fully committed to it and wish it broadened to involve countries other than the seven-we hope the study will answer definitively what is at the present time a highly emotional argument. I do not suppose that even the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would claim to be an authority on all of these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: She, at least, is consistent.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If we can achieve reasonable terms of reference for this study we will have something specific on which to come to the ultimate conclusion as to whether the so-called plutonium economy makes sense or whether it does not. That is the whole issue and that is the element that has been introduced since January.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why not wait until the end of the study?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked why not wait until the end of the study. It is because there are existing plants in Europe in countries entirely friendly to Canada with which we seek to co-operate where there would be serious problems if there were not at least some effort made to provide them with their ongoing needs during this period. What we are seeking to do-


An hon. Member:: Which you knew about in January.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We knew about it in January but we did not have at that time an element of the study which, of course, both from our point of view and from theirs, is causing some caution as to long-term commitments which may very well be proved ridiculous by the outcome of the study. So we are talking about an 18-month to two-year period. There is no intention under any circumstances to provide huge stockpiles which might be available for years to come.
To answer the hon. member's question, if we can co-operate on a short-term basis to ensure that existing reactors are not forced to shut down and in the case of Germany as much as 25 per cent of the population deprived of power then it seems to me sensible in the interest of the western alliance and all the other considerations for us to make the effort to come to an agreement satisfactory to both of us.
July 13, 1977


DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY ON DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the considerable savings in energy costs, estimated at $2 billion per year, which could be achieved by the end of the century if solar and wind energy supply were used in Canada, could the minister inform this House whether he intends to propose and eventually announce a policy aimed at increasing the development and application of renewable resources of energy?


An hon. Member:: They have lots of wind.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's interest in solar energy is well known as he is the sponsor of a bill with respect to solar energy. As hon. members perhaps realize the government has been in the process of developing policy with respect to renewable energy. In my department, for example we have set up a branch which is concerned with the development of those policies but we have done more than that-we have increased our budget for research and development and demonstration of solar technology in this country very substantially. We have contacted the provinces as part of the process of trying to develop on a concerted basis-and let us recognize that the provinces have probably one of the key responsibilities with respect to solar power. They alone will determine whether the zoning and the bylaws are such that people can put solar energy in with impunity. What I am talking about is the "right to light".
If hon. members opposite do not think-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fraser:: We did not ask the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: I regret that the interest of the opposition is so superficial on a matter of such importance. They cannot understand the importance of the right to light.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED CHANGE IN GUIDELINES ON WAGE INCREASES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that most Canadians will have a reduced standard of living in 1977 as a result of the 6 per cent limit for wage and salary increases for this year as set out by the Anti-Inflation
Oral Questions
Board guidelines while the cost of living will increase by substantially more than 6 per cent, will the government consider giving instructions to the AIB to adjust their guidelines to ensure that Canadian wage and salary earners will at least be able to maintain their piesent standard of living?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in view of questions asked earlier by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, I would indicate that the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board today and tomorrow are travelling across the country to consult with provincial premiers and provincial governments about the decontrol period and the future of the program. Hon. members can look forward in the next few weeks to an announcement by the Minister of Finance about the future of the program which will cover the questions raised by the hon. member.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the decontrol period may be months from now. Many unions are now negotiating new contracts for the next year or more. They are restricted to a maximum of 6 per cent under the guidelines enacted by this government while the cost of living in the first six months of this year has already increased by 5 per cent. Obviously they will be losers this year. Will the government give consideration to adjusting the guidelines so that people negotiating new contracts can at least keep last year's standard of living?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it is taking a lot for granted to assume what the performance of the anti-inflation program will be, as the hon. member suggested, very far outside the range of the government's target.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It arises from the business given to and presently under negotiation with Hydroculture Luwasa of which Senator Davey is a director and Marco Muzzo also a director and treasurer. Is the government aware that Marco Muzzo admitted to extensive bribery and payoffs before the Ontario Royal Commission on certain sectors of the building industry? Is the Minister of Justice therefore prepared to change his mind, and authorize a full investigation into all details that may have occurred between persons in the federal government, Marco Muzzo, Senator Davey and James Coutts with particular reference as to whether or not any inducements, undue representations or conflicts of interests are involved?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the information to which the hon. member makes reference. I will check into it.

July 13, 1977
Oral Questions FOREIGN INVESTMENTS


TAKEOVER OF PONY SPORTING GOODS-POSSIBILITY OF REPRESENTATIONS BY SENATOR DAVEY
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, 1 will direct my supplementary to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whom I believe has left the chamber. This arises from cabinet approval on June 30 under the Foreign Investment Review Act-


An hon. Member:: Here he is now.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I will then direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises from cabinet approval on June 30 under the Foreign Investment Review Act of the takeover of Pony Sporting Goods Limited of Markham, Ontario by CITC Industries Incorporated of New York, a subsidiary of Powers Commercial Corporation of the United States. Is the government aware that Senator Keith Davey was a director of Pony Sporting Goods Limited of Markham when this matter was considered by cabinet? Can he tell us now if he or any other of the officials or cabinet ministers received representations from Senator Davey for favourable consideration for appointments? If he cannot tell us, is he prepared to assure the House that he will look into this situation and report back within two days.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I am not at all aware of that, Mr. Speaker. However, I am extremely disappointed that the hon. member, before inquiring privately, would throw names into the arena like he is doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a very questionable practice. Although 1 am a Francophone, I have learned from studying English law that one is innocent until proven guilty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will certainly make inquiries. I know that Senator Davey never talked to me about any of this. I can report that fact to the House. I am sure that was not the consideration at all, if there is any truth to the allegation of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Aside from the fact the minister says I am throwing names around irresponsibly without looking into the matter, I would ask him this. He was the one, was he not, who announced that this takeover had taken place. I would also ask him whether he is not in a position as I was, or any other citizen is, to inquire who the directors of companies are and, if so, why did he not do that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not a witchhunter. Senator Davey did not speak to me. I did not know anything until the present moment. I will make inquiries. A decision was made on the facts as they were placed before cabinet. No one
[Mr. Basford.l
mentioned the name of Senator Davey to me. Even if I did know that, it would not have changed my judgment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In an interjection on June 13 when I was speaking in the House, the Minister of Finance said that he had had private indications from the Canadian Labour Congress that they were prepared to cooperate toward participation in a multipartite national forum which the minister put forward some months ago. Can the minister tell the House whether there have been private talks between the CLC and cabinet ministers which indicate that they are prepared to participate in the multipartite national forum or is the position of the CLC as it has been publicly stated, namely that they are not prepared to participate in that particular forum.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think the position can be more accurately stated to be this. Discussions with the CLC with reference to the multipartite forum and other various types of institutions that would ensure a working together between government, labour and business are all part of the discussions that surround an acceptable formula for decontrol. These discussions are still going on. There is no conclusion with respect to them.


John Allen Fraser: My question is whether the Minister of Finance is correct when he says he has had private communications which are contrary to what the CLC has been saying publicly.
I would like the minister to answer that. As well, will he advise whether he realizes that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association as recently as yesterday said that they view this multipartite national forum as just "window dressing". If that is their understanding on the position of labour, the minister ought to inform the House whether in view of the fact that neither management nor labour will support that particular proposition, how long this government is going to hold it out as policy.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this is a very worthwhile proposal indeed, one that merits support. I think the hon. member will agree with that. This is a very worth while proposal indeed and is one which merits support. I think the hon. member would agree. It is unfortunate that he seems to be reaching to destroy what is a good proposal for the benefit of all Canadians.


John Allen Fraser: Now wait a minute!
July 13, 1977


John Carr Munro: If you don't mind, I am answering the question. You wait a minute until I am finished, then you can ask another question. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association may not be reflecting the encouraging words we have heard from many in the business community. It is not the only spokesman for the business community. There are many in the business community who have been involved in discussions with reference to the multipartite approach. Labour wants to have a voice, as has often been stated, within a national forum where it can have some influence in the development of national economic policies. This affords them such an opportunity. The fact that they may want to negotiate with respect to the characteristics of such a council seems to me to be quite reasonable and acceptable, and a discussion of that sort is going on in the context, as I say, of talks with reference to decontrol.


John Allen Fraser: A representative of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Sydney Jackson, said yesterday as reported in the press today: "My view and the view of any business leaders I have talked to is that this would be window dressing and a waste of time. Labour, I understand, feels the same way." My question to the minister is this: he needs both labour and business in this multipartite committee and if neither one of them intends to take part, why does the government continue to hold this out as policy when it is clear the two essential ingredients will not take part?


John Carr Munro: Answering questions from the hon. member for Vancouver South is rather like trying to blow over a stone wall. He is not receptive to what I consider to be the clear statement I have just made. His question is based on two fundamental false premises. First, Mr. Jackson does not speak for the entire business community. If the hon. member wants to believe that, he can believe a lot of ridiculous things. I, for one, do not share that belief.


John Allen Fraser: Am I supposed to believe the Minister of Finance?


John Carr Munro: The other false premise is that Mr. Jackson speaks for the labour movement, or speaks to it on any regular basis. I do not believe he does-certainly not on a more regular basis than I have been doing myself for some time with respect to this item.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Daudlin.
[Editor's Note: For text of the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,899, 1,984, 2,468, 2,758 and 2,831.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	What are the names and file numbers of all studies pertaining to the proposed Kitimat-Edmonton pipeline which have been completed or are under way by the Department of (a) Transport (b) the Environment (c) Energy, Mines and Resources?
2.	What studies pertaining to the pipeline have been proposed by the Department of (a) Transport (b) the Environment (c) Energy, Mines and Resources?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Transport, the Environment and Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: 1. (a) 2254-124 "Code of Recommended Standards for the Prevention of Pollution at Marine Terminals" (TERMPOL Code) 9004-2-2 "Freight Commodities and Movements-Oil-Assessment at Kitimat, B.C.-Marine Terminal Proposal", (b) For certain environmental aspects of the proposed Kitimat-Edmonton pipeline, there is information in various stages ranging from raw data (for example, salmon spawning escapements; some weather station data) to published reports (for example, "The Kitimat River Estuary- Status of Environmental Knowledge to 1976"; a Report of the Estuary Working Group; Special Estuary Series No. 6, Department of Fisheries and the Environment, December, 1976). Studies pertaining to the marine aspects of the proposed project are as follows: (i) DFE is a member of the Termpol Coordinating Committee and has studied the Term-pol Submission provided by Kitimat Pipe Line Limited in December, 1976. The first outcome of this study has been a series of questions transmitted to the Chairman, Termpol Coordinating Committee. These were compiled with other questions and sent to the company on February 25, 1977. Based on existing information as described above, as well as the Company's Termpol Submission, and replies recently received to the questions raised by the Termpol Committee, a Technical Appraisal of the proposal by the Termpol Coordinating Committee has been undertaken. The Department of Environment has contributed an environmental assessment review, (ii) Only one specific study is being prepared in support of the Technical Appraisal; a preliminary draft of "A Marine Climatology of the Approaches to Kitimat, B.C." (Hydrometeorology and Marine Application Division, Atmospheric Environment Service, March 1977). (iii) A West Coast Deep Water Oil Port Comparative Study is underway in the Pacific Region. A study of the Kitimat Pipe Line application to the National Energy Board is underway to ascertain the best course of action with respect to protection of the terrestri-

July 13, 1977
Order Paper Questions
al and freshwater environment under the Fisheries Act and Migratory Birds Convention Act. (c) Nil.
2.	(a) An assessment was made of the proponent's submission with respect to the proposed Kitimat terminal system and was published on May 25, 1977 as Transport Canada publication number T.P. 851. (b) Four additional studies are considered necessary. These studies relate to oceanographic and hydrographic studies, meteorological requirements (a) in support of environmental impact assessment of a port at Kitimat, B.C. and (b) to augment meteorological service along the north B.C. coast for tanker traffic, migratory bird studies and fisheries studies relating to fishing operations, resource documentation, socio-economics and water quality. With the exception of some of the hydrographic studies, these were considered to fall in the category of accelerated studies, and hence the responsibility for undertaking them was considered to be that of the company, (c) Nil.


Mr. Cyr: 1.	How many applications has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion received requesting assistance to industries in outlying regions for each province during the fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975?
2.	For the same years, by province, how many industries received grants and what were the amounts?
3.	For the same years, by province, how many applications have been rejected?
4.	For the same years, which province had the highest rate of rejections or retrieval of applications?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: the requested information is provided for firms which, as of December 31, 1976, had applied for an incentive under the Regional Development Incentive Program to assist them in the establishment, expansion or modernization of a facility in a designated region. 1. The number of applications received, by province and by fiscal year, is shown in (1) of the list below.
2.	The number of offers accepted by applicants as of December 31, 1976 is shown in (2) of the list below and reflects the fact that some offers accepted in the past were later declined by the applicant or withdrawn by the department.
3.	The number of applications received by the department and rejected as that term is defined in the monthly report to parliament (i.e., an application turned down because the project in question is considered ineligible, would proceed without incentive assistance or would not make a significant contribution to economic expansion and social adjustment within a designated region) is shown in (3) of the list below.
4.	The information requested is assumed to be for rejections and withdrawals. The number of applications received by the department and rejected (as previously defined) or withdrawn as that term is defined in the monthly report to parliament (i.e., an application withdrawn, at the request of the applicant, after receipt but before or during evaluation) is shown in (4) of the list below.
Activity under the Regional Development Incentives Program as of December 31, 1976 1. Numbers of applications received:
(a) 1969-70	(b) 1970-71	(c) 1971-72	(d) 1972-73	(e) 1973-74	(f) 1974-75	(i)	Newfoundland	29	80	114	71	65	43(H)	Prince Edward Island	12	39	34	32	19	25(iii)	Nova Scotia	52	83	146	131	103	84(iv)	New Brunswick	55	122	143	155	148	114(v)	Quebec	332	744	1712	1600	842	536(vi)	Ontario	48	134	212	196	175	126(vii)	Manitoba	117	163	163	151	84	126(vm)	Saskatchewan	14	69	64	56	42	115(ix)	Alberta	28	71	65	53	53	26(x)	British Columbia	22	46	49	48	25	23(xi)	Others*	2	17	17	19	18	1Totals	711	1,568	2,719	2,512	1,574	1,219	Number	of applicants that accepted offers	of incentive and estimated amount of incentives (in thousands of dollars)	Est.	Est.	Est.	Est.	Est.	EstNo.	Amount	No. Amount	No. Amount	No. Amount	No. Amount	No.	Amount(i)	Newfoundland	3	210.9	12 1,123.1	24 5,575.0	18 1,694.9	24 1,779.5	12	1,612.2(ii)	Prince Edward Island	0	0.0	12 811.1	10 789.4	11 2,115.4	11 1,136.4	11	456.3(iii)	Nova Scotia	9	1,038.7	30 19,379.6	37 5,711.3	43 12,759.8	42 4,764.6	37	7,621,5(iv)	New Brunswick	12	5,159.1	28 6,186.9	51 8,626.1	47 6,324.4	64 13,471.0	46	10,136.5(v)	Quebec	33	5,029.6	128 25,125.0	481 52,974.6	490 40,170.0	326 36,730.0	248	34,617.5(vi)	Ontario	5	635.5	24 13,540.9	34 4,808.8	46 21,236.9	50 10,205.1	46	6,214.2(vii)	Manitoba	14	1,845.6	51 5,903.7	59 3,244.0	51 18,118.0	42 7,039.7	57	7,396.1(viii)	Saskatchewan	2	618.9	19 3,964.9	16 1,144.1	14 1,993.0	15 3,157.6	32	3,959.1(ix)	Alberta	4	1,373.4	20 16,732.1	13 2,848.7	11 3,949.9	12 839.6	16	5,775,3(x)	British Columbia	4	288.4	5 182.7	11 2,346.9	6 556.8	8 1,527.7	4	288.5Totals	86	16,200.1	329 92,950.0	737 88,068.9	737 108,919.1	594 80,651.2	09	79,077.2
Applications for incentives having no indication as to the location of the proposed facility. 
July 13, 1977

Order Paper Questions
Activity under the Regional Development Incentives Program as of December 31, 1976 3. Number of applications rejected by the department, as defined in the monthly report to parliament on Regional Development Incentives
(a) 1969-70	(b) 1970-71	(c) 1971-72	(d) 1972-73	(e) 1973-74	(0 1974-75(i)	Newfoundland	2	26	36	26	16	5(ii)	Prince Edward Island	0	16	13	5	5	5(iii)	Nova Scotia	3	9	22	31	30	16(iv)	New Brunswick	3	29	21	33	30	13(v)	Quebec	35	142	251	492	276	104(vi)	Ontario	4	31	56	77	36	22(vii)	Manitoba	9	45	47	58	16	15(viii)	Saskatchewan	0	15	24	31	6	26(ix)	Alberta	2	20	35	19	13	15(x)	British Columbia	4	10	19	17	6	7(xi)	Others*	0	2	3	3	8	0Totals	62	345	527	792	442	228
4. Number of applications rejected and withdrawn by the department, as defined in the monthly report to parliament on Regional Development
Incentives (i)	Newfoundland	3	41	70	52	41	26(ii)	Prince Edward Island	1	18	18	13	17	8(iii)	Nova Scotia	3	34	62	84	71	40(iv)	New Brunswick	7	44	68	87	67	56(v)	Quebec	60	339	736	1,222	600	292(vi)	Ontario	8	64	115	157	119	77(vii)	Manitoba	17	91	91	97	45	43(viii)	Saskatchewan	1	27	45	40	19	56(ix)	Alberta	3	32	52	41	31	22(x)	British Columbia	4	19	41	38	18	18(xi)	Others*	1	11	18	19	20	5Totals	108	720	1,316	1,850	1048	643
* Applications for incentives having no indication as to the location of the proposed facility.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence contracted with Sharon Professional Services to find a retired Canadian Naval Deck Officer to prepare an instruction manual for use by officers of the watch and bridge personnel on the DDH 280 Class Destroyers?
2.	Is there no-one serving at the present time capable of preparing this manual?
3.	How much is the Department prepared or committed to spending outside of the Department for this service?
4.	Are the officers of the watch and bridge personnel on the DDH 280s managing at the present time without the manual and, if so, in what way?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not applicable in view of part 1 of this question.
4.	Yes. Officers of the watch and bridge personnel on DDH 280s are qualified by way of courses at the Fleet school in Halifax and through shipboard training and familiarization. As a supplement to this training an approach to industry was made to produce a manual but, after a reassessment of the requirement the invitation for bids was withdrawn. No contract was let and none is now intended.


Mr. Jones: 1. What are the qualifications for enlistment in the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	Are francophones permitted to enlist with a grade 9 education and are non-francophones required to have at least grade 12 and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Are non-francophone recruits who are fluent in French, given equal rights on enlistment and promotions and, if not, for what reason?
4.	(a) What is the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces at the present time (b) how many are (i) francophone (ii) non-francophone?
5.	(a) In each year 1970 to 1976, by province, what were the enlistments or recruits in the Forces (b) how many were (i) francophone (ii) non-francophone for each year, by province?
6.	What language is the predominant language of administration and control in each service of the Forces?
7.	Have armoured vehicles been brought from other parts of Canada and deployed along the Ottawa River and, if so (a) for what reason (b) on what date?
8.	(a) How many major armament and ammunition depots are located in (i) Quebec (ii) other provinces (b) where is each located and what are the details and particulars on the quantity of armament, equipment and ammunition at each depot?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
DND enrolment standards are as follows: Canadian citizen, except in special cases, at departmental discretion i.e., where a certain skill would not be readily available or similar instances. Age 17 to 24 inclusive for unskilled applicants, up to 33 for skilled applicants. A minimum of grade eight. Requirement to meet medical standards prescribed for trades. Ability to pass appropriate tests and must be considered suitable for enrolment by recruiting officer.
2.	No. The minimum of grade eight education as stated above applies to both francophones and non-francophones.
3.	Yes.


Mr. Neil: What was the total cost to the government of the production of the half hour programme David Steinberg News Special on Metric Conversion?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: the total cost of producing the David Steinberg News Special on Metric Conversion was $72,735.00.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Would Your Honour be good enough to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 114 and 115?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 114-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the progress report presented by the Relocation Task Force to the liaison officers and union representatives having to do with the move of the Headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, no written report was presented by the relocation task force to the liaison officers and union representatives having to do with the move of the headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island. I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Marshall:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn and order discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 115-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the progress report presented by the Relocation Task Force to the Veterans' Affairs Relocation Steering Committee, dated March 11, 1977, having to do with the move of the Headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island.
Criminal Code
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, no written report was presented by the relocation task force to the Veterans Affairs relocation steering committee having to do with the move of the headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Jack Marshall: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn and order discharged.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, July 12, 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:: Pursuant to the order made Tuesday, July 12, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-51 in the order in which outstanding divisions have been deferred, which is the order in which they are listed at the back of today's order paper.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the division bells having been rung:
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) on a point of order.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. We have a number of votes and a number of motions before us. Every time a motion was called it was read to the House, and my party has been provided with a copy of the votes. Therefore, if it is the pleasure of the House, the votes could be called by number only in order to expedite this procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member indicates, this procedure would be expedited by calling the votes by number only, rather than reading the full text of the description of the bill and the full text of the amendment. Unless an hon. member indicates

July 13, 1977
Criminal Code
it is necessary, the Chair will follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary North.
Therefore, the vote is on motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 1 lost. The	
next question, in	the order of deferral,	is on motion No. 7 in
the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-		
liams). 1 remind hon. members that the vote on motion No. 7		
disposes of the vote on motion No. 28.		
The House divided on motion No. 7 (Mr. Woolliams) which		
was negatived on the following division:		
	{Division No. 75)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Alexander	Gillies	McKinnonAllard	Grafftey	MitgesBaker	Halliday	Muir(Grenville-Carleton)	Hnatyshyn	NeilBawden	Holmes	OberleBeatty	Hurlburt	O'SullivanBeaudoin	Jarvis	PaproskiBrisco	Johnston	PattersonCadieu	Jones	PetersCaouette	Kempling	Pigott (Mrs.)(Villeneuve)	Knowles	RitchieCaouette	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	Rondeau(Temiscamingue)	Lambert	RynardClarke	(Bellechasse)	Schellenberger(Vancouver Quadra)	Laprise	SchumacherCoates	La Salle	StanfieldCrouse	Lawrence	StevensDarling	MacDonald	StewartDick	(Egmont)	(Marquette)Diefenbaker	Malone	TowersDionne	Marshall	Wenman(Kamouraska)	Mazankowski	WhitewayElzinga	McCain	WiseEpp	McCleave	WoolliamsFraser	McKenzie	Yewchuk-66.Abbott	NAYS Messrs. Campbell	DouglasAllmand	(LaSalle-fimard-Cote	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-Anderson	Saint-Paul)	The Islands)Appolloni (Mrs.)	Caron	DruryBaker	Chretien	Duclos(Gander-Twillingate)	Clermont	DupontBasford	Collenette	DuprasBegin (Miss)	Comtois	DuquetBlackburn	Condon	EthierBlais	Corriveau	FaulknerBlaker	Cullen	FlemingBlouin	Danson	FlynnBoulanger	Daudlin	FosterBreau	Dawson	FrancisBrewin	De Bane	GauthierBroadbent	Demers	(Ottawa-Vanier)Buchanan	Dionne	GilbertBussieres	(Northumberland-	GillespieCaccia	Miramichi)	GoodaleCafik	Douglas	GoyerCampagnolo (Mrs.)	(Bruce-Grey)	Gray
July 13, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14		
lost.		
The question is	on motion No. 2, which will also dispose of	
motions Nos. 21 and 22.		
The House divided on motion No.		2 (Mr. Schumacher)
which was negatived on the following division:		
	(Division No. 77)	
	YEAS	
	Messrs.	
Alexander	Darling	KnowlesAllard	Diefenbaker	(Norfolk-Haldimand)Baker	Dionne	Lambert(Grenville-Carleton)	(Kamouraska)	(Bellechasse)Bawden	Elzinga	LapriseBeatty	Epp	La SalleBeaudoin	Fraser	LawrenceBrisco	Gillies	MacDonaldCadieu	Grafftey	(Egmont)Caouette	Halliday	Malone(Villeneuve)	Hnatyshyn	MarshallCaouette	Holmes	Mazankowski(Temiscamingue)	Hurlburt	McCainClarke	Jarvis	McCleave(Vancouver Quadra)	Johnston	McKenzieCoates	Jones	McKinnonCossitt	Kempling	MitgesCrouse	Muir
July 13, 1977
Criminal Code
	Messrs.	
Neil	Ritchie	StewartOberle	Rondeau	(Marquette)O'Sullivan	Rynard	TowersPa proski	Schellenberger	WenmanPatterson	Schumacher	WhitewayPeters	Stanfield	WisePigott (Mrs.)	Stevens	Woolliams
Ycwchuk-66.
Abbott	NAYS Messrs. Duquet	LumleyAllmand	Ethier	MacDonaldAnderson	Faulkner	(Cardigan)Appolloni (Mrs.)	Fleming	MacEachenBaker	Flynn	MacFarlane(Gander-Twillingate)	Foster	MaineBasford	Francis	MarchandBegin (Miss)	Gauthier	MartinBlackburn	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MclsaacBlais	Gilbert	MilneBlaker	Gillespie	MunroBlouin	Goodale	(Hamilton East)Boulanger	Goyer	Nicholson (Miss)Breau	Gray	O'ConnellBrewin	Guay	OlivierBroadbent	(St. Boniface)	OrlikowBuchanan	Guay	OuelletBussi&res	(Levis)	ParentCaccia	Haidasz	PearsallCafik	Harquail	PelletierCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Herbert	PennerCampbell	Hogan	Philbrook(LaSalle-femard-Cote	Holt (Mrs.)	PinardSaint-Paul)	Hopkins	PortelanceCaron	Isabelle	PoulinChretien	Jamieson	RainesClermont	Joyal	ReidCollenette	Knowles	RobertsComtois	(Winnipeg	RobinsonCondon	North Centre)	RodriguezCorriveau	Lajoie	RompkeyCullen	Lalonde	RooneyDanson	Lamontagne	RoyDaudlin	Landers	(Laval)Dawson	Langlois	SaltsmanDe Bane	Lapointe	SavardDemers	Lavoie	SharpDionne	Leblanc	Smith(Northumberland-	(Laurier)	(Saint-Jean)Miramichi)	LeBlanc	StanburyDouglas	(Westmorland-Kent)	Stewart(Bruce-Grey)	Lee	(Cochrane)Douglas	Lefebvre	Symes(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	Leggatt	TessierThe Islands)	Lessard	TrudelDrury	Loiselle	TurnerDuclos	(Chambly)	WatsonDupont	Loiselle	WoodDupras	(Saint-Henri)	Yanakis-125.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 therefore declare motions Nos. 2, 21 and 22	
lost. The question is upon motion No. 9.		
The House divided on motion No. 9 (Mr. Brisco) which was		
negatived on the following division:		
Alexander	(Division No. 78)
 YEAS Messrs. Bawden	Cadieu
Allard	Beatty	CaouetteBaker	Beaudoin	(Villeneuve)(Grenville-Carleton)	Brisco	Caouette	Messrs. Jarvis	Muir(Temiscamingue)	Johnston	NeilClarke	Jones	Oberle(Vancouver Quadra)	Kempling	O'SullivanCoates	Knowles	PaproskiCossitt	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	PattersonCrouse	Lambert	Pigott (Mrs.)Darling	(Bellechasse)	RitchieDick	Laprise	RondeauDiefenbaker	La Salle	RynardDionne	Lawrence	Schellenberger(Kamouraska)	MacDonald	SchumacherElzinga	(Egmont)	StanfieldEpp	Malone	StevensFraser	Marshall	StewartGillies	Mazankowski	(Marquette)Grafftey	McCain	TowersHalliday	McCleave	WenmanHnatyshyn	McKenzie	WhitewayHolmes	McKinnon	WiseHurlburt	Mitges	WoolliamsAbbott	NAYS Messrs. Ethier	Yewchuk-66. MacDonaldAllmand	Faulkner	(Cardigan)Anderson	Fleming	MacEachenAppolloni (Mrs.)	Flynn	MacFarlaneBaker	Foster	Maine(Gander-Twillingate)	Francis	MarchandBasford	Gauthier	MartinBegin (Miss)	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MclsaacBlackburn	Gilbert	MilneBlais	Gillespie	MunroBlaker	Goodale	(Hamilton East)Blouin	Goyer	Nicholson (Miss)Boulanger	Gray	O'ConnellBreau	Guay	OlivierBrewin	(St. Boniface)	OrlikowBroadbent	Guay	OuelletBuchanan	(Levis)	ParentBussieres	Haidasz	PearsallCaccia	Harquail	PelletierCafik	Herbert	PennerCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Hogan	PetersCampbell	Holt (Mrs.)	Philbrook(LaSalle- femard-Cdte	Hopkins	PinardSaint-Paul)	Isabelle	PortelanceCaron	Jamieson	PoulinChretien	Joyal	RainesClermont	Knowles	ReidCollenette	(Winnipeg	RobertsComtois	North Centre)	RobinsonCondon	Lajoie	RodriguezCorriveau	Lalonde	RompkeyCullen	Lamontagne	RooneyDanson	Landers	RoyDaudlin	Langlois	(Laval)Dawson	Lapointe	SaltsmanDemers	Lavoie	SavardDionne	Leblanc	Sharp(Northumberland-	(Laurier)	SmithMiramichi)	LeBlanc	(Saint-Jean)Douglas	(Westmorland-Kent)	Stanbury(Bruce-Grey)	Lee	StewartDouglas	Lefebvre	(Cochrane)(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	Leggatt	SymesThe Islands)	Lessard	TessierDrury	Loiselle	TrudelDuclos	(Chambly)	TurnerDupont	Loiselle	WatsonDupras	(Saint-Henri)	WoodDuquet	Lumley	Yanakis-125.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 9 lost.
The question is therefore upon motion No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 10 lost.

July 13, 1977
Criminal Code
Messrs.
Messrs.
Saltsman
Savard
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stanbury
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Symes
Tessier
Trudel
Turner
Watson
Wood
Yanakis-123.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 15 lost.
The question is on motion No. 16 in the name of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 16 lost.		
The question is	on motion No. 17	in the name of the
member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil).		
The House divided on motion No.		17 (Mr. Neil) which
negatived on the following division:		
	{Division No. 82)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Alexander	Gillies	McKenzieAllard	Grafftey	McKinnonBaker	Halliday	Mitges(Grenville-Carleton)	Hnatyshyn	MuirBawden	Holmes	NeilBeatty	Hurlburt	OberleBeaudoin	Jarvis	O'SullivanBrisco	Johnston	PaproskiCadieu	Jones	PattersonCaouette	Kempling	Pigott (Mrs.)(Villeneuve)	Knowles	RitchieCaouette	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	Rondeau(Temiscamingue)	Lambert	RynardClarke	(Bellechasse)	Schellenberger(Vancouver Quadra)	Laniel	SchumacherCoates	Laprise	StanfieldCossitt	La Salle	StevensCrouse	Lawrence	StewartDarling	MacDonald	(Marquette)Dick	(Egmont)	TowersDiefenbaker	Malone	WenmanDionne	Marshall	Whiteway(Kamouraska)	Mazankowski	WiseElzinga	McCain	WoolliamsFraser	McCleave
NAYS Messrs.	Yewchuk-66.Abbott	Broadbent	CondonAllmand	Buchanan	CorriveauAppolloni (Mrs.)	Bussieres	CullenBaker	Caccia	Danson(Gander-Twillingate)	Cafik	DaudlinBasford	Campagnolo (Mrs.)	DawsonBegin (Miss)	Campbell	DemersBlackburn	(LaSalle-kmard-Cote	DionneBlais	Saint-Paul)	(Northumberland-Blaker	Caron	Miramichi)Blouin	Clermont	DouglasBoulanger	Collenette	(Bruce-Grey)Brewin	Comtois	

July 13, 1977

Criminal Code
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Drury
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ethier
Faulkner
Fleming
Flynn
Foster
Francis
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier) Gilbert Gillespie Goodale Goyer Gray Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Haidasz Herbert Hogan Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins Isabelle Jamieson Joyal Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Messrs.
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Langlois
Lapointe
Leblanc
(Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leggatt
Lessard
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
Lumley
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
MacEachen
MacFarlane
Maine
Marchand
Martin
Mclsaac
Milne
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) O'Connell Olivier Orlikow Ouellet
Parent
Pearsall
Pelletier
Penner
Peters
Philbrook
Pinard
Portelance
Poulin
Raines
Reid
Roberts
Robinson
Rodriguez
Rompkey
Rooney
Roy
(Laval)
Saltsman
Savard
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stanbury
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Symes
Tessier
Trudel
Turner
Watson
Wood
Yanakis-120.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question, in the order of deferral, is on motion No. 18 in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 18 lost.
The question is on motion No. 20.


Mr. Speaker:: I	therefore declare motion No. 20 lost.	
Motion No. 21 was dealt with in the vote on motion 2. Motion No. 22 was dealt with also. Motion No. 23 has been discontinued. Motion No. 24 has been negatived on division. Motions Nos. 26 and 27 have been discontinued. Motion No. 28 was dealt with in the vote on motion No. 7. Therefore, the Elouse will resume discussion on motion No. 25.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, last night before the adjournment, I was wondering why this same government was again anxious to discourage tourist-hunters by requiring-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if hon. members who wish to leave the chamber would do so promptly in order that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) may continue.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying last night before the adjournment, I am wondering why this same government is still anxious to discourage tourist-hunters who come to my constituency where hunting is the favourite sport of many people, to spend their money to buy ammunition, rifles, and so forth. This government wants to impose- and I do not know if we may call it a tax, but I am inclined to call it so-or require small businesses to pay between $10 and $200 for selling guns and ammunition.
That is why I say the government wants to discourage small business because, instead of bringing all the necessary ammunition and food for one or two weeks vacation in our Canadian forests, we know that these tourists do not go into these small businesses or stores only to buy ammunition, but they also buy their food and all they need.
One might also wonder who will again benefit from stopping sales by the small retailer who surely will not be interested in paying again for another permit, since he is already paying for one to the provincial government, and he will not be interested in continuing to sell the small stock he owns to help hunters get ammunition, so who will benefit from that? As the minister stated it so well yesterday, asking $250 will encourage companies like Eaton's and Simpsons. For them indeed $250 will be something minimal, whereas our small industries and retailers will have to pay $10, $15 or even $25 perhaps only to sell, as I said, $50 worth of merchandise.
My party and I believe that we have to support the motion put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party to the effect that the government should withdraw that permit obligation for small businesses. In conclusion, I urge the government to consider carefully that possibility if they do not want small businesses to close their doors; they should help them by not having them take a permit to sell ammunition and a few long guns during that wonderful time the hunting season is for many people.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate very briefly in the debate on this motion by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). First of all, I should point out that I am in support of the motion. The thrust of these particular clauses of Bill C-51 is simply tantamount to another form of taxation as it relates to the individual and as it relates to the business entrepreneur. It is simply another cost of doing business.
It is very strange that we have a Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) going around the country boasting about the measures the Liberal government has engaged in, in terms of improving the climate and the environment of small business enterprises in Canada. He has talked about removing bureaucratic red tape and the number of forms and statistics which have been burdened on small business. Yet here we have another example of bureaucratic intervention, another form of taxation and another cost item which will do nothing in terms of preventing crime. How will the imposition of a fee for an
July 13, 1977

individual to acquire a firearm or a permit, or for a business enterprise to engage in the sale of firearms, in any way assist in stamping out crime? This is one of the major objections which has been cited and alluded to in the House during the course of this debate.
I should like to place on the record a sample of some of the material I have received in connection with this particular provision especially. I have a letter from Hanmer, Ontario, which reads as follows:
I object very strongly to Bill C-51 for the following reasons.
No way should I have to pay $10 for a firearm's certificate to prove I'm not a criminal or a psycho.
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 firearm's 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.
Trying to sneak unacceptable gun legislation through parliament with other possible good legislation is just plain terrible government-pure and simple.
The next letter I should like to quote is from Capreol, Ontario. It reads as follows:
I strongly object to Bill C-51 for the following reasons.
Why should 1 as a law-abiding citizen have to pay $10 for a firearm acquisition certificate just to prove to you that I am not a criminal or that I am not mentally disturbed.
Just because there are some criminals and psychos here in Canada I do not think that it is good government policy to try and penalize every gun-owning Canadian to pay the price for their mistakes.
Why don't you impose stiffer penalties in cases where firearms have been used unlawfully, instead of trying to take the easy way out and treating everyone as a damn criminal?
Do you think that a firearm acquisition certificate will stop a criminal or mentally disturbed person-as in previous school shootings-from committing a crime? No way. Once a person's mind is made up, I am sure that no piece of paper will change it.
The $10 fee is just, in my opinion, plain theft on the part of the government in order to cover part of the cost which the government has spent on several surveys pertaining to firearms in Canada. And how about the employment of people to take these applications for the certificates: who will pay for their wages? Sure it is a $10 fee now, but what will it be next time-$20 or $30?
Also, I would like to say that trying to push through unacceptable gun legislation with other possible good legislation, e.g. wiretapping and parole, is just plain sneaky business on the government's part.
As has been pointed out throughout this debate, the bill has many unacceptable features, but we are only dealing with one here. An assessment of fees in this connection will in no way deter the criminal from obtaining a gun if he is so disposed. What bothers me as we proceed with the passage of various forms of legislation in this House is the tremendous amount of power which is being left in the hands of the governor in council. I am bothered, also, by the tremendous complications which are accumulated as a result of legislation piled upon legislation.
We have reached a time in this country when a lot of the legislation presently on the statute books should be removed. It is time to take a thorough inventory of some of these laws. Our statutes are like accumulated stock. Over the years a business accumulates much dead stock which must be disposed of. This House has been grinding out legislation year after year, and
Criminal Code
this accumulation and proliferation of legislation and regulations has put Canadians in a statutory strait-jacket. It is time to assess our laws, streamline them and scrap those which are either redundant or outdated. It is time to free Canadians of this statutory strait-jacket and take off the hobbles of bureaucracy. It is time the government got off the backs of people.
I hope I have made clear my reasons for finding this bill particularly offensive. Those whom this legislation will govern will be forced to pay a price, to pay a fee which to business people engaged in providing a service will be an additional cost. I hope the minister will approve the amendment which will affect law-abiding citizens whom the legislation should not penalize.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker was perfectly right. This whole cotton-picking provision should not come under the criminal law. Its pith and substance is not that of criminal law. It will merely enable the government to appoint more bureaucrats. Really, the government wants to tax people who get a firearms acquisition certificate and tax the small merchant who sells weapons or ammunition. This new law would punish the innocent, those who have no criminal record and are not criminals. The provision is criminal law in reverse. Those who pay the tax will not be represented; therefore we are contemplating a form of taxation without representation. Instead of telling businessmen who file the various forms and documents the government requires to pay a fee, they should be paid a fee.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Right on.


Leonard C. Jones: I know small merchants are paid for collecting the provincial sales tax. By adopting this provision the government will put an onerous burden on the backs of small businessmen, at the expense of taxpayers. It will set up another bureaucratic empire, with administrators, personnel, and what have you. There will be a deputy in charge of firearms, an assistant deputy, an assistant to the assistant deputy, and so on.
This part of the legislation, at any rate, should not come under the criminal law. Frankly, I think it is ultra vires of this parliament. We should not even be discussing it. The government should bear the cost of the certificates it requires people to file or acquire. The government badgers small business to fill out forms and declarations. Every month Statistics Canada sends out forms. If they are not answered in a few days, you get a note from Ottawa asking why you did not send the information or form. Some people in my constituency were sent forms even after they had gone out of business. They were told to write "not applicable" in the appropriate spaces on the form. My main point is this: parliament has no authrority to pass this legislation. We should not even be discussing this provision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question? Hon. members have heard the terms of the
80020-1 9%

July 13, 1977
Criminal Code
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I am not clear why the vote on the motion has been deferred. Has some order been made with respect to the matter? Are we to defer all these votes?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Standing Order 75(11) reads as follows:
When a recorded division has been demanded on any amendment proposed during the report stage of a bill, Mr. Speaker may defer the calling in of the members for the purpose of recording the "yeas" and "nays" until any or all subsequent amendments proposed to that bill have been considered. A recorded division or divisions may be so deferred from sitting to sitting.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, until when are we deferring the vote?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The House will now consider motion No. 29 in the name of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster) moved:: Motion No. 29.
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 7 by deleting subclause (1) and substituting the following therefor:
"7.(1) The definition "offence" in section 178.1 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" "offence", in relation to an authorization or application for an authorization, means an offence or conspiracy to commit an offence described in paragraph (a) and any such offence or conspiracy that there are reasonable grounds to believe has been or may be committed namely,
(a) any offence created by an act of parliament for which an offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for five years or more and any other offence created by an act of parliament for which an offender may be prosecuted by indictment or that is an offence mentioned in section 3 or 20 of the Small Loans Act, that there are reasonable grounds to believe is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of crime involving one or more offences mentioned in paragraph (a) or a conspiracy to commit one or more such offences;"
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is an error in motion No. 29. The last words in subparagraph (a) should read, "ten years or more." Perhaps, for clarity, I should read the wording of that part of the amendment as now printed on the order paper. It reads:
(a) any offence created by an act of parliament for which an offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for five years or more.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to change "five years" to "ten years", so that the last part of the sentence shall read, "to imprisonment for ten years or more". I wonder if the House would consent to that change so that I can debate the motion as amended, not the motion as it presently reads?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to withhold consent because I know the hon. member would oppose his own amendment. Seriously, we consent to the change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is there agreement to allowing the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) to change, in clause 7, the word "five" to the word "ten"?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I thank hon. members for their consideration in this matter. The reason for the amendment is that as this bill proceeded through committee, a number of amendments were submitted to the offence section of the wiretap bill which listed a variety of offences. The bill enumerated a great variety of specific offences in which case wiretapping is allowed. I and others expressed in committee concern about the fact that we should not have wiretapping legislation which would allow wiretapping in cases of insignificant crime or crime which is widespread throughout the population, which would give an open door and a blank cheque to the police department to wiretap everyone they wanted to wiretap regardless of the seriousness of the offence.
I think there is consensus amongst the population in favour of wiretapping, but people want it done only in cases of serious offences. The motion before the House which we are submitting states that there should be wiretapping in the case of organized crime, but there should not be wiretapping of little old ladies who have smuggled a pair of panties from Blane, Washington, to Vancouver. I see the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) looking incredulous. I thought she might, so 1 took the trouble of bringing in section 192 of the Customs Act. I use just that example, but there are a number of other examples of extremely minor offences which are common occurrences, actually just slips on the part of the population but for which wiretapping is allowed.
Under section 192 of the Customs Act, any person who smuggles anything valued at less than $200 is subject to the forfeiture of that item or a one-year jail term. Anyone who smuggles anything valued over $200 is subject to the forfeiture of that item or a four-year jail term. If, in the declaration that you file when you come across the border, you decide to
July 13, 1977

underestimate the value of your goods, that is also an offence under the Customs Act. If you buy a suit in New York and you say it cost you $90, when in fact it cost $150, that is an offence. Under section 192, any offence allows wiretapping. What I am arguing is that it is surely not the intention of the House to open the door to wiretapping so wide that these insignificant kinds of offences would allow wiretapping. That is the reason for the original proposal of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) which was to attempt to define organized crime and leave the wiretapping provisions in for organized crime. 1 agree that conspiracy to smuggle is an important crime, even though the individual crime is not as important, but I cannot agree that in order to do that, you open the whole door. The offence section in fact opens the whole door.
My party, on second reading of the bill, voted in favour of Bill C-83 and it was the government that faced us with the conundrum of trying to vote for apples and oranges. But I will not make the same argument again in the House because I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would rule me out of order. Suffice it to say that if the government had decided to split this bill, they would have had far less trouble with its passage.
I have to tell you right now that because of the failure to appreciate the civil liberties aspect inherent in the wiretapping provisions, I will vote against this bill on third reading, in spite of the strong support which this party has given to the firearms control aspect of the bill. There is no way in which we can vote for a bill which attacks so fundamentally the liberty of every Canadian, and that is the key question in terms of the wiretapping provisions of this legislation.
I want to read into the record a couple of things that have been said about wiretapping, about return to law and order and respect for the law. This is what the former chief justice of the Ontario High Court, Mr. J. C. McRuer, said:
If there is a decline in respect for law and order, it is a disease of the body politic .. . Unjust laws we have in abundance; some a legacy of other days when standards of justice were different that they are today; others forced on us by impatient legislators who are more concerned with rules than justice.
During the past 50 years undoubtedly there has been a growing discontent with certain laws and customs and never before have the people on this continent and other continents been more alert to injustice than they are today. It may well be that what is interpreted as disrespect for law, in fact may only be the manifestation of a burning desire for justice.
1 emphasize what Mr. Justice McRuer said, that a burning desire for justice does not occur when we have laws in Canada allowing the police to wiretap every insignificant offender. If you read this bill, you will find that every person in the country is subject to wiretap. This is "Big Brother" legislation, make no mistake about it. Let me spell out some details of why it is "Big Brother" legislation. Look at some of the amendments the Minister of Justice saw fit to bring in. First of all, when it comes to the solicitor-client relationship, it is something that is sacred and something that has been respected under British jurisprudence for hundreds and hundreds of years.
We had a incident which occurred in Sault Ste. Marie following which the minister said that we had cured it, we had gone a limited degree in trying to control the tapping of
Criminal Code
lawyers' phones. Let me say to the House, and particularly to the Minister of Justice, who should know this, who is a lawyer, who has been trained in the law, that the solicitor-client relationship is for the privilege of the client, and when you tap the lawyer's phone you are tapping all the private conversations. Surely to goodness somewhere in this life we have the right to express something in private without its being relayed through a tape recorder. Imagine a law firm with 50 or 100 lawyers-there are many such law firms in Canada-with one bad lawyer in the barrel and an authorization to wiretap his conversation.


An hon. Member:: Only one?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There would be probably more than one in that barrel. How many conversations could be tapped? That is the question. It is not how many are authorized. How many people have had their privacy invaded under the terms of the wiretap legislation? When we see the number of authorizations filed, and see there are a little over 1,000 wiretaps authorized at the federal level, someone might think this does not seem to be excessive; but we must remember that some of them are taps that go on for three, four or five months, and hundreds of thousands of people who have had their privacy invaded do not know it.
Slowly, the feeling that you are not free to say what you want grows among the population and your freedoms are eroded insidiously as a result of the legislation. If you put one tap on a public telephone that is constantly used, or one tap on a law office and you keep it on for six months, every person who has used that phone will find his or her conversation recorded. Imagine how many conversations that could be. Do you know how many conversations would be recorded when they say that one wiretap has been authorized? The record will show there has been only one wiretap. What about the thousands of people who have been listened to and have had their privacy violated? They are innocent victims of the wiretap system.
If the minister had been concerned about civil liberties, he would have brought in a bill which made the reporting provisions require that every person whose conversation had been overheard was listed, and every conversation that was overheard was listed, so that we would have some idea of the extent of the wiretapping invasion of privacy in Canada. We do not have this under the bill before us. When the minister decided to bring in changes to this bill, he listened to only one source of information. He listened to the police. I can understand the police wanting to increase their powers with respect to the apprehension of criminals. That is their duty. I expect the commissioner of the RCMP and other police officers to want more power. But I expect the Minister of Justice to tell them they cannot have everything they want, in a free society. This is not a police state. This is supposed to be a state in which the Minister of Justice protects the people against the state, and we do not have that.

July 13, 1977
Criminal Code
Let us consider the question of national security. If the Minister of Justice wants to improve the wiretap law, why does he not allow judges to authorize taps for national security? Why do we not trust our judges and bring them into our confidence? I have never known a judge I could not trust. Why cannot we have judges authorize taps under national security provisions? If the Minister of Justice were concerned about civil liberties, he would come down with that kind of change. One of the most significant changes would allow the introduction of illegally obtained evidence. The law is for everybody. There is not supposed to be one standard for the public and one for the police. If the police break the law, we should not reward that conduct by allowing the evidence obtained through that illegal act to be introduced in court. That is not a complicated proposition.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Why get
authorization, if they can use the evidence anyway?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Right. If we are to control the number of taps and abuses, we will not do it unless we penalize those who act illegally by not allowing the evidence they obtain to be introduced. There is no check on abuses whatsoever. With regard to notification, we had a good law. We struggled in this House in 1973 to bring forward decent wiretap legislation. But what did the minister do? Again he listened to the police. Again, I do not blame the police. They do not want to provide notification. One of the greatest things to stop wiretapping excesses would be the requirement to notify people who are the subject of wiretapping.
The minister tells us that the police tell him the present law is not working, so he has decided to allow notification to take place after three years. After three years a person will not know what was tapped, when there was a tap, or anything else. We had a law which allowed a judge to provide reasonable, determinate delay, in his discretion. That provided ample delay for law enforcement officers. Again I say that the minister has lost confidence in the bench. He does not respect our judges-and they deserve respect-when he attempts to remove that discretion and says that there will be a three year limit. How many notifications will be made after less than three years? 1 do not think there will be very many. Without exception, I think notification will take place after three years and a very important regulation of the wiretap law will be lost.
We listened to much evidence about wiretapping. It has been dealt with extensively, but I want to read into the record something a very wise attorney general of the United States said in our committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was Clark.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Ramsey Clark. Incidentally, he had a better record of apprehending mafia and criminal figures without wiretapping than all his successors have had with wiretapping. He was one of the most successful crime fighters the United States has seen.


Mr. Symes:: Besides Nixon.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Someone mentioned the former president of the United States. We know what happens to wiretapping when we open up that bag of tricks. It is amazing how many of the great devotees of law and order and wiretap law wind up on the wrong side of the law by the time they are finished. Once you open up wiretap provisions, you get into a Machiavellian state in which civil authority loses control. I want to read into the record what Ramsey Clark said in our committee back in 1973. He said:
I come not to give advice but to express my impressions of the experience of your neighbour to the south. I come because I desperately hope to see from nations in this world the new moral leadership that is founded on the proposition that governments can protect their people without acting unfairly or immorally themselves in any respect. I believe that. I do not believe the rule of law can be an effective means of social change otherwise. I do not believe it can have the respect of the people otherwise and I have not seen a society or a people who believe that wiretapping is moral. It is inherently immoral and therefore to justify it you have to say the end thoughts justify these means.
I come further because of my great concern about government lawlessness, the excessive use of force, violence, treachery and secrecy, and because I believe your fortunate country has a high opportunity and, with that, a high obligation to show the world that we can act fairly with safety.
That is a great compliment to pay to this country, by a person who has a worldwide reputation on the question of civil liberties and freedom of the individual. We should have listened to Ramsey Clark, because the events which have occurred since second reading of this bill-the events which occurred at L'Agence de Presse Libre, the inquiry into the Royal American Shows, the inquiry at Fredericton, New Brunswick, the question of Praxis, and the evidence that we do not yet know about but which has obviously convinced the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Fox) to appoint a royal commission into the activities of the RCMP-are all factors which should convince members of this House that a blank cheque on wiretapping is not necessary for the police forces of Canada, if the evidence is fresh.
I hope the Minister of Justice and hon. members opposite will not close their minds to this question, because it is one of the most serious moral questions this country has faced. We can have law and order, and we can have the forces of law and order obey the law. They do not need to use treachery, breaking and entering and wiretapping excessively, to invade the privacy of thousands and thousands of citizens, in order to maintain law and order. Respect for the law is not a one-way street. We must have respect for those who enforce the law. We must have respect for those who make judgments and for the Minister of Justice and the judgments he makes.
However, this insidious "Big Brother" legislation and this insidious "Big Brother" attitude on the part of this government, as represented by the Minister of Justice, should convince hon. members that this bill-because we cannot sever the wiretap provisions, although we may try-is not worthy of support. I want to tell the minister that if he would agree to sever the wiretap provisions, he could have the support of this party for the remainder of the bill. However, if we are unsuccessful in referring the wiretap provisions of this legislation back to the committee, he will not have the support of this
July 13, 1977

party. He will not deserve the support of this party or of the Canadian people.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), I find that my duty is much easier to perform. If ever I was in full agreement with anything said by a member of the New Democratic Party, I am in full accord today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We stood shoulder to shoulder in the committee in this regard. Why has the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) decided to give the police authorities of this nation elephant ears so that those ears can stretch into the homes of every Canadian and invade privacy?
The next question is, what changes are being made in this bill? The period for wiretapping was extended by 100 per cent, from 30 days to 60 days, and a further extension can be applied for. As the law stands, in order to get authorization for tapping a telephone an application must be made to a judge. Authorization can be given for 30 days, and the person involved has to be given notice within 90 days after that. This bill has doubled the time of the right to wiretap by 100 per cent and it has done away with the period of notice of three years. But as the hon. member for New Westminster pointed out, applications for authority can be made repeatedly. The minister will say that it could be less than three years, but we know that once the three-year rule is adopted it will be generally used. There will be a form to be used as an affidavit because nobody cross-examines that kind of evidence.
I read an interesting statement by the Minister of Justice in the Ottawa Citizen, in which he was reported as saying that people guilty of trafficking in drugs were getting off because of the way the law stands now. On second reading I set out some cases, and I am not going to restate them. There may be one such case, as the minister said, where because of a technical error in the affidavit the evidence was declared inadmissible. But that is not the law of Canada and, again, the Minister of Justice has misstated the law. He should refer to "Weekly Criminal Bulletin" No. 34, of June 17, 1977, where on page 362 it is stated:
On voir dire-
That is a trial within a trial which was held to determine whether wiretap evidence was admissible.
-to determine admissibility of wiretaps, held: defence cannot cross-examine to show conditions precedent in s. 178.13 to granting of authorization not met as such irrelevant to lawfulness of interception once authorization granted.
The minister left the impression that because there was a technical mistake in the affidavit, the evidence would be thrown out. What does the Ray case say? What does the Supreme Court of Canada say? It says that even if there is an unauthorized wiretap-whether it is technical or otherwise, and even if you do not get an order-if it is relevant to the
Criminal Code
issue, it is admissible. That is the law. That is why I put down three distinct amendments on the order paper. One is to reinstate the 90-day period, and another is that any evidence gained from an unauthorized wiretap is inadmissible, or any evidence gathered as a result of an unauthorized wiretap is inadmissible. The minister wants to give the snooper more power. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said, why bother about getting authorization because you can get it into evidence anyway?
The defence against my position is: if you have nothing to hide, why worry? Let us take the case of a medical clinic with a staff of 20 doctors, 25 nurses, X-ray and technical staff, where the police suspect that someone there is smoking marijuana and wiretap the clinic. They find that someone is getting marijuana from George, say, but it is not just the conversation establishing that which goes in as evidence: hundreds of conversations of people who have called their doctors on private matters are played in court. That is why they sometimes do not use the evidence, because it would take too long to play. But in this computer age, all this stuff is stored and is never done away with. Sarah gets pregnant at 16, is happily married at 22 and does not want her husband to know, but the information is on the computer because the clinic was wiretapped in relation to another matter.
Now let us take the case of a law firm with maybe 100 lawyers, 40 secretaries and 40 other people on staff. One person is suspected of breaking the law, so the office is wiretapped. Not only that, but the courthouse is wiretapped as well. The evidence obtained is admissible if it is relevant to the issue. Every lawyer's conversation in the court house is listened to and every lawyer's conversation in that law firm is listened to. As my hon. friend said, the privilege and confidentiality of such conversations is not to protect lawyers; a lawyer's job is to protect people against the state, and when their telephone conversation is tapped so is that of the average law-abiding citizen.
I should like to give an example of how bad this is, Mr. Speaker. My friend said he trusted the courts. I trust the judiciary, but I would remind hon. members that they are human beings. When this government appointed 19 lawyers to the bench, and 18 of them were known Grits, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was asked what he thought about it. He said, "It is clear we have a just society. Now 1 understand. It is just for Grits."
The last murder trial in which I was defence counsel was a very serious case where someone had been stabbed some 30 times and died as a result. The defence was insanity, so I got an order to get a psychiatrist. The fellow was incarcerated. They were not going to let him out on bail until they decided just what the situation was. While the psychiatrist was interviewing the accused, that room was not only bugged but, as 1 proved at the trial, there was a spy representing the Crown in the room.

July 13, 1977
Criminal Code
Once you open the door to that kind of electronic surveillance, you put elephant ears into every home in Canada. As I said in committee, the Minister of Justice might as well get it over with. Get hold of Bell Telephone and all the other telephone companies in this country, run all telephones through a computer, then turn on the computer so the police can sit back, enjoy life and listen to the conversations of every Canadian. In three years, somebody might be notified. If they are not notified, the evidence is still admissible if it is relevant to the issue.
There is another development which was reported in the Globe and Mail. You can listen in on telephone conversations internationally by microwave. The United States is concerned that the U.S.S.R. is tapping their long-distance calls. Maybe we have reached the point talked about by Mr. Cooper and Mr. Cartwright when they appeared before the committee. They are lawyers of the Law Society of Upper Canada. They said we may have reached the time when, if you want to talk to anybody, the lawyer talking with a client, or a doctor with a patient, you must find some lonely place in the bush and then check the trees to see whether they are bugged.
I am opposed to this legislation which gives more authority to the state against law-abiding citizens. That is why I moved the motion. A lawyer's office should not be bugged, not because he is a lawyer but because it is a place where law-abiding citizens discuss their problems in reference to the state. That must be privileged and confidential in accordance with the common law. I spoke about the clinic. I say any evidence derived from wiretapping should be declared inadmissible if it is an unauthorized wiretap.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), a former leader of the NDP and former premier of a province, was right when he said, "Why bother getting the authority?" The evidence can be admissible even if it is from an unauthorized wiretap. Even worse, not only the evidence gathered as a result of the wiretap goes in, but other facts found out in reference to that. The police do not bother with a code. Let's not be children. They go on wiretap and they listen. When they finally find some information, they send one of the boys down to try to catch that person. That evidence can be admissible. That is why we oppose this kind of legislation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the state had no place in the bedrooms of the average Canadian. Before becoming a member of parliament, when he was a member of the N DP-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They deny him. They are just like the disciples. In any event, he finally became respectable when he became Liberal. He stood for civil rights, unions and other such things. Maybe the state has no place in the bedrooms of this nation, but it is in there. The law has no business in the homes of law-abiding citizens, rooting around, listening and looking for crime that may be minor in nature. Next we will

have-and this matter has already been raised in the House by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-"no knock" legislation, permitting the police to break into homes for whatever reason. If we accept this legislation, we will have "no knock" legislation. The government says no harm can come from this. I wish to read from an article in the Criminal Law Review, by T. B. Radley. It deals with how wiretaps can be changed. I quote:
As to the limit of fineness of elimination which is possible with good machines and skilful operators, this is smaller than might be expected. It is often possible, granted skill, to eliminate even a single monosyllabic word. The easiest way to do this is to turn off the loudspeaker current while the word is being spoken. This leaves a little gap of silence on a dubbing, but even this gap can be closed if necessary.
Turning for a moment to a hypothetical recorded confession, it is apparent that a remark originally, " I am not guilty," could be altered fairly easily to "I am guilty."
I once acted in a murder trial in which the police went to arrest a certain woman. There was a question as to whether the husband, or the wife, had committed the crime. She was walking around the room saying, "Why did I do it?". As I said to the jury, it could have been "Why? Did I do it?" That is exactly the way things can be changed. You can leave out the word "not" so that it is affirmative. Sometimes members of this place try to be humorous. Someone reading Hansard on a platform in the hustings can make it sound entirely different when it is taken out of context. The minister said they have compromised, leaving it to the discretion of the judiciary.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), a very distinguished scholar and former dean, was opposed to this bill, but the minister and his friends got close to him. They came up with a compromise. They said they would leave the decision to the discretion of the judge. Where there is no authorization and something is improper, they said they would leave it to the discretion of the judge and there would be no problem. The Ray case in the Supreme Court of Canada stated that if something is relevant, it is admissible. All the other judges are controlled by the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court of Canada states that if it is relevant, it does not matter how it is obtained. So we leave it to the discretion of the judge, and the trial judge says, "Well, my hands are tied. If it happens to be relevant to the issue, it is admissible." That is no compromise at all. That is why I say any evidence derived from an unauthorized wiretap should be inadmissible, and any evidence derived from listening to a doctor, a lawyer or any other professional person, or people in that type of service dealing with human beings, should be privileged and confidential. Otherwise you might as well turn on the computer and listen to all the telephone calls that go through a police station.
July 13, 1977

What the minister has done is give the state and the police elephants ears so that they can be in every home and every room belonging to every law-abiding Canadian. That is what he is doing today. That is why members over there want to rush this bill through. In addition, this measure is linked with gun control, prison reform and dangerous offenders. We know why this was all put together. It was because the minister knows he could not have got the gun section through, or this part of the bill through if he could not put it in one package.
The party to which I belong moved that this bill be split, and the New Democratic Party supported us, so that we could have voted separately on gun control, wiretapping, dangerous offenders, reform and parole. That would have been reasonable legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We, as a party, intend to vote against this bill on third reading. I hope every Canadian, particularly those in his constituency, will remind the Minister of Justice of what he has done to the Criminal Code and to the average Canadian in reference to the invasion of privacy.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Perhaps I might just say a word at this point. I appreciate the fact that two hon. members have spoken across the range of the wiretap section. They have spoken briefly and I know there is a desire to move very quickly, so I shall be brief. I might say, first of all, that I do not think much is accomplished by one group or by another group, whether on this side of the House or on the other, claiming that they are more concerned with civil liberties than some other group in the House. I think all groups and all members of the House are concerned with the rights and civil liberties of Canadians, since this is obviously a function of parliament. But we need to address ourselves to the problems which face the country, and it is up to us to deal with them in a realistic and proper way while at the same time protecting Canadians.
This having been said, I want to go briefly into the history of the wiretapping section which was put into the Criminal Code in 1974 after long discussion, debate and examination of the question by a parliamentary committee. That committee came to a number of conclusions. Until then, as hon. members know, there was no law relating to electronic surveillance or wiretapping. There was no law prohibiting it. It was clear there were people engaged in private wiretapping and that the police were also engaged in wiretapping without any judicial supervision whatsoever.
The committee, in 1974, came to three conclusions. First, that there should be no private wiretapping-that no private citizen should be able to eavesdrop on the telephone or communications of another citizen. That is the law now, and will remain the law and should remain the law. There is no dispute about that. Second, the committee came to the conclusion that electronic surveillance was an indispensable tool in the hands of the police against a certain set of crimes, and that under
Criminal Code
proper judicial supervision electronic surveillance should be available to the police for this purpose.
Furthermore, there should be a particular section in the act relating to organized crime which was, and is, a menace in this country. The particular wording in the Criminal Code related to organized crime was written by Ron Atkey, a former member of parliament who sat for the Conservative party, a man whose record in civil liberties is well recognized but who, in parliament, acknowledged that in certain circumstances wiretapping was necessary. He, in fact, wrote the wording relating to organized crime.
Two things have happened since 1974 when that law was written. One is that the organized crime section has not worked because no judge knows the legal meaning of "organized crime". The other is that every attorney general in this country has annually reported that because of the provisions of the wiretap legislation they are handicapped in the investigation of certain major crimes and handicapped in their investigation of organized crime. I submit, as I have submitted throughout, that there is no dispute in this country or, at any rate, there should not be, as to who feels the greater concern for the civil liberties of Canadians. But I also assert that it is the responsibility of the House to take account of the reports we have received on the activities of organized crime and endeavour to write the law in such a way as to give the police, under proper judicial supervision, the instruments to allow them to investigate, charge, prosecute and convict organized criminals more effectively.
What went on in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs was a long and thorough investigation of that section. Knowledgeable people from both sides of the House served on that committee. I had initially suggested to the committee that an authorization for wiretap should be obtainable by the police from a judge for any offence carrying a sentence of five years or more. After much discussion, that proposition was rejected by the committee and the committee went back to the form of the existing Criminal Code, working on the basis of a list of serious crimes with a separate section on organized crime. So if the police officers, through Crown counsel, went to a judge they could get an authorization on the basis of the suspected commission of named offences or of organized criminal activities. The committee examined that list, the list presently in the Criminal Code.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What committee are we talking about?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. That list was approved by a vote in the committee. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has proposed an amendment to restrict the list of offences and restrict the meaning of "organized crime". It may well be unintentional on his part, but if his amendment were to carry it would amount to an open season for organized crime in this country.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.
7646

July 13, 1977
Criminal Code


Stanley Ronald Basford: Just listen for a moment. The specific offences left out of the list-and I think they are serious offences-are such as the possession of explosives which could be and have been used by terrorists and saboteurs, fraud upon the government, breach of trust by public officials, and municipal corruption. All these are activities which I regard as serious and which I believe the country regards as serious. Then there is bribery, obstructing justice, an offence which could relate, for example to jury tampering and unlawful interception. This has been taken out and I do not think it should be excluded. Surely it should be a serious offence to illegally wiretap another person's communications, and it seems to me that this is something which is most "catchable" or "investigatable" through electronic surveillance.
With regard to fraudulent manipulation of stock exchanges, we have seen, not necessarily organized crime but very big criminals move into this country for purposes of committing offences under this section. This is an activity which is not carried out on the street in the usual criminal haunts, but in office towers-


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is rising on a point of order.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister is anxious to proceed with his legislation, and I may be able to save some time. He is now referring to a section of the motion which deals with the definition of "organized crime" and the offences which are tappable. From reading my section, I now see what the minister is getting at. I can assure the House that I did not intend to limit the tapping of organized crime as defined in the motion only to those offences which carry a sentence of ten years or more. I intended to leave it open to any other offence created by an act of parliament for which an offender may be prosecuted by indictment; that is, an offence mentioned in section 3 or section 20 of the Small Loans Act. So it is inadvertence on my part, and for that I apologize to the House.
As I say, if the Minister of Justice wants to save time, it is not necessary for him to dwell on that section. My intention is very clear; I want this section to have the capacity to tap organized crime for all indictable offences, including, of course, the sections under the Small Loans Act.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member to listen to me for a moment, and I am glad that he did and that he got my point. Because by the use of the words "in furtherance" in his amendment, it clearly has the result that the only way you can wiretap organized crime is if an offence on the list was being committed-which leaves out certain serious offences and would be, as I say, an open season for organized crime. I accept the word of the hon. member that that is a case

of inadvertence, but obviously it leaves me having to resist the amendment.
Even forgetting the organized crime section for a moment, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that some of the offences that I have mentioned are serious. They are not necessarily committed by what might be called organized crime; they are committed by major criminals and should be in the list of offences for which the police, under proper judicial supervision, can obtain an authorization to wiretap.
I mention only the last one, pornography, which the committee put in deliberately. There is a good deal of concern in this House and in the country about the kind of hard core pornography that is coming into Canada. I am not referring to the Playboy magazine type, but to hard core pornography, depicting young children in the commission of sexual acts either with themselves or with adults, bestiality and other magazines of that kind. It seems to me that the committee looked at these offences carefully, examined each one and made a recommendation to the House which should, with respect, be accepted.
One last quick point, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member referred to smuggling. He ridiculed the section on the basis of some tourist coming in with some panties which she refused to declare. I can assure the House, as I did the committee, that the customs officials have neither the intention nor the resources to wiretap in those cases. Whether or not it be someone failing to declare a pair of panties, the section also includes smuggling carloads or truckloads of, for example, pornographic material. It includes smuggling of stolen goods in huge quantities by very sophisticated, major criminals. Therefore, it seems to me that while one might ridicule smuggling on the one hand, there are certainly smuggling activites which are serious and dangerous and are a large part of criminal activity in this country.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my summer is moving along just as quickly as that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). I should like to stroll the streets of Prince George to be with my constituents just as much as the minister would like to walk down Robson's Cross in Vancouver and do the same there. His need, of course, is greater than mine because I am not the sponsor of this bill which is before us and which is cutting into the work we should be doing in our constituencies this year.
I sat on this committee for some time as a layman, and as you can well imagine, Mr. Speaker, the deliberations were often tedious and boring for a layman who does not understand all this legal jargon which our learned and honourable colleagues indulge in at times in this House and certainly in committee. But as a private citizen and a layman, I was appalled, concerned, at times frightened, by the testimony that was placed before the committee.
Not all the evidence was brought before the committee, of course, because when the committee was finally prorogued on the gun sections of the bill I understand there were some 24 application from groups of individuals throughout the county to appear before the committee to give testimony. I never
July 13, 1977

understood why there was this indecent haste about this bill. There was indecent haste last year and there is, again, indecent haste about this omnibus bill.
I hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) interjecting. I would invite her to stand up and participate in this debate, and don't you tell me that I have blood on my hands as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) should address the Chair.


Frank Oberle: Would you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I just have one word with the Chair?


Mr. MacFarlane:: No, sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River has the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry; I thought he was calling it six o'clock.


Frank Oberle: I yield the floor to my hon. friend from Calgary.


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is this. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) did make an error in his amendment which he would like to correct, I hope by unanimous consent. I hope that when this bill is called again tomorrow there is an order that he be able to make this change to his amendment. I think it would be fair
Criminal Code
to him. He is a distinguished member of the House and he is a lawyer. We are all very busy and have a lot to do in our offices, but he found he made one little mistake in a phrase. I ask that the House consent that he be allowed to change his amendment to what he really intended to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Has the hon. member for New Westminster the consent of the House to correct his amendment?


Stanley Ronald Basford: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it was I who pointed out the error-


Steve Eugene Paproski: You want to take the credit.


Stanley Ronald Basford: No; I would like to know exactly what the correction is.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, on that very point, if I can be recognized I should like to give the exact deletion required to make the motion square with the argument which has been presented in support of it. In the third to last line of the motion the words "mentioned in paragraph (a)" should be deleted from the motion.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, unless we are voting on it right now, and I do not think we are, I should like to give my reaction tomorrow, if I may.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
80020 -20 Vi

Thursday, July 14, 1977