1977-07-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity related to the unacceptable, frightening and shocking figures on unemployment released this date. Given the fact that, including the hidden jobless, this country now faces an actual unemployment rate of 11.5 per cent, or in other words over 1.3 million Canadians are out of work which in effect costs this country $17 million a day in lost GNP and $6 million a day in unemployment insurance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the Prime Minister immediately take steps to convene a first ministers' conference to deal with the critical problems of high unemployment and unsatisfactory real growth, hopefully to reverse the banana republic-like image this country presently enjoys.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUDGET CONTAINING PROVISIONS TO CREATE JOBS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of today's unemployment statistics showing unemployment levels having risen from last month's crisis levels and that employment in manufacturing has dropped 2.5 per cent in the past year yet government waste continues, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the government create jobs and lessen unemployment by introducing a new budget which should include income tax cuts for low and middle income earners to help stimulate demand for goods and services and in addition it should include a cut in federal sales taxes, particularly building supplies, to help stimulate demand for housing and thus create jobs in the construction and related industries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. 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.


PROPOSED FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE ON JOB CREATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing serious problem of unemployment in all regions of Canada illustrated by a further rise in the seasonal unemployment figures, and given the fact that the June labour force statistics show a decrease in the labour force, in employment and in the participation rate, all of which reflect the growing problem of hidden unemployment with Canadians giving up looking for non-existent jobs, and in view of most economic forecasts indicating that the present level of unemployment will continue throughout 1977 and into 1978, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls upon the government to hold a federal-provincial first Ministers' conference on job creation to be followed by a new federal budget aimed at reducing the high level of unemployment in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the Bank of Canada is not fulfilling its role, which is to control credit on the basis of the economic needs of the nation; that the Islamic Bank of Development established by 29 Islamic states has applied the concept of the

July 12, 1977
Unemployment
interest-free loan since 1975; and that it has been shown that it is possible to lay one's capital to advantage without collecting interest, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House enjoin the federal government to take immediately every necessary step so that the Bank of Canada may play its true role by directing its policy on the issuance of credit for the harmonious development of our national economy, by granting loans or advances at administrative cost in the public field.
Mir. Speaker: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LATE CONSTABLE DAVID KIRKWOOD
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise according to the usual provisions of Standing Order 43, and as a matter of tragic necessity. Recognizing the daily heroism that police officers across our country are called upon to perform, and in particular to the heroism and devotion to duty of the late Constable David Kirkwood of the Ottawa Police Department who so courageously gave his life last evening in the line of duty and in the protection of society, and in recognition of his fellow officers here and across the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House does hereby express its profound grief and sympathy to the wife and family of the late Constable David Kirkwood.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be put to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Figures from the Department of Manpower and Immigration released in June show that some 22 business firms have laid off
more than 6,000 workers due primarily to marketing problems-this was during June alone-and there are indications of further deterioration which will exacerbate the unemployment rate in industry to even more unacceptable figures than presently exist. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House order the government to take immediate action to investigate problems causing these alarming lay-offs and to direct the expertise of the departments concerned with the object of rehabilitating the firms which are in difficulty and preventing further lay-offs.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation for discussion of any such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



HARBOURS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter. I am sure it will be supported by all Montreal members.
In view of the difficulties experienced by the port of Montreal in terms of financing and equipment; in view of the fact that the Montreal port authorities do have a reserve of $47 million accumulated over the last forty years; and considering that the Montreal port could use this amount to complete the necessary facilities to maintain its importance, and that under the new legislation on national harbours this fund of $47 million might fall into the hands of the federal treasury, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House unanimously urge the minister responsible to accept the proposal made in the memorandum submitted in the last few days by the Montreal Chamber of Commerce to the effect thai the reserve of $47 million remain the property of the Montreal port and that it may dispose of it in its best interests.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 12, 1977



COMMONS DFBATES


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, pointing out to him that, including the hidden jobless, there are approximately 1.3 million Canadians unemployed at the present time of whom 46 per cent are breadwinners who have been looking for jobs for the past three months, which means we are losing some $17 million a day in gross national product and $6 million by way of unemployment insurance costs. I ask the Prime Minister in all seriousness, because of the national emergency we face as a result of this peculiar phenomenon, whether he will take steps to convene an early first ministers' conference to deal with rising unemployment and an unsatisfactory real growth rate, problems which have too long adversely affected the optimum economic potential of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Without subscribing to the fanciful figures put forward by the hon. member when he talks about what he calls hidden unemployment, taking the figures as they are, they do not show a situation with which anybody in this country can be happy. 1 must remind the hon. member that an increase of one tenth of one per cent this month is in contrast with a decrease of four tenths of one per cent in the previous month and that it is impossible to ascertain a trend from these contradictory figures. The hon. member's calculations are pretty far off. If that is the way he would run the economy-


An hon. Member:: You don't care about the unemployed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Unemployment is, of course, something about which we do care a great deal. That is why in the budget we brought in substantial tax cuts for consumers and the corporations. We are still hopeful that the long run trend will be in line with what happened last month, and that the budget will continue to produce satisfactory effects if the private sector can take up the tax room which is left to it.
I fail to see how a conference of first ministers at this time, without any further elaboration by the hon. member for Hamilton West, would be a solution. If the hon. member has some suggestions which he would want me to put to the premiers to consider, I will gladly do that. But the federal government is taking its responsibilities, so are the provinces, and at this stage the bringing together of the two would have no effect beyond that of satisfying the hon. member opposite.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Prime Minister that the first thing he can tell the first ministers of the country is that the budget of the Minister of Finance is a complete bust
Oral Questions
and disaster and will do nothing in terms of bringing about long-term, lasting employment. That is the first thing that I can tell the Prime Minister, and if he wants any further suggestions he can ask me after I have put this supplementary question. On June 29 I asked the Prime Minister whether he would convene a first ministers conference in order to deal with this very situation, and the Prime Minister replied, as reported at page 7178 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I have ascertained that I did answer Premier Schreyer's letter to me. The essence of the federal position is that if our officials and eventually ministers of finance and manpower ministers can meet and make some progress with the kind of idea Premier Schreyer has, we then could usefully consider convening a federal-provincial conference of first ministers. However, at this stage I do not think the latter conference should be convened until preliminary work has been done.
Given the fact that the Prime Minister indicated that there should be some preliminary work done before we convene this first ministers conference to deal with this very unhealthy situation, and in light of the fact that we have this enormous rate of unemployment which certainly calls for immediate initiatives on the part of the federal government under the leadership of the Prime Minister, I ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to start and finish this preliminary work in order that it will be possible, in his terms, to convene this first ministers conference. Has the Prime Minister done anything since I asked him that question on June 29, given the gravity of this very unhealthy situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are attempting to make sure that the private sector does take up the very substantial tax room that the last budget made for it. The purpose of the budget in cutting taxes was this. The hon. member will recall that since the turn of the year something like $2.5 billion to $3 billion have been put into the hands of the private sector, both individuals and corporations. It has been our hope and expectation that this would lead to increased investment and increased construction by the private sector. Of course, if the private sector is not prepared to do that, I fail to see how the suggestion made by one of the hon. members opposite a moment ago would have any effect. In other words, cutting taxes now does not seem to be the right thing to do if the people who will benefit from the tax cuts just save the money rather than invest it. That is why we are trying once again to ensure that the private sector takes up the tax room that we left for it, rather than turn to increased federal expenditures which I am sure hon. members opposite would not want to encourage.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why is it that the Prime Minister continually and callously disregards the plight of the unemployed; and when is he going to discontinue fighting inflation on the backs of the poor and the unemployed?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that

July 12, 1977
Oral Questions
the number of people working in Canada in our manufacturing industries today is no greater than at the time the Prime Minister imposed wage and price controls in this country-in short, there has been virtually a stagnant situation in job creation so far as our manufacturing industry is concerned- would the Prime Minister indicate whether he thinks the controls program has in fact had a detrimental effect on job creation in our manufacturing industries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not prepared to reach that conclusion on the evidence of the statistics. The hon. member knows that there is overcapacity in many of the manufacturing sectors, and that is probably the first reason there is not a very great rush to increase investment. We were hopeful the last budget would create a climate wherein the private sector would want to take up this tax room, but thus far progress has been slight.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Representatives of his government, and the Prime Minister himself, have stated on previous occasions that recovery in the Canadian economy would occur as a result of recovery in the economies of our principal trading partners. Now that the economy of our major trading partner, the United States, has recovered to the extent that employment in their manufacturing sectors has grown by 2.5 per cent in the last year, while employment in our manufacturing sector has actually fallen by 2.5 per cent in the last year, would the Prime Minister indicate to the House when he expects the recovery in such countries as the United States will catch on in Canada and lead us out of the wilderness into which his policies have led us?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has made it repeatedly clear that the effects of the budget he presented would be slow and that the recovery of the Canadian economy, both in terms of unemployment and inflation, would be slow. This is the reality of the situation, and we have never tried to hide it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. I should like to discern how slow is slow. Will the Prime Minister indicate what his estimate of unemployment for December will be, bearing in mind that the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States believes that their unemployment, now a point lower than ours, will be down to 6.5 per cent come December of this year? The budget that is now in place, will that ensure a 6.5 per cent unemployment level in Canada by December?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the progress, which I indicated would be gradual, is something

which the Minister of Finance will have to assess before making any further statement on budgetary or fiscal positions.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Having acknowledged that substantial parts of the manufacturing sector are operating in excess capacity, why will the Prime Minister not simultaneously acknowledge that the government's entire strategy of stimulating the economy by giving tax cuts to the corporation was wrong? In the Prime Minister's reply to Premier Schrey-er's request for a first minister's conference to deal with unemployment, he said that federal job creation plans are almost complete. This is new to Premier Schreyer and it is new to the people of Canada, that the federal government has some new job creation programs. If these plans are near completion, I should like to ask the Prime Minister when we can expect an announcement about them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has repeatedly indicated to the House what new funds were put into job creation programs such as Canada Works and other areas.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is either sick today or he is asleep.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I should like the Prime Minister to clarify the statement in his telegram to Premier Schreyer of Manitoba to the effect that there are new plans which are almost complete, which is something different from what he has said now. Are there new plans which the government has in mind to produce jobs, or are we going to rely simply on the old ones which we have seen have not worked so far this year?


Mr. Paproski:: That was prior to the election this fall.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember having tabled that letter to Premier Schreyer, nor the date of it. If it was referring to plans that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has already announced, then my first answer is correct. If it is a very recent answer then it has to do with the plans that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is working on now. I repeat, however, I cannot recall having tabled that letter or making it public. I just wonder where the hon. leader of the NDP got it.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is no great mystery. It is not confidential and I have a copy of the statement. The premier of that province, who has asked the Prime Minister to organize a conference, issued a statement a few days ago in which he referred to the Prime Minister's commitment for new programs. The question I have following what seems to be Premier Schreyer's very sensible request is this: If there are new programs may we hear what they are? If the government is now working on them, why has it not
July 12, 1977

consulted the provinces when we know that virtually every province has experienced continual increases in unemployment and would like to coordinate their views with those of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. leader of the NDP has not indicated the date of the letter.


John Edward Broadbent: June 22.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In that case I was taking Premier Schreyer into my confidence and I am surprised that he has taken the hon. member into his confidence.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You cannot trust those socialists.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And you wanted him in your Cabinet. Shame!

[ Translation]



SMALL BUSINESS


Mr. G6rard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State responsible for small businesses.
Could the minister tell the House whether his department has defined or will define what small and medium size businesses are? Could he also tell whether the government will introduce legislation to help truly small businesses in Canada, thereby ensuring the conservation of current jobs and the creation of new ones, as well as the recovery of the economy in all regions of Canada?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, we will be defining what will be termed a small business. We are dealing with the question of a definition at this time but I have no plans for legislation.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the minister whether he has read the program which was presented on May 26 last to a Senate committee by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen. If so, could he tell the House whether he or the government finds this program interesting and whether it will be used to draft a policy for small and medium size businesses?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have worked very closely with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and a number of things they have suggested will perhaps be incorporated in some of the things we are doing.
Oral Questions



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In answer to the first question today he referred to the difficulty in making a month by month comparison with respect to the unemployment situation. I should like to direct his attention to the situation in Atlantic Canada. I am sure he is well aware of the serious trend of increasing unemployment there since 1969. It is now an average of 50 per cent higher in the four provinces than in the rest of Canada. Even with the programs of the Department of Manpower, no serious turnaround of the present unemployment crisis has been achieved in Atlantic Canada. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he has consulted with some of his key ministers with respect to the impact of their programs? I am thinking of the Department of Transport and the Department of Supply and Services which have been criticized recently for in effect adding to and continuing the problem of chronic high unemployment in the Atlantic provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member will recall that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion did bring in very substantial concessions for those industries which would settle in areas of high unemployment, particularly the maritimes and eastern Quebec. Naturally these will take a little bit of time to take effect, but it is an indication of the government's real concern about high unemployment in those areas. Of course, the direct work programs are also geared to areas of high unemployment and proportionately much more per capita is being spent in the hon. member's area than in other areas of Canada where unemployment is lower. As I indicated in confidence to Premier Schreyer, other programs are in preparation, but I think that is the last time I take him into my confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The Prime Minister may know that repeatedly in questions in the House, both to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, it has been difficult, in fact impossible, to determine the impact of that recent financial initiative. I do not believe there has been any consultation with the premiers as to their appreciation of its importance in their situation. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in light of the fact that the Department of Supply and Services over the past year has substantially reduced on a proportionate basis its spending in Atlantic Canada, and with a view to the breakdown in recent talks between the Minister of Transport and his provincial counterparts, whether or not the Prime Minister will give new instructions to key ministries which have a definite economic impact in the Atlantic regions in order that not just in the job creation area under Manpower but in large sectors of the economy influenced by these key departments there can be a significant turnaround.

July 12, 1977
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is obviously correct in suggesting that various other areas of action could be envisaged. I am reminded by the Minister of Supply and Services that there are two specific operations of access for businessmen in those regions of Canada so that they can make greater use of the budgetary requirements of the Department of Supply and Services; in other words, they can sell a much higher proportion of goods and services to the federal government.



UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC REGION-MEASURES TO INCREASE PRODUCTION IN REGION

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wonder if the Prime Minister can indicate whether either he or perhaps the Minister of Supply and Services has responded to the recent declaration by the Atlantic provinces chamber of commerce at their annual meeting in Charlottetown last month with respect to a major program to achieve more production in Atlantic Canada, both related to the private sector and the public sector, and whether or not the federal government will give significant assistance to this commendable initiative?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do know that the Minister of Supply and Services was meeting a couple of weeks ago in Halifax with boards of trade and chambers of commerce. If the hon. member wants more details of the results of that meeting he might either ask a question or contact the Minister of Supply and Services.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In line with the figures referred to for Atlantic Canada by the hon. member for Egmont, and in view of the fact that Newfoundland has a rate of unemployment of 15.7 per cent, and more probably of over 22 per cent, and in view of the fact that one of the main industries in the Atlantic region, particularly in Newfoundland, is the pulp and paper industry which is suffering from marketing and cost production problems, what action is the minister taking to pinpoint these particular industries to help them in rehabilitating their operations, and to avoid lay-offs which are occurring causing suffering to the employees in Atlantic Canada?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we have done all we could to help those industries. Surely the trend on the international market is largely responsible for the rather weak economic situation of the pulp and paper industry in particular. Of course, our department is limited in its means of action, but we give those industries the maximum technical and scientific assistance; we are also working with the province to conclude other agree-

ments in other areas in which we can take direct action in conjunction with the province to give a new impetus to its economy and create new jobs. We are now negotiating with the province in two or three areas where we might help and I hope that in the next few weeks we will be able to announce the outcome of our negotiations.



MANPOWER


Jack Marshall: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that figures for June show the lay-offs of 6,000 employees in various industries across Canada-the minister referred some time ago to using the emergency response factor in the Canada Works program-what action is the minister taking now in view of the figures released by his own department in order to prevent the lay-offs and to provide alternative employment?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, at the initiative, for example, of the government of New Brunswick, we did in fact provide some $600,000 in that region as an emergency response. Where initiatives are taken or representations are made, we look at them to see if the emergency response factor is applicable to that situation.

[ Translation]



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Given the fact that the economic measures put forward by his government did not produce the anticipated results and are largely responsible for the high level of unemployment in this country, would not the Prime Minister believe that this situation has a close relationship with increasing unrest between Quebec and the federal government? If so, would he have new proposals or programs for the province of Quebec he could announce today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answers which I have given a few moments ago apply also to the province of Quebec regarding, for instance, the lower taxes in the case of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as well as the Department of Manpower and Immigration programs and the budgetary measures announced by the Minister of Finance.
I do not see why the hon. member should think that the province of Quebec deserves to be treated differently. Would it be because its government has generated uncertainty among
July 12, 1977

investors? I would not know. But it seems to me that this is a bad case for the member for Joliette to defend.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister lets the House believe that I am defending a bad case but 1 think that many people in Quebec are seriously concerned about the effect of the unemployment rate. As current forecasts are very gloomy, more particularly in the province of Quebec, I am going to repeat my question.
Does the right hon. Prime Minister intend to go on trying to deceive the Canadian people, telling them that national unity will be achieved through the official languages rather than by restoring a sound economy, more particularly in Quebec?



INDUSTRY


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, if he can take a minute to catch his breath. In view of the continuing and alarming increase in lay-offs in both the textile industry, particularly in Quebec, and in the electrical products industry in Ontario, as reported by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the month of June, can the minister tell us what specific steps his department or the government is taking to identify the problem in order to prevent further erosion of our secondary manufacturing industry?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the textile industry is concerned, in November last we took some measures which are beginning to produce the anticipated effects. I met recently the industry people and the unions and they say that they are satisfied with the policies we adopted in this area.
As far as the electronics industry is concerned, the problem is very difficult to solve at the present time. We took special measures concerning the television industry and if the hon. member wants to raise another area of concern, I shall be pleased to see what we can do.



REASON FOR FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT INDUSTRY FROM FOREIGN COMPETITION

Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, somehow the U.S.A. has been relatively successful in limiting the penetration of its domestic markets by foreign manufacturers. Could the minister indicate why the Canadian government has been notably less able to protect our Canadian industries and thereby preserve jobs for Canadians?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am very glad that the hon. gentleman raised that
Oral Questions
question, but 1 would like him at the same time to tell his friends who are calling me on behalf of importers that I am on the right track in trying to protect domestic markets.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In view of the damning indictment by the Great Lakes Water Quality Board that the federal and Ontario governments are not taking effective anti-pollution measures on already known pollutants going into the Great Lakes, can the minister indicate to the House whether he is satisfied with the present state of our Great Lakes and whether he will make an urgent statement on motions this week stating what new initiatives he intends to take in co-operation with the Ontario government, since the 47 problem areas in the Great Lakes have shown almost no improvement?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, of course I am not satisfied with the condition of the Great Lakes. That is one of the reasons we are having public hearings. We want to find out how the agreement which will follow the present five-year agreement should be reinforced and where possible improved upon. The report, to my knowledge, has not yet been made public, but in fairness, however, the hon. member should read the whole report because there is improvement in some areas. Obviously, in some cases until waste treatment plants come into operation, progress is going to be slow. However, these are being built in Canada and in the United States.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: 1 would like to know where these improvements are taking place because the St. Lawrence today is just a sludge river. The Great Lakes Water Quality Board suggested in its annual report that one of the real problems in combating water pollution is the lack of adequate funds to analyse toxic pollutants. Will the minister undertake to ensure that sufficient funds are provided so that toxic pollutants can be detected and removed?
In addition, the board noted that Canada has taken no steps to restrict phosphorous to below 2.2 per cent in laundry detergent. As phosphorous is very harmful to water life will the minister consider a total ban on phosphorous in detergents?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is never enough money to do all the good things we would like to do, but the problem of toxic substances in water is one of the very high priorities of the environmental protection service of my department. We are giving that problem the priority it deserves. On the other hand, the hon. member is a
7574

July 12, 1977
Oral Questions
bit naive when he thinks that in some cases toxic substances can be removed. It takes a long time before they move from the Great Lakes to the ocean and are diluted.
On the matter of phosphates, Canada has been one of the leading nations in their elimination. We are considering imposing more stringent requirements, but we also have to look at the improvement of waste treatment plants to make sure that phosphates do not escape to the ocean by way of the Great Lakes.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the minister said there were some areas of the Great Lakes which have shown improvement as far as pollution is concerned. Could he be a little more specific? Where are those areas?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, 1 would have to look at the report, which I do not have in front of me, but the shores in certain areas have improved very considerably.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Where?


Roméo LeBlanc: In many cases it will take time-and it is taking time-before visible improvements are seen. But there is no increased deterioration in most areas of the Great Lakes.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since it is possible that the Marathon project could be carried out on the site of Angus shops, a co-operative residential and commercial project, and since the existing railway could become a link between eastern Montreal and Mirabel, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to draw the attention of the Canadian Pacific to the possibility of considering that connection between Mirabel and eastern Montreal which could contribute at the same time to the economic development of that underprivileged area of Montreal?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not looking at this particular project at this point in time, but I would be glad to take the hon. member's representations into account.



TRANSPORT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the negotiations which are going on with the United States in connection with Welland Canal tolls, an increase of which would simply strike another body blow at the western farmer at a time when farm income is going down very materially. Will the minister take a stand on behalf of the western farmer, and of Canada in general, against an increase in these rates at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are having discussions about the sensible approach to the handling of the seaway which would allow for the goods moving through it to pay, basically, for the operating and maintenance costs of that seaway and a very marginal return over that. We have cancelled the overdue interest, which was never paid after the arrangement which the right hon. gentleman preferred but was never followed through. The right hon. gentleman should not assume that because of any very marginal impact upon the grain farmer as one of the shippers through this facility there is any lessening of my determination to do all kinds of things to assist him. We are working for him, but it will not necessarily be in a silly way, such as trying to deal with the tolls in a very special manner. ,


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, judging by the minister's answer it is obvious that he is pressing for an increase in the tolls, and the United States is holding back. In an outspoken speech the other night the Minister without Portfolio pointed out that the western farmer had not been protected until he crossed the Rubicon. Has the Minister of Transport consulted his confrere, the Minister without Portfolio, and has he found that the Minister without Portfolio has changed the views he expressed so strongly for so long against increasing these rates?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will find that all of us on this side share the view that the continuation of and an increase in the number of things which can be done for the west and for the farmer will take place in important areas. We will not quibble and attempt to make it seem that one particular bit of bad management really helps him. I assure the right hon. gentleman that I am delighted to see the 25 per cent increase in our strength between Winnipeg and Kamloops which came about when the Minister without Portfolio joined this government. The right hon. gentleman knows well that that is going to add to our strength now and in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that will be fine solace for the western farmer, who is being struck another blow by the minister. Did the Minister of Transport read what the Minister without Portfolio said the other day at the Stanfield-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 12, 1977


John George Diefenbaker: -at the Stampede, which is a good description of the actions always taken by the hon. member for Halifax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister without Portfolio was in the parade and, with his hand on a saddle, he said: "This is the only seat I am sure of'.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



MANPOWER


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. My question relates to the high level of youth unemployment in Canada and to the fact that as of today one in seven young Canadians are officially unemployed, even though this statistic does not include the hundreds of thousands who are excluded from government statistics. In view of the fact that today's release indicates that one third of these young people have now been unemployed for more than three months, will the minister tell this House what measures he is taking to deal with the failure of his department to find long-term productive jobs to bring an end to this tragic waste of talent and ability?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, my department together with private enterprise and other departments has found employment for the vast majority of young people.


Mr. Fraser:: Who are you kidding?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We are concerned about the high level of unemployment among youth. That is why we have placed heavy emphasis on Young Canada Works and the job experience training program which proved, as a summer component, to be very effective. We intend to increase emphasis on that program. We are working with the provinces on apprenticeship programs and on co-operative education programs and on a number of others which would take too long to list in the question period. The hon. member should read the list once in a while.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that I do read it, but I cannot understand why about 45 per cent of our unemployment is among the youth of this country when the government is doing so much for youth. In view of the reference made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, will there be further plans for young people in the employment field implemented this fall?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, instead of letting statistics be the catalyst this party has been working on this operation since last October. Announcements were made last October. We
Oral Questions
recognize that this is a continuing problem. Instead of relaxing I spent part of my holidays going to other countries and finding out how they are endeavouring to deal with this problem.


John Allen Fraser: How many Canadians are overseas looking for jobs?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we received from all of the countries nothing but approbation for the stance being taken by Canada.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister explain whether a recent unanimous vote of the Security Council of the United Nations commits Canada to provide material assistance to Mozambique and will this involve the supplying of arms and ammunition to a Marxist regime?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member, but in view of the noise in the chamber I did not hear the first part of his question. Would he mind repeating it?


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question. Can the minister explain whether a recent unanimous vote of the Security Council of the United Nations commits Canada, which is a member of that council, to provide material assistance to Mozambique and will this involve the supplying of arms and ammunition to a Marxist regime?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Dispensing with the adjectives, Mr. Speaker, obviously if it was a unanimous decision of the Security Council it means that Canada subscribed to it. I will have to look at the actual wording of it to make a direct answer to the hon. member on the second part, but I very much doubt if there are any arms involved in this decision.


Howard Earl Johnston: I realize there was not too much in the Canadian newspapers, but it was reported rather fully in the New York Times of July 1. Considering this government's expressed and understandable reluctance to commit Canadian troops to any peace-keeping proposal for Rhodesia, can the minister explain the unanimous vote at the Security Council, the result of which can only increase the risk of all-out warfare in that area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can answer in enough detail in the question period to satisfy the hon. member. If he will agree, I will write him in detail, table it or
80020-1 514

July 12, 1977
Oral Questions
whatever his wish is once I have had an opportunity to look into the question and the answer in detail.



FISHERIES


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the depletion of Atlantic salmon stock as a result of massive poaching operations on the Tobique, St. John and other rivers, and in view of the economic importance of this salmon to both commercial fishermen and the tourist industry, what measures is the government planning to take to extend adequate surveillance services for the protection of this valuable resource?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if I could agree with the hon. member's premise, I might be able to give him a more substantive answer. The reality is that the salmon have been late in moving up to the Atlantic Rivers this summer. Just last night about 4,000 units moved to the area of the MacTaquac dam in that area. There is a very substantial improvement. It means that what was at first believed to be the result of excessive poaching was in fact a result of lateness of the biology of the species. As for poaching, we have already had two raids which resulted in the confiscation of nets. I recognize there is some difficulty, especially relating to the native Indians of New Brunswick, but I think that these difficulties can be overcome.


Fred Alward McCain: In 1976, the Tobique river was closed for all salmon fishing. This appeared to be because the Department of Fisheries was so understaffed that law enforcement was impossible. Since then what I would term a comparable situation has allegedly taken place on the St. John this year. In these specific instances, has the staff been increased and can the laws be properly enforced for the balance of 1977?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, like many members of his party, complains when we ask for an increase in the number of public servants and when we cannot do all the tasks they ask us to do, they again complain. However, in the case of the St. John river we have had the assistance of the RCMP in undertaking the operations we have undertaken in the last few days. There will never be a level of surveillance to avoid all incidents of poaching just as there will never be enough policemen to avoid all incidents of vandalism. The officials of my department are doing their very best, including working weekends, to ensure proper surveillance.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. The Queen's Quarterly, a prestigious journal, states that the United States has announced plans for integrating its military and civilian radars and abolishing its SAGE regional control centres such as the one we have at North Bay. Is the minister contemplating doing the same thing in Canada in order to keep in line with the United States policy?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this relates to our whole North American air defence through NORAD. It is an area under review by the United States in consultation with ourselves. A full report should be in shortly so that these systems are rationalized and observe our concerns and the concerns of everyone else on national sovereignty.



PROPOSED PURCHASE OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT WITH INTERCEPTOR CAPABILITY-POSSIBLE CHANGE IN PRIORITIES

Allan Bruce McKinnon: My supplementary also has to do with air defence. President Carter has cancelled the B-l contract. This calls into question the role of manned bombers. At the present time the minister has invited several companies to bid on the new fighter aircraft with interceptor capability for Canadian forces at a cost of approximately $2.5 billion. Is he now reviewing this decision and is there any likelihood of changing his priority which put the new fighter aircraft ahead of the replacement ships for the navy?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it changes the priority on the new fighter aircraft. It certainly does not change the priority on the new ship program, either. Both are moving ahead as quickly as possible. The whole range of North American air defence and our role in NATO were considered very seriously in the consideration of the new fighter aircraft. Hopefully, as I said before, one can serve both roles. It might be necessary to go to two types but the factors raised will be considered.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. It is supplementary to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Brant. The question has to do with the 47 problems identified in 1971. These 47 problems still exist in the Great Lakes basin. As I understood it at that time, there was to be a timetable which industry had to follow. Industry claims that they have been following this timetable. Does the minister now

July 12, 1977

have to change his timetable or what does he have to do to catch up?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, he would understand that industry is in no great mood to have us accelerate the timetable for the elimination of pollution. In fact, their representations were very much to the contrary. I had some of this in the Senate again this morning. In many cases the timetable set out will extend to four or five years while anti-pollution equipment is being installed. I recognize that this is a slow process, but I do not see an alternative in the handling of existing industries. In the case of new industry, obviously the requirements are in the building process and the equipment is installed along with the rest of the machinery.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Is the minister satisfied with the work over which he has control in both the municipal and provincial areas?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will never be satisfied as long as any pollutant is being put into the waters of this country. That being said, I recognize that the province of Ontario in particular has done a remarkable job in handling its pollution problems and is pursuing that aim vigorously. I do not take anything away from the present Ontario minister of the environment who is an excellent colleague.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. It concerns an ad which the minister placed for a routine clerical job in the Department of Communications. The job required a security clearance by the Ministry of Supply and Services. Will the minister tell the House why it is necessary for a routine clerical job to be cleared by the Department of Supply and Services? Does the minister have a division within his department concerning security clearance and is that division separate and apart from the S and I division of the RCMP?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specific case raised by the hon. member, but it is clear that for a long time the industrial security has come under the authority of the Department of Supply and Services. We act as advisors to Canadian industries that might get contracts from the government of Canada or from foreign governments, which involve security work. So, it is in that sense that we advise private industries. I shall
Oral Questions
examine the specific case raised by the hon. member in that perspective.



REASON FOR SECURITY SECTION IN DEPARTMENT

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: One supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has a security clearance division in his own department, can he explain why the S and I Division of the RCMP is not capable of handling that particular role or function? Why does the minister need his own security section or division if there is an overlap by the RCMP? Further, will he tell us how large that division is- how many people are employed in his own department in this security area?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I note that the question goes beyond the authorized limits of the debates in the House. It would be necessary to explain to the hon. member the workings of security matters within the government and to remind him that each department is responsible for its own security, and that the security depends in fact on the deputy minister of each department, with the advice of course of the RCMP. As regards industrial security, considering that it is closely related to the execution of contracts, the government always saw fit to maintain a small unity which does not act as a police force, but only as an advisory group to private industry so that the security rules regarding the working requirements be respected. If the government were not acting, I suppose it would be accused of failing to shoulder its responsibilities. In this case, I wish to inform the hon. member that the division does not act as a police force, but simply as an advisory group.



HARBOURS


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
On November 3, 1975, as reported on page 8778 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Transport some information regarding the important deep water sea port at Gros-Cacouna.
The minister gave me the following answer:
I have taken a special interest in the potential of that particular area and will be endeavouring to ensure that this department is in a position to make recommendations at an early date.
Could the minister tell the House today whether the joint study carried out by the Quebec and federal governments has been completed?


Otto Emil Lang: I expect that study has now been completed-it was certainly due to be

July 12, 1977
Oral Questions
finished about this time, although I have not seen it. Work has been going on in relation to the various facilities on the assumption that the report would be adequately favourable to them, so there will be little delay in proceeding.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would remind Your Honour that the leader of the New Democratic Party, in attacking the Prime Minister almost as vigorously as 1 did with respect to the unhealthy unemployment situation, referred to a letter which I believe was written by Premier Ed Schreyer, in answer, I believe, to a letter from the Prime Minister. This concerns a serious matter: whether the government is moving toward job creation in the fall, as I believe it is, because the same point was raised by Premier Schreyer in a press conference when he indicated that the Prime Minister had ignored his wishes with respect to the convening of a first ministers' conference, at which time the premier indicated that the government intended to introduce some form of job creation program in the fall.
It is my understanding-I am not an expert on the rules, and Your Honour will check me if I am wrong-that since the leader of the NDP had cited this letter, indicating it was written on June 22 by the premier, that if one quotes at length from a letter such as that, or from any document, as long as its publication would not offend the public interest such a letter or document should be tabled. As far as I can understand, as I look at the Prime Minister, who regards this as a big joke-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Have you got something there from Beauchesne?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -publication of this letter does not offend the public interest. All we are concerned with is whether the government has the wisdom or the brains to bring about some form of job creation plan in order to relieve those who are suffering from inability to find jobs because the government has failed to create a climate of confidence in which the private sector can play its full part in the economy. I can refer you to Beauchesne, Mr. Speaker-I have in mind the intervention by the Prime Minister just now-and I have found on page 134 a sentence which will be of interest to the Prime Minister, who does not know everything all the time:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury to the public interest.
I shall be fair, Mr. Speaker, and I shall read the next sentence, because to be selective in my reading would be taking advantage of Your Honour:
The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.
My conclusion is that this is not a private letter. I do not know what the leader of the New Democratic Party has in his hands. He has an ability to be able to get information which others cannot, because Socialists are all alike-they always exchange information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
{Mr. Lang.]


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Perhaps that is how they get it. But in light of the serious situation we face, in light of the fact that the government's economic policies have brought the country to its knees, and given the fact that the Prime Minister may at long last have realized it is time for the government to get off its fanny and face its predicament by bringing in some form of job creation program, I believe it is incumbent upon the leader of the New Democratic Party to table whatever information he may have, for the benefit of all members of this House as well as the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House ought to be clear about two things. First, that the requirement, according to our precedents, for the tabling of a letter which has been cited or quoted is one which is directed against the ministry for the reason, obviously, that if a minister takes part in a debate in the House and is able to cite documents to his or her advantage, it is only in accordance with fair play and justice that those documents ought to be available to all the participants in the debate. That rule operates against ministers but not against other members.
In the second place, the right to table documents in this House is not one which can be used by members other than ministers of the Crown. I would be prepared to listen to argument that if an advantage has been gained by a member of the House, as a result of making reference to documents, the member concerned ought to be compelled to table those documents, whether he is a minister of the Crown or not, in order to equalize the advantage among all members participating in the debate and so that the discussion could continue on a fair footing. However, the question period has never been equated with debate in terms of our precedents, and surely it ought not to be open to any member of the House simply to refer during the question period to some document and then, by that means, table a document by a procedure which would not otherwise be open to him. For these reasons, I am not able to extend the rule at this time.



PRIVILEGE


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege related to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had to say and what I regard as a petty, peevish and insulting reference to Premier Schreyer of Manitoba-I say that most seriously-as well as to myself as a member of the House.
During the question period, the Prime Minister said, on the one hand, that the Premier of Manitoba was betraying a confidence in revealing correspondence between himself and the Prime Minister, and that I, in turn, was compounding this by informing the House of some information which was of a confidential nature. I resent that, and I insist that the Prime Minister review the case and offer, in particular, the Premier
July 12, 1977

of Manitoba and myself an apology for the implication he has made and the inference to be drawn that we betrayed a confidence given by the Prime Minister.
In raising any question earlier in the House today I based it directly on a press statement which came out of the office of the Premier of Manitoba on Friday last. That press statement referred to a telex which was sent by the Premier of Manitoba in mid-May to the Prime Minister of Canada requesting a first ministers' conference to deal, among other things, with unemployment. More than a month later the Prime Minister replied that there would be no such conference held, at least immediately. In reply to that the Premier of Manitoba issued a public statement, and I assume, being a man of integrity, Mr. Schreyer, the Premier of Manitoba, was not revealing a confidential telex or telegram sent to him by the Prime Minister. Having made his own request public in the first place-and if the Prime Minister challenges this contention and I am mistaken, I will apologize to him-I am sure the Prime Minister replied to the premier not in a confidential way at all, but directly, in the normal course of correspondence. At any rate, in a press statement issued on Friday by the office of the Premier of Manitoba, the following paragraph appears:
The Prime Minister had replied June 22 that a first ministers' conference should be held some time in the coming months to deal with the issues raised by Premier Schreyer, but that such a meeting probably would require careful preparatory work in other ministerial areas. He-
That is a reference to the Prime Minister.
-also stated that job creation plans for the coming months were already close to completion when Mr. Schreyer's first telex of May 17 was received-
It seems to me very clear, Mr. Speaker, that if Premier Schreyer issued this statement publicly he was not betraying a confidence. Some very important questions have been raised, and I think the Prime Minister owes me an apology for suggesting that I am revealing something which is of a confidential nature. He also owes an apology to the Premier of Manitoba. Beyond that, on the very important issue of job creation, he owes an apology to the members of this House because the answers which he gave today did not make clear whether or not there were new job creation programs, as he suggested to Premier Schreyer there were.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am called upon to make a whole series of apologies. I think if I explain the circumstances to the hon. member he might want to reconsider his request for apologies. My understanding, when I asked the hon. member the date of my letter to Premier Schreyer, was that the leader of the New Democratic Party had, indeed, a copy of my letter to Premier Schreyer in his hand. If the hon. member can say that that is not so, that he has not seen a copy of my letter to Premier Schreyer, then of course I will withdraw any inference that he is betraying a confidence.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, it seems to me to be entirely irrelevant-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Produce the letter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has raised, by way of a question of privilege, some remarks made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the question period concerning, firstly, the Premier of Manitoba, which of course in this context, and I doubt in any context, would not constitute a question of privilege concerning the members of this House.
Secondly, in respect of his own participation in the question period-that is to say, the actions of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby-he indicated that the Prime Minister had indicated that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby was compounding the disclosure of a confidence. The Prime Minister has responded to that point. In any case, it would seem to me that it would not constitute a question of privilege. The point has been dealt with by an equal contribution from both sides, and the matter ought not to go any further.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Thirteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cafik.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF TELEGRAM FROM L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE DU QUfiBEC
Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a copy of a telegram-and the English translation-which was attached to a letter from L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec, the Mouvement pour la defense des prisonniers politiques and the Cooperative des demenageurs du 1" mai, which I tabled in the House on June 30, 1977.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This tabling, it seems to me, is a full response to the point of order raised earlier by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), who raised the point that the minister had been compelled to table a letter, but that in the letter was reference to an enclosure and that the enclosure ought to be tabled as well. I am not going to decide at this point the precedents or the practices by which we ought to be bound. It is a very interesting argument as to whether or not it necessarily follows that, since a document can be held to be tabled, the enclosures or documents attached to it, and so on, might be as well. Perhaps that is an argument

July 12, 1977
Order Paper Questions
which will be raised again when the situation presents itself in the future, but for the moment I am relieved of that obligation by the minister's tabling of the document at this time.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it in order for me to ask the minister now, through you, why it took him 12 days to table something that was attached to the letter in the first place? Why could not the minister come clean with all these documents in relation to the Elouse of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CRIMINAL CODE
Paul Wyatt Dick: for leave to introduce Bill C-434, to amend the Criminal Code (reporting names of accused).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The purpose of this bill is to recognize more fully the time-honoured right of an accused in Canada to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by prohibiting the media from identifying an accused unless and until he is convicted.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1, 24, 31, 850, 2,764, 2,772, 2,780, 2,808, 2,813 and 2,826.


Mr. Cossitt: Since April 20, 1968, what are the details of any government business dealings with William Teron Associates, William Teron Limited, Mr. Teron personally or any other company with which he had any connection in an official capacity and, what amount of public funds are involved in any case that may exist?


Ralph Goodale: 1 am informed by the National Design Council, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, and the Department of Public Works as follows: In June 1971, funds totalling $35,000 in the form of a research grant were allocated to Mr. [Mr. Speaker.)
Teron by the National Design Council to develop performance and measurement standards and design criteria for those aspects of living accommodation relating to space division, flexibility, storage equipment and furniture to serve as a basis for improved design of living accommodation. It should be noted that $10,000 of the above-noted sum expended by Mr. Teron went to a research team at the Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg and that Mr. Teron contributed his time free of charge. On February 2, 1973 the balance of $25,000 was transferred to a research team at the University of Montreal to complete this project. While Mr. Teron was a Director/Officer of Canadian Inter-Urban Properties Limited, from May 31, 1967 to December 15, 1969, there was in effect a lease between that company and CMHC for office premises in Kingston, Ontario-the lease dating back to May, 1958. Leases were in effect as follows between the Department of Public Works and firms with which Mr. Teron is known to have had connection in an offical capacity (subject to the proviso below respecting Retno Ltd.) during the period from April 20, 1968 to June 30, 1973 when, prior to his appointment as President of CMHC, he resigned from every office and directorship in commercial corporations:
Company	Location	DetailsRetno Ltd.	Teron Building, 219 Argyle Ave., Ottawa.	To lease 25,200 sq. ft. at $88,140 per annum for the period from June/68 to May/73.Retno Ltd.	Teron Building, 219 Argyle Ave., Ottawa	To lease 530 sq. ft. at $610 per annum for the period from June/68 to May/73.Retno Ltd.	Teron Building, 219 Argyle Ave., Ottawa.	To lease 25,730 sq. ft. at $116,948 per annum for the period from June/73 to Jan/74
*During the period June 1968 to April 1970 payments were made to Teron Construction; for the remaining period of the lease, payments were made to Retno Ltd. (c/o W. Teron & Associates) on the instructions of Retno. However, effective February 1974, payments were assigned to N.D.M. Leaseholds who purchased the property from Retno. Although Mr. Teron was not connected with Retno Ltd. in an official capacity, because payments were made to Retno Ltd. (c/o W. Teron & Associates), the leases above have been included.
Etron Limited
Canadian Inter-urban Properties Limited
Canadian Inter-urban Properties Limited
Premises at 1404 Scott St., Ottawa.
Premises in the East Mall Shopping Centre, 600 King St., East, Oshawa. Premises in the East Mall Shopping Centre, 600 King St., East, Oshawa.
To lease 15,900 sq. ft. at $52,470 per annum for the period Jan/67 to Jan/74.
To lease 5,849 sq. ft. at $25,704 per annum for the period Apr/68 to Mar/73.
To lease 5,849 sq. ft. at $29,280 per annum for the period Apr/73 to Mar/74.
July 12, 1977

Two leases are currently in effect between the Department of Public Works and firms with which Mr. Teron had a connection in an official capacity prior to June 30, 1973:
Company Retno Limited
Urbanetics Limited
Location
Premises at 273 Argyle Ave., Ottawa.
Premises at 1404 Scott St., Ottawa.
Details
To lease 3,620 sq. ft. at $21,539 per annum for the period May/75 to Apr/80.
To lease 15,900 sq. ft. at $63,000 per annum for the period Feb/74 to Jan/79.
It should be noted that these two properties were leased following Mr. Teron's resignation from every office and directorship and following the transferral of any shares held to Trustees under a blind trust agreement completed on December 18, 1973. (See the answer to Question 3,046, Hansard, October 14, 1975, page 8176). It should also be noted that the Department of Public Works does not maintain records of the various officers of the many companies with which it deals. If any additional companies with which Mr. Teron had any connection in any official capacity can be identified, the information requested will be provided. In late 1972 and the first part of 1973, Mr. Teron negotiated in trust for the federal government the acquisition of options on various properties comprising the Toronto Harbour Front project. In total, Mr. Teron incurred expenses and advanced deposits for a total of $184,214.84 for which he was reimbursed by the department. Details of these expenditures follows:
Date	Particulars	AmountDec 6 & 19/72	W. Teron	Deposit on properties for Toronto Harbour Development Project (applied to purchase price)	$150,000Jan 4/73	Y & R Properties Ltd.	Negotiations re purchase of Terminal Warehouses Ltd. including drafting of offer, title examinations, meetings with agents, etc.	4,250.00Jan 31/73	Wilfred Wolman, QC McLean, Lyons & Kerr	In connection with purchase of Terminal Warehouses Ltd.-all services rendered during period Sept 14/72 to Jan 22/73 including correspondence-attendances related to reviewing, revising and finalizing purchasing agreement, etc.	$ 26,963.60Mar 20/73	W. Teron	Expenses-Air fare, travel, telephone	2,039.59Mar 21/73	W. Teron	Interest on deposits made by William Teron Total	961.65 $184,214.84
The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs has had no dealings with William Teron Associates, William Teron Limited or any other company with which Mr. Teron had any connection in an official capacity. However, Mr. Teron was named Acting Secretary of the Ministry on October 16, 1975 and Secretary on June 15, 1976.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total number of persons that were employed by, attached to, on loan to, under contract with or in any similar way connected with the Anti-Inflation Board (a) as of April 12, 1976 (b) as of the date the answer to this question is prepared?
2.	How many additional personnel is it anticipated will be required during the present fiscal year?
3.	What is the total annual payroll of the Board as of the date the answer to this question is prepared and how many received (a) up to $15,000 a year (b) between $15,000 and $20,000 a year (c) between $20,000 and $25,000 a year (d) between $25,000 and $30,000 a year (e) over $30,000 a year?
4.	On what date was the answer to this question prepared?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. (a) As of April 12 the number of persons who are permanent and temporary employees plus persons under contract and Executive Interchange was 617. On October 1, 1976 the number was 684. (b) No date can be stated as the date the answer to this question is prepared.
2.	The personnel requirements of the Anti-Inflation Board are assessed on a regular basis to ensure the effective operation of the Board. It is difficult to anticipate future requirements as these are dependent upon a variety of factors including the degree of compliance with the guidelines and the requirement for effective monitoring of prices and incomes.
3.
Anti-Inflation Board Payroll Report as of October 1, 1976
$15,000.	$20,000.	$25,000.Up to	to	to	to	Over$15,000.	$20,000.	$25,000.	$30,000.	$30,000.Permanent	180	77	69	52	50*Term	242	14	-	-	-Total Manpower	684Total Annual Payroll	$10,644,089.20
* Includes seven Board Members.
4.	The government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore, to provide information about internal administration arrangements.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,573 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, asking details on government business awarded to Urbanetics Limited which stated: "See answer to Parliamentary Question No. 3,359" of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, for what reason does the government consider this possible since Question No. 3,359 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament has not been answered?
2.	Will the government supply details of any government business received by Urbanetics Limited since its creation including details of any contracts and costs involved?


Ralph Goodale: 1. An explanation was given to an assistant of the hon. member on April 27, 1976.
7582

July 12, 1977
Order Paper Questions
2.	See reply to Question No. 1 answered this day.


Mr. Rodriguez: For each of the past Five years, have any government departments or agencies been involved in funding any sort of feasibility studies in Africa and, if so (a) what was the nature and cost of each (b) what department or agency (i) conducted (ii) contracted the studies?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the answer is as follows: In carrying out an African program which has reached a magnitude of approximately $200 million per annum, CIDA conducts numerous feasibility studies to investigate and validate the desirability of proposed investments. In any given fiscal year, therefore, CIDA finances feasibility work in Africa across a broad spectrum of sectors and sub-sectors. To list all feasibility studies carried out in Africa over the past 5 years would necessitate a time-consuming and expensive search of records, including records which are now in CIDA's archives. Such a task, although possible, would probably consume at least two man-years, at a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of not less than forty thousand dollars. For these reasons, it is not possible to answer this question.
IDRC-PUBLICATION "FAMILLE ET DfiVELOPPEMENT"


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the government, through the International Development Research Centre, pay the total cost of the publication Famille et Developpement and is the cost to the taxpayer some $600,000?
2.	Is the government aware that the publication is stirring up third world countries against countries such as Canada and, if so, will the government take appropriate remedial action or withdraw its financial contribution?


Fernand-E. Leblanc: 1. The International Development Research Centre, a public corporation created by the Government of Canada in 1970 and financed through an annual Parliamentary grant, appropriated in December 1974 a sum of $644,000 to cover the preparation and start-up costs and the first three years of operation of the magazine, Famille et Developpement. It has been published quarterly in Dakar, Senegal, since January 1975. Actual expenditure to date is $486,900. The IDRC has so far been the sole contributor although it is likely that donor agencies in other countries may now be willing to join in providing additional support if it is required. Revenue from the sale of the magazine (paid circulation has reached almost 22,000, and readership is estimated at 200,000) is becoming a major factor in the financing of future operations and it is hoped that the publication will become self-financing in future.
2.	Famille et Developpement is the only mass-circulated, indigenous publication providing information on family health and development issues for the peoples of French-speaking Africa. The Editorial Committee as well as the editorial and production staff (except for the IDRC local administrator) is
[Mr. Goodale.J
entirely African. The publication provides information prepared and/or selected by Africans based on their perceptions of current African interests. The magazine does periodically have articles on the implementation of rural development programs in African and Asian countries; some of these articles refer to countries whose political and economic systems are different from those of the industrialized nations, including Canada, and reflect a concern with the existing economic disparities in the world. The magazine has never contained an attack on Canada or other industrialized nations. In one recent issue, the magazine contained a cartoon on the problems of aid tied to the economic or political interests of donor nations. The IDRC has protested the cartoon to the editorial staff of Famille et Developpement. Indications are that the publication has been extremely well received in Francophone African countries. Although the IDRC role in the publication is not direct and, therefore, not particularly visible, among those Africans who are aware of this Canadian support, the publication has brought considerable credit to the policies and programs of the Centre and thus to Canada's role in development aid.
SALE OF MASSEY-FERGUSON COMBINES TO RUSSIA AND/OR ARGENTINA


Mr. Halliday: Did any department or agency sell or arrange for the sale of Massey-Ferguson combines to Russia and/or Argentina and, if so (a) what were the model numbers (b) what extra equipment was on the machines (c) how many were sold (d) what was the price per unit?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has no knowledge of any federal department or agency having sold or arranged for the sale of Massey-Ferguson combines to Russia and/or Argentina.


Mr. Rodriguez: What was the total cost for the production of the 1969 Post Office Department publication A Blueprint for Change?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: According to Post Office records, total cost was $5,600.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Department of External Affairs?


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Detailed statistics are not available as departmental expenditure records are not maintained by region or municipality. However, as the Depart-
July 12, 1977

ment does not maintain an office in Sault Ste. Marie it is estimated that expenditures are negligible.


Mr. Symes: What was the total amount spent in Sault Ste. Marie from October 1972 to date by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: Nil return.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Is there any agreement between Canada and Great Britain similar in terms to the France-Canada Cultural Agreement of 1965?
2.	Is there any Commission with Canada and Great Britain as the sole members, similar in nature to the France-Canada Mixed Commission?
3.	Are there any exchanges between Canada and Great Britain similar to those agreed upon at the Eighth Session of the France-Canada Mixed Commission?


Fernand-E. Leblanc: 1. No. It has been mutually agreed between the two governments that no formal agreement is necessary to further bilateral cultural and academic exchanges.
2.	No. However officials of both governments meet periodically in formal sessions to discuss programs of cultural and academic exchanges. The fourth such meeting, which will include representatives of the provinces, will be held in London next October.
3.	Several proposals in the fields of exchanges of persons, education and cultural promotion will be discussed at this meeting as was the case at the recent meeting of the France-Canada Mixed Commission. These would be in addition to a variety of cultural and academic activities carried out with Great Britain under various Commonwealth as well as private auspices. As with other countries with which Canada has developed programs of cultural exchanges, those with Great Britain include exchanges in the field of the performing and visual arts, exchanges in the field of education including scholarships, youth exchanges and visits of persons prominent in the academic and cultural fields.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the approximately 21 or so questions on the early part of the order paper which have not been answered until just now when the parliamentary secretary referred to three of them. I raise this matter because the answers, whatever they may be, to two of the questions he has just read out become a complete farce due to the fact that they have been on the order paper for a year and a half without answers. Therefore, it serves hardly any purpose in their being answered at this late date.
Business of the House
For example, one asked about the Anti-Inflation Board staff, its size and the number the board anticipated they would hire during the next fiscal year-which was last year and not this year. We are now receiving the answer when, presumably, the staff is being phased out. Thus, we are receiving an answer which is not what I asked for in the first place.
It asked for salary brackets, how many were in certain brackets, and so on. Simply because the parliamentary secretary knew someone on this side of the House was going to move the adjournment of the House today in light of this type of situation, he brought in three answers to early questions, two of which are absolutely redundant and out of place because the situations are long past. Question No. 31 was simply referring to the last parliament, which is when I asked it.
How can the government in answer to my question, refer me to question No. 3,359 of the first session of the thirtieth parliament when that very question was not answered during the thirtieth parliament? It took l'/2 years to come up with an explanation today as to why they said a question was answered which was not answered. This is getting to the point of being ridiculous and it is a case where the government is covering up information to which the Canadian people are entitled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The government is leaving questions on the order paper until such time as public opinion will forget, or until such time as the questions become so far outdated in the time element that the answers do not make any sense. We should have a guarantee from the parliamentary secretary today that the right to information by members of parliament and the Canadian people is going to be adhered to by this government, instead of the procedures which have been going on for five years. There are many members senior to me who have witnessed this type of action since this government came to power.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the following item of government business, it has been suggested that we deal with any votes which have been deferred at ten o'clock this evening. If that is agreeable to members of the House, 1 would be prepared to accept the notion that the House deal with any deferred votes on the bill at ten o'clock this evening. The report stage of this bill may not be completed, but it might be convenient to deal with whatever votes are outstanding at that time.
80020-1 6*/2

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be excellent progress being made at report stage of this bill. When the government House leader referred to deferred votes, I am sure he was talking about any votes deferred during the course of today which will be dealt with at ten o'clock this evening. If that is the case, we are quite agreeable.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that these discussions were in progress, and on behalf of my colleagues I can say we are sympathetic to the idea. Apparently the message I relayed did not get back to the government House leader. Instead of taking the vote at ten o'clock, it seems to me it should be at 9.30.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If we call the votes at ten o'clock-there might be eight or ten of them by then-it will run into a late hour and then the "late show" will be after that. I realize this is negotiating in public, which does not often work. I would suggest 9.30, rather than ten o'clock. We could stop the debate at that point, ring the bells for 15 minutes and start taking the votes at 9.45.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the circumstances, perhaps the House would permit the Chair to suggest the obvious compromise-ringing the bells for 15 minutes beginning at 9.45.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Mr. Speaker:: That is one of the dangers when the Chair attempts to enter into discussions. If there is agreement which the House can put into an order at this time, I would be glad to put the question. If there is no agreement, I am not able to put any question whatsoever to the House at this time.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, July 11, 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; and motion No. 9 (Mr. Brisco).
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the proceedings adopted to this point, this vote will be deferred until later. The House may

want to have the question put at this time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the proceedings we have been following with respect to this report stage debate, this vote will be deferred. Therefore, the House will now move to motion No. 10.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser) moved:: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 39 to 42 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) a peace officer or public officer, or"-
He said: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is just fate that Your Honour called my motion next. I must be at the top of the minister's hit parade at the moment, according to reports I have received about a comment he made for the purposes of the media with regard to the debate so far. I cannot take in silence what he is reported to have said. The minister is guilty of very sleazy and underhanded conduct in regard to the debate which is going on in this House, by attempting to blame members on this side of the House who have participated in the debate on Bill C-51 for the killing of a police constable in this city last night. I think that is very reprehensible on the part of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: If he wants to put the blame where it should be, he should look at his own administration and reconsider the question of capital punishment in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He is not listening; he does not care.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: That is nothing new for him. Returning to the matter at hand, this amendment is designed to protest the parts of this bill which give the governor in council the right to make regulations. As I pointed out earlier in this debate, the law, particularly criminal law, should be abundantly clear to everybody. Matters like this one should be included in the
July 12, 1977

Criminal Code, not in some collection of rules and regulations written by bureaucrats. In committee, the minister pointed out that the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code result from representations made to him by the attorneys general of some provinces. As he said in committee, they did not think mayors, wardens, reeves, sheriffs' officers, sheriffs, or justices of the peace should fall into the same category as policemen or other peace officers.
If it is the intention of the government and the provinces to correct the definition of "peace officer" or those who are going to be allowed exemption under this section at a later date, a different class of people should be provided for in the Criminal Code. The situation must be improved. As has been pointed out on many occasions, the government is becoming more prone to controlling our activities by regulation rather than by law.
My motion would neither strengthen nor weaken the bill, but is designed to persuade the government to include important provisions in the Criminal Code and not through a hodge-podge of other publications which makes it difficult for citizens to find out what rules and regulations govern them. If this part of our criminal law is to be strengthened, weakened, broadened or narrowed, it should be done through the parliamentary process and not through the machinations of the bureaucracy. That is why I ask members to give serious consideration to amending the bill in the way I have suggested.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to involve myself in this debate, but this particular amendment gives me an opportunity to say some things that I think require to be said, not just on behalf of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) but on behalf of all members of the House. I could hardly believe my ears this morning when I heard on the "World at Six" program certain statements attributed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in relation to the sniping incident which took place in Ottawa last evening and about which every Canadian feels a deep sense of grief and abhorrence. It has nothing to do with what any member of this chamber is endeavouring to do as far as this bill is concerned, however. What members are attempting here is to produce good laws that are appropriate for all Canadians, that protect Canadians as much as possible by regulating the ownership of guns in this nation. The great problem with guns and their regulation is that those who commit most of the crimes pay no attention to the law in the first place. Guns do not kill people; people kill people with guns. I could not believe that last night the Minister of Justice would suggest the atrocities committed against human beings in that incident had anything to do with members of parliament.


An hon. Member:: He was right on.


Robert Carman Coates: If the hon. member opposite knew anything about the House of Commons, or had been here a little longer, he would have some appreciation of the rights and privileges of
Criminal Code
individual members, which he does not appear to have. If he wants to make a speech on this amendment, he can do so; otherwise he should keep his mouth shut.


Mr. Malone:: He could not point a slingshot in the right direction.


Robert Carman Coates: What concerns me is not just what the minister said last night in the course of what I would describe as ambulance-chasing when he arrived at the scene of the sniping incident, although that is probably the most irresponsible act any person could commit. Who knows who might have been killed by a madman with a gun in a house, shooting indiscriminately at people. Yet the Minister of Justice went to the scene and told anybody willing to listen that he is the Minister of Justice and that he is of the opinion that if this bill had been passed by the House-and he has had opportunities to get it through before now if he had wanted to use the parliamentary procedures available to him-the incident would not have happened. Reports I have received indicate that the minister identified certain members of this House as having blood on their hands because of the incident. That was a most shocking and irresponsible statement. It is almost beyond belief that the Minister of Justice of this country would make such a statement, except that these days nothing is beyond belief, as far as I am concerned, about this government's actions regarding legislation that it endeavours to impose upon the Canadian public.
I will put on record the remarks made by the Minister of Justice in an interview, as reported by Broadcast News. The report reads as follows:
"It's quite clear, for example, in this case that the now accused had a twelve-gauge shotgun, .22 calibre semi-automatic rifle, a 30-30, a 303, and a 30 06. The semi-automatic had been bought within the month in Ontario, and I obviously have to be careful because the man is charged-it is quite clear on the information 1 have that that purchase would have been restricted or prohibited under the legislation."
The minister is taking a lot upon himself in saying what would or would not be in legislation still being debated in this House of Commons. Apparently the government is imposing legislation and this is not any longer to be a debating institution where decisions are made after due consideration and debate, and when the House arrives at the best possible conclusion in regard to legislation governing guns or anything else. I believe, sir, that this House should be charged with a question of privilege as far as this particular statement is concerned. The minister went on to say:
What I don't understand is we have a group of members, such as Stan Schumacher, Doug Neil, Ritchie, Towers, Bob Brisco from Kootenay West, who spent all day yesterday and presumably all day today debating such things as the right of people to collect and use machine guns, or amendments reducing the sentences for the use of guns; weakening the provisions relating to safe storage, and what I just don't understand is how many people, how many policemen, how many citizens, have to be shot down in Brampton or Oshawa or Ottawa or Penticton, where they shot a tax collector the other day; or Vancouver, or Montreal, before parliament will react to that public situation and pass the legislation.

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, I just cannot believe that such a statement would come from the Minister of Justice who is supposed to have some respect for the law and the rights of individuals in this country, and especially for the rights of members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: It is obvious that the Minister of Justice has no sense of justice so far as individual Canadians are concerned, or he would not be making such statements to the public and endeavouring to inflame the public against an opposition party which has been completely responsible and has endeavoured to work with the government to produce the best possible kind of legislation for the benefit of all Canadians. I have known the Minister of Justice for a long time, but I have never known him to show this kind of irresponsible approach to legislation. I believe he owes the members he has named an apology in the House. If he is a House of Commons man, as I have always believed him to be, I think he will rise in his place and offer an apology to the individuals in question, because that is what they have a right to expect from any individual member sitting in this chamber.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the statement that has just been read in the House and it seems to me that now is the appropriate time to discuss it. Let me say in my introductory remarks that I assume these words were spoken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in haste, or perhaps written by someone in his office, because knowing the minister as I do, 1 just cannot believe he could have been serious.
I want to bring to the attention of the House and record the fact that the bill was debated on second reading on May 11 and 12. Then it went to committee for eight days. We heard only two groups of witnesses in committee, one regarding the gun control section and one on invasion of privacy. All other witnesses were denied a hearing. The bill returned to the House for report stage and was debated on June 30, July 4, 11 and 12. On one of those days the debate lasted only about one hour and a half. Is the minister going to accuse this party, as he apparently has in his release, in full knowledge of the fact that the murder was committed in Ottawa? I feel deeply, as a Canadian, about this tragic occurrence, not only about what has happened in Ottawa but about the three incidents in Calgary in the last year and a half.
I bring to the minister's attention that one of the fundamental principles of administration of justice is that the Minister of Justice, in leading his department, must at all times show absolute integrity and honesty. In fact, those who have some knowledge of parliamentary history know that in the mother of parliaments the minister of justice is non-partisan because of the position he holds in administering justice.
Is the minister suggesting that the murder which took place last night-a tragic event for the young police officer who was killed, and for his family-as well as the incident in Toronto

and the one in Calgary to which I brought the attention of the House of Commons, were all caused because the bill which is now before the House was not passed? If that is what the minister implied, then we have reached a sorry state in the Department of Justice-and I must say, in frankness, that that is not the truth. The truth is that the murder which was committed in Ottawa involved the use of a long gun. As someone said in committee, there are six million long guns in Canada. Another member said there were 11 million. We know there are 2.5 million long gun owners who are not affected by this bill at all.
Therefore, to suggest that because we did not pass the bill yesterday-we debated the question of criminal law regulations and the matter of putting the onus on the Crown, not the accused-a murder was committed, is to place the blame on my friends in this party, something which I can only describe as shameful by the Minister of Justice and I hope he will apologize for it.


Arnold John Malone: This House should adjourn.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would point out, with reference to the murders in Calgary, that the last one involved the use of a prohibited or restricted weapon. When the minister piloted the bill on capital punishment through the House he should have considered whether it might have been a deterrent. I leave that to him. He knows where I stood in this regard. On this side we had a free vote on capital punishment, but on the government side there was no free vote and every cabinet member lined up, to a man, to a woman. To suggest to us that we have caused crime to increase is shameful. Why will the government not set up an inquiry on crime in Canada, something for which we have asked over and over again?
Why will they not take a hard look at what kind of life a police officer must lead because of the crime rate in this country? Since this motion deals with peace officers and orders in council, we have pointed out that law that is drafted by orders in council, by cabinet or by an unknown and unnamed body, is improper. That is not the way to legislate criminal law. That was our message which rang through this chamber yesterday.
The second point which we argued yesterday was not one dealing with guns. It referred to the fact that in one of the provisions the government placed the onus on the accused. I pointed out that as in the "Cross" and "Wigmore" authorities on evidence, and for generations, our system of jurisprudence has been that a man or a woman cannot be found guilty in a criminal court unless the evidence shows they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt-and the onus is always on the Crown. That was the argument we put forward yesterday. We put forward intelligent and intellectual arguments concerning liberty and freedom of Canadians. Then we were met with that kind of news release this morning. The only congratulation I can offer the Minister of Justice is that he did not include my name among those he mentioned. He knows I co-operated with him in the committee at every stage of the bill. To suggest that this bill would have stopped the murder in Ottawa yesterday,
July 12, 1977

or any other murder of a policeman, is utter nonsense and untruthful.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on the same theme as that put forward by the two previous speakers who have pointed out that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has been derelict in his duty. Ele has been dishonest with the House of Commons and the country in suggesting that members on this side of the House were somehow connected with the most unfortunate murder last night. I would like to state in the House that there is a correlation in western countries between an increase in the rate of crime and murders and an increased rate of unemployment. If the Minister of Justice can say to us, as he did in his comments last night, that we are in some way guilty of the crime last night, then surely, because of the high rate of unemployment in the country at present, both the minister and the government have to accept the same kind of guilt because there is a relationship between crime and unemployment. However, I will not do that because I think we must maintain a higher level of integrity in the House, and to be blaming members for all the murders that are going on is certainly not the crux of the issue. But we must recognize that the minister made a most outrageous statement when he tried to blame members on this side of the House for the unfortunate deed last night.
I say that the amendment before us is one that is very important because it refers to the power to make changes by order in council. What the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) is saying in his motion could be said about many other bills, because the principle is extremely important. Last year over 3,300 orders in council were made by this government, none of which was referred to parliament. In the United Kingdom there were ten orders in council, all of which were referred to parliament. It is absolutely stupid to assume that we have control over our democratic process when in excess of 3,000 regulations can be made but never brought before parliament. We are not saying we oppose this legislation; we want an iron-clad guarantee about what the regulations will contain.
There are gun clubs in my constituency. 1 live in a farming and ranching constituency where guns are not used to kill people; they are used as tools to get skunks out from under chicken coops, or to kill coyotes coming into calving yards. We know, by the way this bill is being put forward, that right after we pass it the governor in council can change the length of time for which the registration period can exist, and the fees. The governor in council can make it prohibitive to obtain guns and can classify which guns are restricted and which are not restricted.
Every gun club I met did not mind having gun control. We ought to understand that. But we want to know if the gun control we have is one we can live with. Each day in this House there is an overbegging of the question. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tries to point out the differences
Criminal Code
between Canadians by saying that there are French and English, and English and French. He always focuses on the differences in an attempt to find some common cause in which we as a nation can join together so that we can forget our differences.
The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) has in his riding many constituents who are trappers by occupation-70 per cent in all. If the Prime Minister understood the development of the west and the use of guns in agriculture, he would recognize that this is a cultural question. The gun is a tool in many ways, but there are many tools which are used for killing people. People can be killed with knives, axes, saws, poisons, and in many other ways. If the government is sincerely interested in having a Criminal Code which would reduce the number of murders, it has to work with the psychology of people. It has to deal with child abuse. The governments of this country have been derelict in that respect. Much more needs to be done. We have definitions of child abuse which include broken bones and extreme bruising, but none of them touch the question of the psychological abuse of children. People have so psychologically degraded children that we find the mentality which causes the kinds of acts we read about in the newspapers today.
There is also a correlation between noise levels and tensions in people. There are some interesting articles dealing with urban development and noise levels. People who live in busy traffic areas and on the lower floors of apartment buildings have more tensions than others. Passing this bill and leaving all regulatory adjustments to orders in council gives no assurance to gun owners, and in fact may or may not have an effect on crime. While I do not subscribe to the conclusion of Judy LaMarsh that there ought to be one television station across the country, I think there is reason to believe that if our children are exposed to crime as entertainment, there will be problems. I think the government has an obligation to do something about that in the hope of preventing crime.
In Switzerland, all males over the age of 18 must own guns. There is in that country a very low crime rate when compared to the crime rates of the western nations. The toughest gun controls in North America are found in the state of New York. I need not comment on the crime rate there; we know it is very high.
Gun control in and of itself is not the answer. I spoke last year on Bill C-83. I detailed at great length many psychological, environmental and cultural changes which ought to be taking place in order to bring about the kind of human change which would give us different attitudes toward guns. We must remember that the gun is a cultural tool which is used in the occupation of many people in this country. If we are going to legislate gun control, the government should have the courage to make a definitive statement as to what the period of registration will be-and that should not be done by order in council. If that were done, our legislation would be far more effective. The legislation might be more effective if people were licensed for life.

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
That could be done with people who own guns now, remembering that the same restrictive categories could still exist. Every new gun owner should take a course in which he could learn how to handle and properly care for a gun. From there we should work backwards. If a person gets a criminal record, he should lose his licence; if he becomes mentally ill, he should lose his licence; if he becomes addicted to drugs or alcohol, he should lose his licence; if he is careless with a gun and shoots a cow instead of a deer, for instance, he should lose his licence. In that way we could focus on that small section of society which handles guns dangerously.
The law being put forward by this government focuses on some 13 million gun owners and builds up a huge bureaucracy with power to make regulations, to increase fees at any time and in any amount, to shorten the period of registration, and to say to the farmer and the rancher that they may not have guns to get coyotes out of the calving yards. This legislation would allow the bureaucracy to tell northern Canada that the practice of hunting for a livelihood-a tradition which goes back to as far as the recorded history of the Indian and the Inuit- cannot be continued. I submit that that would be very unjust. The government cannot speak about culture in terms of language and forget all the other cultures which exist.
In conclusion, let me say that each and every one of us in this House wants to see the crime rate reduced. The motion we are debating does not say we must control all guns. It seeks to make sure that what we enshrine in legislation remains the law, that we are not voting on a certain provision today only to find it has been totally changed six months after the bill passes.
I have met with gun clubs of my constituency. One is in the city of Camrose, which hon. members may recall is the place of the great "hot dog festival." That gun club said it does not mind regulations so long as they do not infringe upon their right to collect guns, to shoot on a registered shooting range, to apply for a permit or to shoot on someone else's shooting range. They want to be allowed to use guns for sporting purposes. Similarly, ranchers in my constituency do not mind regulations so long as they are allowed to carry guns for the protection of their sheep and cattle and keep predators at bay. It is not as if they disapprove of Bill C-51; they do not trust the government. They are not against this legislation, per se, and I do not know how often I must repeat that. Apparently we must say it often for fear of being misinterpreted.
Let no one say the people of the western provinces are against this legislation per se. They will support such legislation if it is fair. They do not want to see enshrined in this bill some power giving a group of individuals power to change the law by order in council. They do not want bureaucrats alone to have power to put weapons into the prohibited class. Our people want to know the regulations, and if they are changed they want to know how they are changed. That a small group of people should have power to change these regulations arbitrarily is dreadful.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in the debate yesterday I did not anticipate last night's catastrophe in our capital city. I am sorry it happened and I, too, express my sympathy to the wife and small child of the policeman who lost his life and those wounded in the exercise of their duty. Now you see why I voted for capital punishment, especially for the murder of a policeman. I am satisfied capital punishment is a deterrent, protects our police forces and should be in place for their protection. I do not think the government was right in removing that protection.
Yesterday I charged the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) with not knowing what justice is, and I stand by that statement. Unfortunately, the minister saw fit to include my name in the list of names he mentioned in his news release of this morning. I ask the minister-who has just entered the chamber-how long did I speak in yesterday's debate? He knows where I stand, which is why he included my name in his news release. I stand on the side of justice, on the side of protecting people. When criminals use firearms in the commission of a crime, I want to see them punished harshly, for only in this way will we clean up the mess. So long as the cabinet pussyfoots around with the criminal element, crime will remain with us and we shall see a repetition of what happened in Ottawa last night. We must come to grips with the problem.


An hon. Member:: Then pass the bill.


Thomas Gordon Towers: In his news release, the minister said he did not understand why a group of members-the names appear in the release-spent all day yesterday, and presumably will spend all day today, debating such things as the right of people to collect and to use machine-guns. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that much of the debate yesterday concerned government by order in council and the reverse onus whereby a person is presumed guilty until proven innocent. If a private member issues a news release, it probably remains on the shelves of our newspaper offices; but, if the Minister of Justice issues a news release, its contents go out across the country and we all stand condemned until we prove ourselves innocent. I am prepared to rely on your judgment, Mr. Speaker, and let you decide whether we are filibustering this bill.
The minister also said in his statement-which is misleading-that the young man who did the shooting had a 12-gauge shotgun, a .22 calibre semi-automatic rifle, a 303, a 30-30 and a 30-06. The semi-automatic had been bought in Ontario within the last month. He would say no more because the man had been charged; but he said the semi-automatic weapon had been purchased within the month, within the past two weeks. How irrelevant can a statement be? It was phony, misleading. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I plead my case and leave it in your hands.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend yesterday taking part in the debate on this motion because it has to do with regulations. I spoke briefly on legislation by regulation. But the minister having earlier today issued a statement in which he included my name among others, I feel it my duty to speak.
July 12, 1977

I have been concerned over the years about the freedom of the individual and preserving our democratic way of life. I have seen the government opposite eroding, since 1968, our individual freedoms. Yesterday 1 spoke of government by regulation and said that regulations are never debated on the floor of the House of Commons. Some civil servant prepares them and a minister passes them. They are promulgated, as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) said, in the dark of the night. Mr. Speaker, parliament is the place to debate legislation. Parliament tells the people of this country what laws are in process of enactment. But when you make law by regulation, not only do the people of Canada not know the law but many legislators, many members of parliament, do not know it. How can the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) say that because members of the opposition debated this bill they are somehow responsible for yesterday's tragic death of a policeman?
I gather, from reading the statement he made over the air, that the minister is suggesting members of the opposition have no business to debate a bill. The reason I and other members of parliament are here is to debate bills, examine legislation, make amendments and let the people of Canada know what is the law. That is democracy, the right to speak your mind, to say what you think. However, the Minister of Justice, the man who should be concerned about our democratic way of life, is suggesting that members of the opposition should not be speaking in a debate in this House.
I wonder what Canada is coming to, when a responsible minister of the Crown suggests that parliamentarians, opposition members, should not be speaking on a bill. 1 give the minister notice that as long as I am here in Ottawa as a member of parliament, I intend to debate every bill and every amendment that I believe is important to my constituents and the people of Canada. There is no way the minister or any other member on that side will prevent me from debating legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: If the Minister of Justice is an honourable man, he will stand in this House and withdraw the statements he made over the radio today with regard to certain members on this side of the House.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this amendment I must say that in a strange way I am honoured by the fact that in making his statement over the radio today, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) singled out the hon. member for Kootenay West for particular attention by making reference to my constituency, the only member of the several named by the minister whose constituency was identified. I can only assume that he had some particular interest in that constituency, although he apparently does not have any particular interest for the concerns expressed by members on this issue. If the minister is anywhere in this House, he is certainly not in his seat. If he is doing anything, it
Criminal Code
is certainly not paying attention to the legitimate concerns of members who have spoken thus far on this issue. If the minister is prepared to single out Kootenay West, I invite him to come to Kootenay West at the time of the next federal election campaign. Let him put his name on the line as a candidate for the Liberal party in Kootenay West. We would be delighted to see him defeated. I assume that is part of his passing interest in my constituency.
The minister expressed concern about opposition members wasting the time of the House. If the minister had not shot off his mouth in such a reprehensible and irresponsible manner, we would today be dealing with the issues before us and not wasting the time of the House by addressing ourselves to the insults handed out by the minister. In his statement the minister made reference to the fact that yesterday we were discussing the safe storage of guns. He said we were weakening the provision relating to the safe storage of weapons. That is a categorical untruth. No reference was made to the safe storage of guns. That was not an issue for debate before this House yesterday.
If the minister would care to take the time to read the minutes of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, he would see that I made specific inquiries of him and addressed very genuine concerns to him on the subject of safe storage of guns. I feel qualified to address myself to that subject because I have much greater knowledge of that subject than the minister and half of his people. However, the minister would seek to distort and twist the truth. We went on to say we were concerned about reducing the sentences for the use of guns. He said that without the benefit of any explanation. It was a flat statement, with nothing attached to it. The minister knows that in debate yesterday this House was concerned with only one point of one amendment when dealing with the subject of reduced sentences. That was that the sentence for a person having a prohibited weapon should be greater than the sentence for a person in violation of the law with a restricted weapon. One weapon you clearly cannot have. One weapon is prohibited. The other is restricted. That was the only reference.
When it comes to reducing sentences for the use of guns, I draw Your Honour's attention to statements I made previously in this House at an earlier stage when we were dealing with this bill. I recounted, for the benefit of the minister and hon. members, that at my personal urging two of my constituents preferred charges against a big game outfitter in northern British Columbia who threatened them with an unregistered revolver. I put this on record and I challenge the minister to explain why it would happen. My constituents appeared in court in Fort Nelson, not once but three times, at a cost to the taxpayers of goodness knows how many dollars. There were three separate hearings before the judge. When they finally appeared on the issue of an unregistered gun, having a gun in a place other than a dwelling place, after a severe reprimand from the judge the accused was relieved of any further burden of responsibility. There was no fine, no jail sentence. What possible use can there be to legislation in which we seek out

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
the criminal, if the courts are not going to impose a sentence that has any meaning?
1 have asked the minister to provide this House with statistics as to how many people were accused of contravening the firearms legislation, how many were sentenced in the last year, and what was the manner of the sentence. For example, was it a token fine, or a jail sentence. I have been met with stony silence from the minister. I am certain that if the facts were disclosed to the public we would find that the courts are not carrying out the mandate they have been given. That is the concern of Canadians. It is not the legislation; it is the interpretation of the law and the manner in which it is carried out.
The minister's conduct last night can only be described as ghoulish, callous and macabre. No one in this House regrets more than I do the events that occurred in this city last night. I share, with my fellow members, respect for the law and for the police who carry out the law, sometimes in very dangerous and difficult circumstances. I share that respect and I share that concern. I shared it enough to vote in favour of capital punishment, which the cabinet opposed. But it cannot go unsaid that the minister, throughout this afternoon's expressions of concern by those members he affronted, has failed to address himself to that issue and to make apologies for his statement.
I have said enough on this subject. I am sure the people of Kootenay West will understand my outspoken reaction. I hope the minister will withdraw his comments.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on this bill may be a pure waste of time. It is obvious to me that those who drafted it have not done their homework. If they had, there would not be clauses in it to say that the most important part would be implemented by regulation. Before going on to that, I want to echo the remarks made by some of the previous speakers. They were all from one party. I do not belong to that party, nor to any party in this House. But for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to have the audacity last night to make the remarks about members of this House in such a terrible way is certainly unethical and improper.
Parliament is the place where we debate and discuss legislation and where we should be able to discuss regulations. We try to protect the rights of individuals. I am sure every member of parliament sympathizes with the family of the deceased policeman from Ottawa. Also we, as members of parliament, represent our constituents and purport to live as a democratic state. And this place is purported to be a place where we protect that democratic state by the right of debate and the right of free speech. I suggest that the very man who should be most interested in the protection of individuals and their rights, violated one of the most important rights, the right to speak in parliament, last night and this morning by doing just what he did. I and other members of parliament are supposed to express the views of our constituents, and we should express

them sincerely, frankly and honestly. I repeat, the remarks of the minister were deplorable; they were unethical.
But orders in council-what are they? They take us back to the days of King John and the Magna Carta. The whole purpose of the Magna Carta was to get rid of orders in council or arbitrary decrees of government. These orders in council permit the delegation of power to the cabinet, in effect to the bureaucracy, to operate and provide criminal law in this country. How much can we belittle parliament? How much can we belittle the sense of our constituents? I recall that 31 months ago, in December, 1974, two policemen were killed in my constituency. I did not hear anyone in this House say then that the death of those two policemen resulted from anything that any member of parliament did here or did not do. They were brutally killed. They were killed by vehement criminals. This bill would not have saved their lives. This bill would not have saved the life of that policeman last night, either.
For the Minister of Justice to leave the impression with Canadians generally and, in particular, with people in the Ottawa area, that anyone who opposes this bill or is not prepared to support it is responsible for the acts of criminals who commit murder, is just not proper; it is unethical. For the Minister of Justice, who holds the highest office of any barrister or lawyer in this country, to make a statement of that kind and to involve members of parliament in statements of that nature, is most improper.
Before coming here I acted as defence counsel. I still practise law, and I am not ashamed of it. I also acted as criminal prosecutor. I had some respect for those who achieved the office of minister of justice, whether under provincial or federal jurisdiction, but after hearing those remarks last night and hearing them again this morning, I have my doubts. It is the type of thing which reduces respect for law and order in our country, to hear a minister of justice make a statement such as the minister made. It should be withdrawn very apologetically.
A good number of my constituents not only oppose the legislation by order in council with respect to this bill, but with respect to any bill. One hon. member drew attention to the fact that in 1976 more than 3,200 orders in council were passed in Canada at the federal level. Only ten went through in Great Britain. This is no way to operate criminal law. The problem with the bill is that it is a catch-all bill; it has everything in it, and not much of any of it is good. I repeat, the Minister of Justice, in presenting this bill, has delegated so much of its powers to order in council that it is, to me, a clear indication that the government is not ready, has not done its homework and is not prepared to tell us what is in the substantive part of the bill.
Gun control is really not the answer to the problems of law and order and crime in this country. My feeling is that the legislation is likely to create more problems, more bureaucracy and more difficulty than we have now. We are taking a backward step, first by introducing gun control; second, by legislating by regulation or order in council. I would suggest that the amendment is quite a proper one, although I am not
July 12, 1977

sure I would even support the amendment if it meant the bill would go through.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise with a certain feeling of reservation to speak on motion No. 10. It deals with regulations, which the government is so good at since it is so hesitant to bring forward its legislation to the House where it can be discussed. However, 1 am prompted to say a few words, and I shall be brief. When I heard the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) rise to participate in the discussion of this motion, as well as the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), I was reminded of what we have seen from this government so often in the short period of time 1 have been in the House. There are so many discrepancies in what they say across the country. We find the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) making statements to the media condemning the opposition for exercising its right to express its views in this chamber. We find him putting the blame on us for a very sad event which took place last night in the city of Ottawa. All members of the chamber extend their sympathies to the wife and child of the police officer who was killed, but I think one of the lowest things an individual can do in this society is to attempt to put the blame for an incident like this on a select group of individuals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I deeply regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but it has been the long-standing practice of the House that statements made outside the House are not introduced into the House for debate. It seems to me that since we have started the debate this afternoon we have been discussing a statement made outside the House. I must at this time inform hon. members that motion No. 10 is before the House for debate, and I would ask the hon. member to direct his remarks to that motion.


Peter Elzinga: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker, but I must say that I am somewhat puzzled. I sat in my seat and listened to the debate this afternoon, which prompted me to contribute some remarks, and I am puzzled that Your Honour sees fit to correct me when I have not extended my participation to the bounds of some other members. But 1 will return to motion No. 10.
Here, again, we find that what the government hopes to do is regulate by order in council. We would appreciate these regulations being brought before the chamber. I think that in a good many ways this amendment will correct the hypocrisy which this government so often shows to the people of Canada. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) stated that last night's incident probably would not have occurred had this government not seen fit to abolish capital punishment. I believe it to be a deterrent. I would be curious to know the position, now, of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) and whether her position on that very important topic has changed since she entered the cabinet.
Criminal Code


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Why should it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member again, and I would ask for the indulgence of all hon. members. We are all aware of last night's incident and we all deplore what happened, but again I must remind the hon. member that the House is debating motion No. 10. I would ask him to direct his remarks to that motion.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have heard your judgment and I have great respect for it. I think members on this side of the House would like to focus upon motion No. 10, but in view of the very serious nature of the charge that was made, whether inside or outside the House, the fact remains that it concerns members who are inside the House. The matter can be dispensed with very simply by the Minister of Justice apologizing to the members he charged, I think in a most brutal way, and then we can go on with motion No. 10.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair might explain at this time why it was so tolerant at the beginning. I listened to hon. members making remarks on last night's incident and on the so-called statement, which the Chair has not been made aware of, but having heard several speeches I noted that the matter was becoming a debate. This is why the Chair intervened at this point. I would ask hon. members to debate motion No. 10. On that ground 1 cannot recognize the hon. member's point of order.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your ruling. I will respectfully sit down, since what I have to say does not pertain to motion No. 10. What I shall do is find a motion to which my comments do pertain, and I shall participate in the debate a little later.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this motion which makes reference to a peace officer. I thought the highest peace officer in the land was the minister of justice, at least during the time he holds his portfolio. In deference to Your Honour's ruling, may I say that I was one of those named last night as contributing to the death of the unfortunate police officer. 1 just want to say that the minister should in the House repeat what he said, so we can debate whether or not the statement he made last night falls within the purview of this legislation. I suggest that the minister was talking about the legislation and was suggesting we should not continue to discuss it because by doing so we will contribute to homicide and other such crimes. I would add that so far as the amendment is concerned it is a modest one which will clarify and make more reasonable the reporting of incidents to peace officers as required under the act.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I say, on this motion, that it is obvious that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) must have some responsibility for the regulations which will be brought forward pursuant to the legislation. If I may add to what members said earlier this

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
afternoon, one can only wonder how much responsibility will be exhibited by the Minister of Justice, who holds a very special portfolio by virtue of his office, when regulations are brought in from time to time, in view of the type of incident which has aroused the wrath of parliament and which has been discussed here this afternoon. As far as I and my colleagues are concerned, no member has the right to reflect upon speeches made in this Elouse. For the minister to go outside the House, as he did, and name members and impute motives to them for speaking in the House of Commons on legislation, and on the very type of subject that we are discussing at this moment, is reprehensible.
The minister has talked about taking the advice of the police. I would remind the House, as others have, that when it suits the minister to take the advice of the police for his own political purposes, he does so. The minister says we must have this kind of power in order to facilitate law enforcement. That is fine, Mr. Speaker, but in concluding I would remind the minister that when the police literally pleaded with him not to abolish capital punishment, he did not seek to follow their advice. As a matter of fact, he ignored it. So the minister cannot have it both ways. He follows the advice of the police when it suits him politically to do so. When it does not, he seeks to ignore their advice.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


William Gordon Ritchie: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 5 and 6 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"or abandoned, does not within a reasonable time"-
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment of form to make more practical what has been a desirable event, that guns which are stolen or abandoned should be reported. How-

ever, to report "forthwith" means "immediately". I presume that could be at two o'clock in the morning or four o'clock in the morning, even if the person is 100 miles from a police station. The person would be derelict if he did not rush for the 100 miles and report that a weapon had been stolen.
Substituting "reasonable time" would be something people would understand. In the long run it would have the same effect. To always present civilians with statements like, "If you do not reply, you are subject to a fine", or, "If you do not do this, you are liable to imprisonment", only breeds in the ordinary person a disrespect for the law, and sometimes fear. The terminology is slightly better and slightly less authoritative. It does not detract from the fact that the reporting should be done. There will be better compliance with the law by individuals if this useful amendment is accepted.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the bill as originally submitted to committee used the word "forthwith", as the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) has pointed out. However, the amendment he has moved was moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) in committee. I moved an amendment in committee, as well, that it read "with reasonable dispatch". The hon. member for Calgary North, the official justice critic of the Conservative party, withdrew his amendment, which is the amendment now on the floor, in favour of mine. The two phrases, "within reasonable time" and "within reasonable dispatch" in law mean the same thing. The only merit to the phrase "within reasonable dispatch" is that it is consistent with other provisions of the Criminal Code. It seems to me that this amendment should commend itself to the colleagues of the hon. member for Calgary North.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Ritchie) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House will move to consideration of motion No. 13.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, motion 13 was debated yesterday.


William Gordon Ritchie: Motion No. 15.
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
July 12, 1977

clause 3 by striking out line 16 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"information, except details concerning the makes or serial numbers of
shotguns or rifles of a type, kind or design commonly used in Canada for
hunting or sporting purposes, as is prescribed by the".
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 29 to 36 at page 25.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on motions Nos. 15 and 16. Motion No. 16 relates to section 103( 1 )(d), which reads as follows:
-mail a copy of the record and inventory relating to restricted weapons to the commissioner or to any person authorized by subsection 106.2(5) to issue a permit to carry on the business in accordance with any request in writing made by the commissioner or any such person.
They are being asked to keep inventories of the number of firearms they have, and to keep a record of transactions which take place. This record and inventory must be produced for inspection at the request of any police officer, police constable or other person authorized by regulation. In addition, it is being recommended that subparagraph (d) be removed. Prohibited weapons would include all hand guns with the exception of some air pistols. This has been a matter of record for some time. As far as registered guns are concerned, the system has been to make a registration, and the registration carries the documentation for the gun which is kept by the person. There is also a record kept by the store, the agent, the gunsmith or whoever may be running the business. This would also involve a collector. He is required to keep in a safe place a record of those guns. If a police officer asks for that record, it will contain such things as the time, the day, the name, the address, the type of weapon and the serial number of the weapon.
This matter was left with the gun shop or the gun agent, and it seems to me it was a fairly satisfactory way of operating as there is seldom any need for this information unless a question arises concerning stolen guns or guns used for an illegal purpose. If we made them restricted weapons, some collectors and museums would still be able to have them, as provided for in other parts of the bill. We would need a larger bureaucracy to deal with the information sent in from gun shops, which would probably be fed into a computer and made available to all police agencies in this country and to Interpol. This clause indicates that a business is not only one that deals in restricted weapons, but also one that is involved in the manufacturing, buying or selling wholesale or retail, or in importing ammunition. The clause requires that records shall be kept of transactions with respect to such weapons or firearms in a form prescribed by the commissioner, and then goes on to indicate that ammunition is included.
In northern Ontario we have a large tourist industry, and it has been one of the perks of good Conservatives who run grocery stores or an outfitters operations to sell licences for hunting partridge, deer and moose. Usually they sell the licences and the ammunition, small shotgun shells for duck
Criminal Code
hunting, and two or three kinds of shells for bear hunting, as well as .22 ammunition. It is a fairly lucrative business. The goods are easy to store, but if they have to keep records and report periodically, there will not be much advantage.


Stanley Ronald Basford: You are misreading the bill.


William Arnold Peters: Maybe, but it seems to me that if they have to send in records relative to restricted weapons, they will probably have to do it for other weapons and ammunition as well. None of these small stores has facilities for safe keeping, but I do not think anybody goes in to steal ammunition. I only know of a few instances of theft of ammunition. Usually there is a break-in for another reason, and ammunition is just picked up.
I am concerned when guns are not kept in a safe place in stores. For that reason I am very happy about the regulations which mean Canadian Tire, Eaton's, Simpson's and such stores will no longer display guns on the counter like a bargain in shirts or sweaters. That is just asking for trouble. It is surprising the number of guns that are stolen at Canadian Tire stores-sometimes by the staff, but mostly because somebody just picks them up. I think if you went into a hardware store and asked for centre-fired .38 shells, you would get some pretty strange looks, because they are obviously for a revolver and there is small call for such ammunition as most collectors and gun clubs do their own loading. What we are really talking about is limitation of shotgun shells and hunting rifle shells.
If all this reporting is required, it will put some people out of business. Maybe that is a good idea. I think there is merit in hardware stores selling guns, because they are equipped to do it and have staff who know something about guns. Some time ago I bought a 303 sporting rifle for $25 at Simpson's in Toronto. That can be a pretty powerful gun, depending on the type of ammunition used with it. They had hundreds of them, and anybody could walk out with an armful because, of course, they cannot be wrapped. Maybe we should limit their sale and the sale of ammunition. But we should not limit it to the point that everyone has to report every time they sell a box of shells, shotgun shells or 12, 16 or 20-gauge shot for birds. That should not be restricted. The minister may not even intend to restrict it, but he has left it up to the commissioner and the commissioner will damn well want to do that. He will want to have the whole thing under his jurisdiction, because it will mean more work, more employees and, therefore, a higher grade in the civil service.
I am being realistic. I know that if you get more work, you have more people under you. Hasn't every member of parliament found that out? It seems to me that is what the commissioner will do. So I support the withdrawal of the provision requiring the reporting of ammunition. I would like to hear the minister indicate what he thinks of the system we now use for registering prohibited guns, fully automatic rifles, Thompson sub-machine guns, Bren machine-guns, in operating condition. The gunsmith enters each transaction involving such guns in

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
his books. He records the time and place of the sale, and he has the signatures. The inspector is allowed to look at the book at any time.
My colleague and I were in a gun shop the other day. I asked the gunsmith how many guns he had sold and he told me that he never counted them. But he showed me the book and asked me how far I wanted to go back, two or three years. If an inspector wanted to see when a certain transaction took place, he would see the time a gun was bought or sold recorded in the book and the serial number of the gun. The information is all down there. If that information were to be sent to the commissioner, he would establish a key punch operator and other people necessary to put the information into a computer. One day we will have computer tapes coming out of our ears. Instead of getting a report, we will get computer tapes.
I honestly believe that we will have problems in registering ammunition. There is no question that ammunition is dangerous, but I have not heard of anybody except very small kids taking gunpowder out of ammunition and making a bomb out of it. 1 have not heard of other people doing that. Ammunition is only involved in the use of guns. We are establishing control over gun transactions; therefore I do not think we need to control ammunition. If we get to the point where all transactions are made through the commissioner and are registered periodically, we will be heading toward the proposition which I believe is at the back of the minister's mind, that all guns be confiscated and eliminated. Surely that is not what this bill intends, and it is not what I wish accomplished. So I hope the minister can indicate that he does not wish to have all these transactions recorded. I would like him to tell us whether the system used for prohibited weapons has been adequate.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has been speaking with reference to the copy of the bill as introduced to the House at first reading, rather than the bill we are dealing with at report stage, because considerable amendments have been made in this regard in committee. The hon. member referred to the reporting requirements which in the initial bill applied to the sale not only of restricted weapons but of firearms generally. The provision was amended in committee to make the reporting requirement in substance exactly the same as it is at present in the Criminal Code, section 96(1), where a dealer carrying on the business of restricted weapons shall, among other things, send a copy of the record to the commisioner in accordance with any request. So the substance of the provision in the bill before us is precisely the same as in the present Criminal Code.
The point made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was that the requirement for reporting an inventory of long guns to the commissioner was unnecessary. I and the RCMP agreed with the hon. member, and therefore it seemed that the amendments proposed to correct that situation and return to the existing language in the Criminal Code, which only relates to restricted weapons, was agreeable to all members of the committee and the amendment before us is no longer necessary.

The hon. member raised the question of the small dealer. There is no requirement for reporting by a small dealer of ammunition. What is provided is simply that he must report any stolen ammunition. He does not have to report his inventory of ammunition. He simply has to keep his ammunition in accordance with the safe storage requirements as set out. I gather that the hon. member agrees with that. So I suggest that we have met the points raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray)-Energy-Oil- Suggestion extra revenue be placed in fund to be used only for exploration; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Canada-Proposed committee investigation of allegation large number of employees want to leave Quebec; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Information-Possibility of legislation to provide citizens with right of access to government files.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two about this amendment and to discuss in a general way the problem of the registration requirement on small dealers in particular. I question the value of this registration. It seems to me that we are supporting thereby the concept that everything should be recorded. It seems to me that we must be realistic. As we know, small business is beset with innumerable papers, questionnaires, records, and so on. I suggest that this information does not need to be sent to the commissioner. In my experience, small dealers receive demands from StatsCan and from this and that department. If
July 12, 1977

you are a professional, you receive demands for information from your professional organizations, so that the problem of keeping records is large.
I would say that most records are not well kept because people get annoyed and do not bother with keeping records. In the United States, President Ford set up a task force to look into the matter of record-keeping and to see if something could not be done for small business in this respect. I see little point in this provision. It is fine on paper, but we forget the great amount of work involved for small business in keeping records.
If there is to be no supervision of these records, how well will they be kept? Records are only valuable if they are properly kept. There is an old saying to the effect that there are three kinds of statistics: good ones, bad ones, and plain lies.
I suspect many of the records which will be kept by dealers will fall into the latter category, because there does not seem to be any method of seeing that good records are kept. When a police officer is investigating a case involving a gun, he will want to know where it was purchased and he will probably go to gun dealers, but with changes in personnel, and that sort of thing, I wonder how effective the records of gun dealers will be. 1 think this is an added burden and probably very little will come out of it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Although the two motions were grouped for debate, the votes will have to be separated. Therefore, the question is on motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is now on motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Criminal Code


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Douglas Charles Neil: Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 29 to 34 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) handle, store, display any restricted weapon or firearm in a manner that
contravenes any regulation made by the Governor in Council pursuant to
paragraph 106.8(a); or"-
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments in connection with motion No. 17. Basically, it would delete the word "advertise" in subsection 6(a) as well as the word "ammunition". The amendment also refers to regulations. 1 spoke earlier today, as well as yesterday, about regulations so I will not repeat my comments in that regard. I can understand the need for regulations with respect to the handling, storing and displaying of any restricted weapon or firearm, but I question the regulation of advertising for the simple reason that every time a merchant wishes to advertise, both he and the editor of the newspaper will have to examine the advertising very carefully in order to assure themselves that it falls within the regulations. I think this is a burden which should not be placed upon either the newspaper or the merchant. That is why I ask that the word "advertise" be stricken from this section.
1 listened with interest to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) when he spoke about ammunition. Ammunition is handled by many small stores. It never really creates any problems, as the hon. member said. Ammunition is very seldom stolen. If it is, it is usually stolen by youngsters. I can see no need for regulations with respect to the advertising of ammunition or with respect to the handling or storing of ammunition, because if you go into any country store in the west you will find that almost every merchant carries on his shelves ammunition, whether it be .22 ammunition or shotgun shells, particularly in the fall when people go duck hunting, goose hunting or hunting for upland game. I do not believe ammunition should be subject to regulation, because it does not create a hazard. If it is subject to regulation, merchants,

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
particularly small merchants, will be faced with one more government regulation in the operation of their businesses. For these reasons I ask that my amendment be accepted. I ask that the word "advertise" and the word "ammunition" be removed from subsection 6(a).


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). I deplore the continued extension of this government by regulation. But apart from that, there should be some explanation of what is wrong with advertising. Whether restricted weapons have to be treated in the same way as prohibited weapons is a moot point, but even accepting that, some weapons, which are products, may have certain virtues which other products do not have within their class. Restricted weapons are not prohibited. They can be used. They are marketable commodities. Why cannot we have some advertising to make the public aware of the relative merits of these commodities? What harm will that do? Why does the minister think he has to run everything in this country? I know my friends in the New Democratic Party probably do not agree with the idea or the worth of advertising, but surely everybody else in this chamber recognizes its merits and the fact that it can aid in the development of our economy and in the development of better products for the use of consumers.
I also agree with my colleague's remarks about ammunition, because surely the operative thing is the weapon, and if we have proper controls over weapons-not that I believe there is anything in this bill which will improve the situation-ammunition is perfectly harmless without a mechanism with which to discharge it. I believe there is a great deal of merit in my hon. colleague's motion and I urge hon. members to support it.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, 1 spoke about ammunition. The minister raised two interesting points. The other day he caught me without having read one of the amendments. I have the reprint of the bill as amended and reported by the standing committee, so I have the right one. The minister protests about ammunition not being included, but it is included in this subsection. A gun without ammunition is not dangerous. You cannot use a gun without ammunition, or ammunition without a gun. They are used together.
It is true that the governor in council will impose restrictions by regulation, but I do not think it is accurate to say that restrictions would apply merely to the selling of weapons because you must consider, as well, the sale of ammunition. Proposed section 103(1) concerns people involved in the manufacturing, buying or selling at wholesale or retail, etc., of restricted weapons, and subsection (2) speaks of lost, mislaid or stolen weapons. Clearly, you must report a commercial transaction as well as the lose of a firearm. I raise this point because I am concerned about what will happen to the little store, to the little guy who sells ammunition. These small commercial outlets will need to be licensed and we shall need to go to a great deal of trouble to licence them all. Frankly, I do not think it is possible to control every sale or transaction
[Mr. Neil.)
involving ammunition, because ammunition is bootlegged in hunting caps, and so on. Therefore, we are kidding ourselves if we think we can enforce every such regulation the governor in council will make.
1 am not particularly worried about the advertising of restricted weapons in magazines. Most magazines devoted to hunting or fishing advertise guns, ammunition, fishing tackle, etc. You will see such advertisements in Rod and Gun and Fish and Game. The Winchester gun bible advertises guns-


An hon. Member:: Do they really call it that?


William Arnold Peters: Yes. You will see gun advertisements in various catalogues known as hunters' bibles. I see no objection to weapons being advertised in such magazines. They are mainly sales magazines for hunting buffs. Half of their content is devoted to fishing tackle, to all kinds of rods, worms, flies, and so on. The other half is devoted to guns and ammunition, to what size of shot you need if you are duck hunting, or what equipment you must use on moose, deer, bears and other animals. Magazine articles talk about the number of grains per charge, muzzle velocity and mention all those topics of interest to the professional hunter. Such magazines are aimed at a narrow segment of the public, a segment interested in hunting and fishing. 1 see no difficulty concerning advertising in such magazines. I suggest it is nonsense to prohibit the advertising of guns but to permit the advertising of ammunition, because the ammunition is no good without the gun, and vice-versa. Therefore, you must control neither, or both. 1 point out that the last words of the proposed amendment read:
-any regulation made by the governor in council pursuant to paragraph 106.8(a).
Paragraph 106.8(a) sets out the regulations. Clearly, the governor in council can make any regulation he wishes. Therefore, there will be no great difficulty regulating ammunition or guns. But I fail to see the purpose of restricting advertising if you are going to allow small stores to handle ammunition. Hand guns, of course, are in the prohibited class, but in my area-perhaps it is different in other parts of the country- you will see hardware stores displaying two or three .38s or perhaps a .45 Magnum long hand gun in the window.
There is nothing wrong with this. The stores do not sell those guns to everybody. Before you buy a gun you must get a permit from the police. Then you must get a permit to carry it, and you must get a permit from the attorney general of Ontario to use it for hunting. Frankly, I see no reason for restricting advertising. What difference would such restrictions make? I think we are just kidding ourselves if we think restrictions on advertising will do any good. If we countenance regulations which affect hunting and the sale of ammunition to hunters, we shall eliminate from business a lot of small people who handle ammunition and sell guns. If that is the government's intention, it should say so and give us a chance either to agree or disagree with its position. As things stand, I am not sure what it intends; therefore I shall come down on the side of my inclination and opt for a provision not overly restrictive.
July 12, 1977

I concede that the regulations will be beneficial. Mr. Speaker, I am not worried about the effect of the restrictions on those who know what they are doing. The restrictions will affect those who sell guns over the counter as bargains, in a totally uncontrolled manner, those who sell guns to any and all, who have no interest in the gun, know nothing about it, and do not care about the intentions of the person buying the gun. I submit this bill already contains sufficient power to regulate. We do not need to be so restrictive as to squeeze out those engaged in the normal course of commerce, especially in northern Canada where people's attitudes to the use of guns are different from the attitudes in urban centres.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 17 standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The House will now proceed to motions Nos.
18	and 19 which are grouped for debate but which are to be voted on separately.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a record which 1 am trying to keep. May I ask the numbers of the last two motions on which we voted?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Motions Nos. 16 and 17. The last question put was on motion No. 17.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The reason I ask is because my motion No.
19	is exactly the same as that of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), motion No. 25. I prefer the hon. member for Moose Jaw to speak on it rather than myself because he is more knowledgeable on this subject.
Criminal Code


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I understand and we will deal with motion No. 18, and motion No. 19 is now being withdrawn. Is that correct?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: If that is the wish of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), motion No. 19 will be withdrawn. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 19 (Mr. Woolliams) withdrawn.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 24 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"to the applicant within 15 days of the receipt by the firearms officers of both
the aforementioned application and further information required under subsection (8)."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to amend the bill in order to require a person receiving an application for firearms acquisition certificate to make a decision within a reasonable period of time. My amendment asks that the official make that decision within 15 days.
The firearms acquisition certificate is the keystone of this bill. It is required by those wishing to purchase certain types of firearms, a much enlarged category as a result of the government's proposal in this regard, and will affect many hundreds of thousands of citizens. It will result in the establishment of a much larger bureaucracy.
We know how the bureaucrats work, if I can use that term. In many cases it is questionable whether they do work. In any event a great number of people are experiencing an ever-increasing amount of delay in having their requests dealt with by governments at all levels.
As long as we have governments like the present one which wants to encroach further and further into the lives and activities of decent, law-abiding citizens, we will have more and more bureaucrats dealing with the reasonable requests of these people. The bureaucrats will say that they are overburdened because there are too many applications to be dealt with. They will make all sorts of excuses for delaying legitimate requests.
Something should be written into this law to require these officials to exercise their duties within a reasonable period of time. When an application for a firearms acquisition certificate is made, it should be dealt with within 15 days. I am open to suggestions of a reasonable nature as to whether that time limit is appropriate. I feel it is. If you require a firearm, you want it before the hunting season is over so that you can enjoy the benefits of that part of the country in which you live. Otherwise, you will have to wait until the next season.
One criticism of this bill is that it is very restrictive for the large majority of Canadians who wish to enjoy the benefits of

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
this country. That is one of the great advantages of Canada, that it is spacious. There are large recreational facilities for hunting and the like. However, it will be much more heavily regulated by the federal government as a result of its reaction to very emotional concerns.
We are dealing with this as a matter of emotion rather than looking at the practicalities. As much practicality as possible should be built into this legislation. I know that it would be very difficult because this legislation is impractical from beginning to end. Nevertheless, wherever we can, we should try to do this. I suggest a time limit on these people so that the ordinary citizen can exercise his legal right and force them to act within a reasonable time. I urge the House to give serious consideration to accepting my motion No. 18 to amend this particular clause.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of this amendment which deals with a most important aspect of the bill, presuming that the legislation will aid in the prevention of homicides. Most of this prevention would be as a result of control officers being aware of an applicant fo- a gun certificate who may be unstable, have a criminal record or some such thing. I suspect that a criminal would not apply for a certificate. He would obtain a gun in the same way he has always done.
There may be an occasional applicant who is mentally unbalanced. Speaking from my experience, if I had to decide as to whether such a person should have a gun certificate, I do not know if 1 could make a very good guess. Many people might be suspected of being unstable, but they get along pretty well in society, staying out of trouble.
If the legislation is to have any value at all, the government will have to depend on the actions and judgment of those who are issuing these certificates. But there is nothing here to specify the time available in which they can make up their minds when a person who applies for a certificate will get one. Suppose these officials are uncertain whether to issue a certificate or not. Will they spin out time by making up some bureaucratic excuse, allowing the applicant to wait indefinitely? There should certainly be some means whereby the officials, or the minister, will be required to make up their minds within a certain period whether a person should receive a certificate or not.
It may be that a period of two weeks is not sufficient. If the case has to be investigated, it might take some time for information to be gathered from outlying areas. Nevertheless, a time limit of some sort ought to be set. My hon. friend from Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) has told us that he is easy about the precise extent of that time limit. The minister might consider some other period. I suspect that in most instances of bureaucratic delay applicants are kept waiting because a decision is not altogether easy to make, because it might turn out badly, because it is in a dicey area and events might reflect on the judgment of those concerned. Nevertheless, somebody has to make decisions, and all this amendment says is that within a

reasonable period of time the official must give an applicant a yes or no answer and that, if he does not, the citizen concerned should have recourse to the law to demand that such an answer be given.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue which was examined very thoroughly in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. There are really two sides to it-whether there should be a legislated minimum period before which no certificate can be issued, or whether there should be a legislated maximum period within which a certificate must be issued, or at any rate within which the application must be decided.
After careful consideration, both points of view were rejected by the committee and the bill was left as it is. The hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne), who has been active in committee, and in whose riding there have been four impulse murders in the recent past, pushed very hard for a minimum period. Other members pushed for a maximum period. I think things are best left as they are. The design of the scheme is such that the requirements of the scheme act as an effective cooling off period as a means of helping to prevent impulse murders; people would not be able to buy a gun on impulse with the intention of using it against themselves or others. The administrative procedures would be worked out by the chief provincial firearms officers to be responsive to the public need.
In cases where the application form itself or the computer check shows no information which is adverse to the applicant,
I am content that a certificate can be issued quickly. But if there is some adverse material in the criminal record to check, or if the applicant has undergone mental treatment in connection with symptoms of violence, it might not be possible to issue a certificate within a 15-day period; there might be a number of factors which the licensing officer would wish to consider and a good deal of information which he might want in his possession before making a decision. If a statute of limitation were placed upon the period I am sure that, in administrative terms, the result would be that if there were any adverse information whatsoever affecting an application, rather than take a risk the licensing officer would simply say no within the required period, though if examined thoroughly the material available would enable the officer, given time, to grant the certificate. I think that would create a hardship for people who might, upon close examination of their applications, be entitled to own a firearm.


William Gordon Ritchie: Would the minister permit a question? Is there any way in which an applicant can seek recourse in the event of no decision being reached? Is there any way he can get a yes or no answer to his application?


Stanley Ronald Basford: If the licensing officer were refusing to make a decision at all, I think the person affected could make an application for a writ of mandamus to require him to make a decision.
July 12, 1977


William Arnold Peters: Whatever that big word may mean, that is not likely to happen to some joker who simply wants to buy a gun to go hunting. He is not likely, I can tell you, to apply for mandamus, or whatever it is.
I do not disagree with what the minister has said. He comes from the city. He goes to his firearms officer-maybe there are two or three of them in Vancouver-and that officer will make a decision because he has access to the computer and to the other records he needs. Maybe he will reach a decision within a reasonable period of time.
But has the minister ever considered what is likely to happen in Frobisher Bay or New Liskeard or in Kirkland Lake? I know where an applicant up there will have to go. He will have to make his application to one of the RCMP officers in the area, probably the only officer there, who has more work than he can handle. He will certainly not be well acquainted with all the firearm regulations, and he is not likely to stick his neck out very far. If anyone files an application, unless there is some provision in the legislation it could take months and months to consider it. After all, there is no computer in the police detachment, so the officer would have to go somewhere else to get the information. Then a letter will have to be written. I see the minister shaking his head, but he has never been to Alert, Frobisher Bay, or other small communities like that.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that both Frobisher Bay and Kirkland Lake have immediate access to CPIC the computer?


William Arnold Peters: No, I did not know that. If that is so I still fail to understand why there is a delay when someone registers a gun today. It can take anywhere from two days to months, it all depends. Gun collectors are sometimes able to register guns straight away; on other occasions it takes longer. When it takes longer I assume they have to write away to Toronto and wait for a reply.
In my part of the country, registering a prohibited weapon can take up to two or three months. Sometimes you have to leave the gun when you register, and some of these guns are valuable. I have known guns to be lost in police stations. The guns are not registered under federal law but with the provincial police. Perhaps they register it through the RCMP, but it does take a long time. This is why there should be some indication in the bill whether it will be the RCMP or some other force, and whether they have access to the computer. I agree with the minister about the guy in Vancouver and the guy in downtown Toronto. The firearms officials in those cities will probably be working at their jobs full time.
It is difficult in my part of the country to get a permit when you take a gun which is a prohibited weapon down to the police officer. The permit takes some time to obtain and the gun is left there for a period of time. Perhaps the problem cannot be solved, but it is one that occurs throughout the bill. It is my guess that the way to handle the question in rural areas is not the same as the way it is handled in urban areas.
Criminal Code
In Kirkland Lake there is one corporal and two staff officers of the RCMP, and perhaps some undercover agents, and they may handle it differently.
Nevertheless there should be some kind of redress, such as an appeal. If the registration is not completed within 15 days, a person should be able to ask why not. I do not believe you should have to apply for a writ of mandamus, or whatever it is; you should be able to ask what the reason is for the delay. Surely the act provides some discretion and the officers should be asked face to face why the application is taking so long. If the officers have reason to suspect an applicant, he should be able to tell them that it was his twin brother who was in jail, not him. This bill does not give any assurance that applications in remote areas will be dealt with expeditiously.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, may I make a few brief comments in support of this motion, which requires the commissioner or the person issuing a licence to make a decision within 15 days. I do not think that is unreasonable. The minister spoke about a cooling off period, preventing murders and so on. It seems to me he also spoke about computers determining whether an individual has a criminal record. I had always thought the purpose of a computer was to make material available speedily; you simply pushed the buttons and out came the information.
If everything is computerized, it seems to me that requiring the issuer of licences to make up his mind within 15 days places no real burden upon him. If an issuer of a firearms acquisition certificate disliked a particular individual but really had no reason to turn down his application, he could delay the licence indefinitely. It seems to me that this is a perfectly legitimate amendment which requires an officer to issue a certificate within 15 days. If he does not do so, then the applicant has the redress of an appeal. However, if we leave the bill as submitted by the government, some people might have to wait for weeks or months before getting a firearms acquisition certificate. As I say, I support this motion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order which is related to a discussion held earlier with respect to the holding of deferred votes on Bill C-51. As I understand it, our consultations have yielded the consensus that we take whatever votes have been deferred as the first order of government business tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
It being six o'clock p.m. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House will now move to motion No. 20 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie).


William Gordon Ritchie: Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 33 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"(i) to protect life or property,".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise objection to the way this provision is drawn by the minister and suggest to him that by adding the word "property" he will have a better bill. It seems logical that when these permits are issued they are to be issued to people in order that they may be in possession of a firearm in the event of attacks by humans, or in the odd case by animals such as bears and so on.
However the minister has not made a provision for property. For example, a farmer who has a field of grain would not be issued with a licence in order to protect his crop from being eaten by deer. Even though it would be permissible under the provincial games act to protect his property by chasing them off in some way, he would not be able to get a gun because his life is not at stake. The minister seems to have the idea that he will protect him, but that man could starve to death during the winter. Many questions can be raised about this narrow definition of protecting life.
There will be very few permits issued. The farmer's property is his means of income and livelihood. If there is a threat to it, such as some person threatening to burn his place down, under this act he would not be able to obtain a firearm for protection.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]


An hon. Member:: He cannot get a restricted weapon.


William Gordon Ritchie: He still would not be able to get whatever is necessary to protect himself. If it is necessary to have a restricted weapon in order to protect life, then it is just as necessary on some occasions to have a weapon to protect property. In western law it was always said that the worst thing you could do was steal a man's horse-it was worse than murder because without his horse he was doomed.
I think this amendment would give us a better bill. There will be lots of times when it will be difficult to decide between life and property, and if someone wants to adhere rigidly to the provision of "life only" then very few permits will be issued. Maybe that is what the minister wants. If you need to protect life you must also give consideration to whether you want to protect property.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in support of this amendment. The Criminal Code at present covers the protection of life or property, so I wonder why this bill has excluded the protection of property. I appreciate that this refers to a restricted weapon but, as far as I know, the system has worked well over the years. There has been no problem as far as registration of restricted weapons is concerned. It seems to me that in many cases it is as important to protect property as to protect life.
I should like to ask the minister if he is prepared to explain why Section 97(2)(a) of the Criminal Code reads "to protect life or property" while the proposed revision reads only "to protect life".


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the bill is quite simple. I recognize that the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) is endeavouring to be constructive but, with respect, I think he misunderstands it.
Formely under the Criminal Code a person could be issued a carrying permit for sidearms for the protection of life or property. Under the proposed bill a permit would only be issued to carry or wear sidearms for the protection of life. Police authorities across the country have said, and we believe, that protection of property with firearms is not a desirable thing. People trying to protect themselves and their property with sidearms are usually more of a menace to themselves than to an intruder. We have all read over and over again the advice that the police give, that if someone breaks into your house the best thing you can do is keep perfectly quiet.


Douglas Charles Neil: And let him shoot you.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In certain places it is necessary for people to carry sidearms. I have ordered that permits for sidearms be issued in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to prospectors, geologists, wildlife inspectors and other people likely to come into contact with dangerous animals.
July 12, 1977

Where the hon. member is confused, I think, is that this relates to sidearms only and not to long arms. Obviously the person concerned about his crops being eaten by deer or other predators, or someone concerned about trespassers on his property, is better off with a long gun which can usually be shot more accurately and is safer to use and more effective against the predator.
I would ask the hon. member to study this provision rather carefully. It relates only to sidearms and has nothing to do with shotguns or rifles. If one is protecting property or crops I think the long gun is the more desirable weapon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the minister a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) has the floor, but I will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) on a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the minister said this does not relate to sidearms but relates to shotguns and rifles.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the minister if it should happen that someone comes into your home unlawfully, do you then have to decide whether to protect your life or your property?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I say very strongly, and every police officer in the country will say very strongly, that people who think they are going to protect themselves in their homes with a sidearm are foolish. They are better off being protected by the police. If they insist on having some arms they are better off with a long gun.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would answer a further question. Many crimes have been committed in Calgary that I assume are duplicated in other cities, where a housewife is home alone, perhaps taking a shower before going to a tea or to the hairdresser, and someone breaks in and the housewife is not only raped but in many cases loses her life. Does she have a chance to get the police? Are the police in the front room while she is in the bathroom?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in the United States, where hand guns are more readily available than in Canada, statistics indicate that housewives protecting themselves with handguns have a higher incidence of accidents to themselves by having no idea how to use handguns.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, the response given by the minister would lead one to believe that the intention is eventually to get rid of all restricted weapons. He talks about carrying a side-arm. This section does more than refer to carrying sidearms; it refers to a person being able to have a sidearm in his possession. I have a pistol in my possession and I have a permit, a registration certificate. If I had to establish that the reason
Criminal Code
that I have that weapon in my possession is to protect my life,
I would probably have to turn it in to the police. If the minister is saying that this only refers to people carrying sidearms, then it refers to restricted weapons, which is more than revolvers because it covers automatic weapons as well. I do not think the minister has read the bill.
A restricted weapon, according to the definition in the bill
is:
a)	Any firearm, not being a prohibited weapon, designed, altered or intended to be aimed and fired by the action of one hand,
b)	Any firearm that
(i)	is not a prohibited weapon, has a barrel that is less than eighteen and one half inches in length and is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner, or
(ii)	is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than twenty-six inches by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or
c)	Any firearm that is designed, altered or intended to fire bullets in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger and that, on the day which this paragraph comes into force, was registered as a restricted weapon and forms part of a gun collection in Canada of a bona fide gun collector,
I question whether the minister has read the bill and understands what it is all about. We have had regulations and laws respecting restricted weapons for many years. There have been no real problems with respect to restricted weapons. What we ask for here is simply to leave the principle as it exists at present to allow a person to obtain a registration certificate if it is required to protect his life or, as the old code says, "or property".
It seems to me that what is attempted here is a gradual restriction of the ownership and use of firearms. I can see the minister looking at me through the curtains. He seems to be moving in and out as he feels like it. When things get hot, he moves out. I suggest there has been no problem at all with restricted weapons. The minister wants to make some problems with respect to the legislation. What I am saying is that the provisions as they stand right now are adequate. They will not prevent crimes from being committed. If a criminal wants to get a gun, he can get one, and no amount of gun legislation or restriction will prevent him from getting one.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the motion of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) because I cannot understand the priorities of the minister in this regard. As my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), has asked, what is wrong with the law as it is? I would like to read the clause we are dealing with. Starting at paragraph (3) it reads:
(c) is required by the applicant
(i)	to protect life,
We want to add "or property"
(ii)	for use in connection with his lawful profession or occupation,
If you can use it to protect your profession or occupation, you should be able to use it to protect your property because, after all, what is the purpose of a profession or occupation except to earn income, and property certainly is also to earn

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
income. Therefore it should be on the same basis and should be protected by the law.
The clause goes on to read:
(iii)	for use in target practice under the auspices of a shooting club approved for the purposes of this section by the Attorney General of the province in which the premises of the shooting club are located, or
(iv)	for use in target practice in accordance with conditions proposed to be attached to the permit to be issued in respect of the restricted weapon under subsection 106.2(1),
You can have this restricted weapon in your possession to protect life, to protect your profession or occupation, or to engage in target practice, but you cannot have it to protect your property. Where is the government's sense of priorities there? Why will it not leave the law as it is? Why does it have to take protection away in this area as well as interfere with the vast majority of our citizens' rights to enjoy the country in which they live? For the information of my learned friend from New Westminster let me say that they are not hand guns. They are restricted weapons. Hand guns are prohibited weapons.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, 1 am really concerned about this clause, and not so much about the explanations which have been very vague.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: That is right. I did not realize we were removing sections from the Criminal Code that affect hand guns because I am one of those who are very much opposed to people carrying hand guns for the protection of their life or property. If I had been on the committee I would have violently objected to the next clause, and I would have used exactly the same argument as used by the minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There were many times when there was no one from your party present in the committee.


William Arnold Peters: They should have been there. One of the things that really concerns me is that every Saturday night a chocolate soldier security guard can walk around carrying a gun. You would not hire him to wash your car, but you hire him as a two bit security officer and you give him a gun. He wanders up and down the street looking like a marshal from-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Montana.


William Arnold Peters: -some of the states such as Texas, New Mexico, or somewhere in that area. If the argument the minister has put forward is valid, it sure applies to these chocolate soldiers, Saturday night wonders protecting this and that, because I personally am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with the protection of hand guns under the Criminal Code. I would be surprised if this only applied to hand guns because I thought it applied to semi-automatics and to some other weapons as well. Whether or not it does, does not make a great deal of difference, but I believe that people should not have hand guns in their possession for the protection of life or property.

If you have a loaded hand gun in your night table drawer, you are very likely to shoot a member of the family. Every day you would think there would be somebody breaking in, and every day you would be scared of something else. It is my guess that you would shoot yourself in the foot, or you would do something else foolish with that bloody gun before you had it for very long in your dresser. If you want to be secure, throw it out because, in my opinion, it is dangerous, and I disapprove very much of people keeping hand guns. If you are going to carry a prohibited weapon-and that may involve a semiautomatic-and you are used to using a semi-automatic for other purposes, then I see no reason why you should not use that long gun, whether it be a semi-automatic or any other type of gun, to protect your property. This is really where differences of opinions among members show up.
When you are in a city and you possess a gun which you say is for protection, you are really saying it is for protection against your neighbour or against someone coming into your house, in other words it is to protect you against people. In my part of the country-and this applies probably to four fifths of the country-when we talk about protecting property, we talk about protecting cattle, horses or grain.


An hon. Member:: Or junk yards?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Or business premises?


William Arnold Peters: I suppose my friend thinks it is all right to protect your junk yard in the city and it is all right to protect your house with Doberman pinschers, which might kill somebody if they get the chance. Those dogs are trained to do that.
I do not agree with that. I do not think that is the purpose of guns, and it is certainly not a purpose I support.
However, if you have a number of sheep, you are going to be shooting your neighbour's dog. You will be shooting your neighbour's dog because he will be killing your sheep, and I think you have the right to do that. I am not good at operating hand guns, so I would not be trying to shoot anything at any distance. It is a pretty good shot with a hand gun who could hit a barn door at 20 feet. Anyone else is apt to hit anything but that door, and the police are no exception. They have some training, but they get excited, and they sometimes hit everything but what they are aiming at.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't buy that. Come on!


William Arnold Peters: My friend would not buy that, but I think it is a fact. That is why it is now being suggested that we use magnums for crowd control so that we can knock people down and take their backs out without hurting others. However, we will be lucky if we do not hurt others. The hon. member has been watching Kojak too long if he believes this is going to be valuable.
My friend, who is very much in favour of eliminating guns, has said nothing about removing them from every Tom, Dick and Harry who can be hired to protect people's property. That does not seem to me to be different from the grocer keeping a
July 12, 1977

gun in the till in his small corner grocery store. There are too many small grocers who have guns in their tills. Often it is not money people break into those stores for; it is to get guns. 1 do not see any difference between that and my going out and hiring a chocolate soldier to protect my property. Many of those people do not have any training, but I can pay them the minimum wage. Their intelligence is such that they cannot do very much other than wear a uniform. In many cases 1 suppose property would be better protected if these people were not hired.
I can see that there might be objection to the clause that says you can carry restricted weapons for use in connection with your lawful profession or occupation, or that you can hire people to protect yourself or your premises. It must be pure hell in this world if we say it is not good enough for us to have guns to protect our property but that those who have a little money can hire somebody to carry a gun to protect themselves. It appears that a master can hire a servant to be his bearer and to carry a gun and do his master's shooting for him. 1 do not really see that there is much difference.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There aren't many bears like that in Jasper.


William Arnold Peters: No, but I would not want to use a hand gun on a grizzly bear either. I would want to have something better than that, or I would be making tracks faster than the bear.
The minister has not justified the argument that we should not protect our property with sidearms, and I am one of those who do not believe we should be carrying hand guns to protect our property. On the other hand, the minister is saying that if you are rich enough to have a gun bearer, you can hire him and he will protect your property for you. Our priorities are mixed up, particularly when we claim to be democratic people. It might be better for us to carry our own guns and do our own dirty work than to hire somebody to do it.
We as a society have hired police forces to protect our cities. That is what we call civilization. We anticipate that the police are going to be able to do that job for us. If we hear somebody breaking into our houses, it is very wise to pick up the telephone and to phone the police, and hopefully they will arrive. However, I suggest that it is not in the interests of a modern urban society to have the right to carry guns for the purpose of protecting our lives or our property. If we agree with that, we must also agree that we should not be able to hire people to do what we cannot do ourselves.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest and some amusement to some of the remarks made by the minister and by some other hon. members tonight. On the advice and recommendation of members of the local police department in my constituency I had occasion to carry firearms for a considerable length of time and to be trained in their use. This is so with my wife and daughter as well. I also had a very fierce but precious dog at my home, and no one can tell me that we should change the Criminal Code at this stage and not allow firearms in homes,
Criminal Code
particularly where there have been incidents which indicate the requirement to protect life and property.
It seems to me that our lives and our property are part and parcel of our possessions in this world and, by golly, by doing this we are taking away a great deal from people who are licensed and who have certified firearms. I say this because of very cruel and desperate experiences. The police stayed in my house month after month to protect my wife and daughter, and all three of us were trained in the use of firearms. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has the audacity to say that no member of any police department in this country would recommend that. Policemen in my own constituency recommended it, and policemen from other cities told me that they would as well. I would like to hear someone in this House honestly say to the policemen in my city and in my constituency that they are wrong in doing so.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the last two speakers, particularly to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). It took him an awfully long time to tell us that he actually opposed the motion and supported the bill. I am pleased he did, but I do not know why it took so long to make his point because the point he was trying to make was fairly straightforward.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is a split in the NDP.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I would like to correct what seems to be a misunderstanding in this place about the law. You do not have the right to shoot trespassers in this country, and all of the people who think that by having a gun they are protecting themselves should know that the statistics overwhelmingly show that that simply escalates the rate of violence and encourages the criminal element to go to houses with guns. Many people have told me that "nobody is going to come into my house, or they are going to get a bullet between the eyes".
I can give an example of why this particular clause is so necessary. About a year ago in Vancouver a young fellow was trespassing in a junk yard, and he was shot dead by the proprietor of the junk yard. His justification was that he was protecting his property. No one knew whether the youngster was trying to steal anything, or whether he was simply there as a trespasser or a prankster. However, the man who killed him felt justified because the trespasser was coming upon his "sacred" property. The man who killed him felt that he had a sacred right to use his gun to protect that property. As long as that philosophy prevails in this House we will not reduce crime in this country; we will increase it.
As a citizenry are we going to arm ourselves against all of the forces out there to protect ourselves? I plead with hon. members around me to support their local police. They are pretty good. They will come to the rescue. They will protect our houses for us, and we do not need hand guns.

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question? Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. 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 Section (11) of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now consider motion No. 23 standing in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher).


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House may I withdraw this motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Does the House agree to allow the hon. member for Palliser to withdraw motion No.
23?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 23 (Mr. Schumacher) withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House will now consider motion No. 24, in the name of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie).


William Gordon Ritchie: Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3
(a)	by striking out line 44 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor: "are located;"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 3 at page 34 the following:
"(e) for the purpose of display at a showing or exhibition of restricted weapons; or
(J) in the case of a rifle or shotgun, for use connected with or incidental to hunting or other sporting activity,
and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, such permit authorizes
the holder thereof to transport a restricted weapon for the purpose of having it
repaired, maintained, altered or appraised."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister can see his way clear to accepting some of the changes 1 propose in my amendment. I suggest the minister has not produced evidence to show that the displaying of restricted weapons leads to difficulties. Most gun collectors act responsibly and can be trusted to act responsibly when transporting a restricted weapon for the purpose of having it repaired, maintained,

altered or appraised. It seems that the bill will cover almost all firearms under its restricted weapons definition.
If the bill says gun owners must obtain a permit every time they want to repair their guns, or have them repaired, I do not think gun owners will observe the provisions of this bill. In a practical way this bill will tend to make such owners and collectors transgressors, if not law breakers. I suggest the clause we are considering provides for unnecessary restrictions, under which it will be possible for people's guns to be taken away from them.
Many years ago I talked to someone from Germany who told me what life was like before Mr. Hitler came to power.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Corporal Hitler, you mean.


William Gordon Ritchie: This chap said you could not sleep in your bed at night for fear of molestation. After Hitler came to power this was set right. I guess 1 need not remind anyone what happened. The German people lost their right to possess weapons, but lost many other freedoms, too. Eventually, of course, Hitler dragged them into that calamitous military venture which ended in disaster. We are a free people, and if you make the restrictions too onerous you will defeat their purpose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 24 (Mr. Ritchie) negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House will now consider motions Nos. 25, 26 and 27, standing in the names of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) respectively. Is it agreed that the vote on motion No. 25 will also dispose of motions 26 and 27?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I put my two motions down I was not aware of the language of the motion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. 1 much prefer his motion to my two motions, and ask leave of the House to withdraw motions 26 and 27.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Palliser shall have leave to withdraw motions 26 and 27?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 26 (Mr. Schumacher) withdrawn.
Motion No. 27 (Mr. Schumacher) withdrawn.


;
t
1?


July 12, 1977


Douglas Charles Neil: Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 34 to 39 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"(9) Permits mentioned in subsections (1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) shall be issued without the payment of a fee."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) withdrew his motion concerning permits for an individual. My motion covers both permits for an individual and for one carrying on a business. I expect the hon. member for Calgary North will speak about permits for individuals, so I shall restrict my remarks to the fee that someone selling rifles and ammunition, and carrying on business, must pay for a licence or permit.
In my part of the country almost every corner store, every garage, sells rifles, ammunition and shotgun shells, especially when the hunting season is at its peak. You will see .22 calibre rifles in these establishments, shotguns, even rifles used for big game hunting. These dealers are licensed either by the province, municipality or city in which they carry on business. It seems to me that the many forms they are required to fill out, and licence fees they are required to pay, have become a great burden.
Remember, everyone who sells ammunition and rifles must pay a fee for the licence giving him the right to sell firearms or ammunition. Bear in mind as well that the regulations will require such dealers to keep records and submit certain forms from time to time. If this process becomes too onerous, these individuals who make a certain profit from the sale of firearms and ammunition, will say "I simply cannot be bothered", with the result that the large stores will have a corner on the market.
I know some individuals in my constituency who make a living operating a gun shop. They do not make a very good living. They repair guns, sell the odd rifle and some shells. If they are going to be forced to pay a licence fee on top of the business licence fee they are now required to pay, they will have to go out of business. I believe it was indicated by the minister in committee that while the fee would not exceed $1,000-


Stanley Ronald Basford: 


Douglas Charles Neil: $250. That is still a substantial fee for an individual to pay, particularly when he is called upon to keep all these records. If the government requires an individual to keep records that are not in his own interest, but in the interest of the government, he should not be required to pay a licence fee.
I simply say in this motion that if a man meets the qualifications to carry on business and is prepared to do the necessary paperwork, the government should appreciate that fact and he should not be called upon to pay a substantial fee. As I mentioned earlier, there are many small businesses which will
Criminal Code
cease to carry rifles and ammunition. The result will be that individuals in the rural areas who now go to their corner store in a small town will be forced to go to the city to buy their ammunition if they wish to go hunting. Under the circumstances, it is an unfair burden.
I am not concerned about the larger stores. I am concerned about the small businessman who today has to spend more and more time completing forms, and paying more and more for licence fees. I therefore ask the House to accept this amendment that there be no licence fees charged to those who carry on the business of selling firearms and ammunition.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I moved this basic amendment in committee. I congratulate the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) in that regard.
The real problem is not the fee. What we should be considering is the integrity of the merchant. I appreciate that merchants who have small stores in the maritimes, Quebec, and western Canada, do not have the material wealth to afford secretaries to complete all the forms. What is important is the integrity of the individual operating the store where long guns are sold. It was assumed in committee that there are between six million and 11 million guns in existence in Canada, and two and a half million owners.
When this bill becomes law, and I guess it will because the government has a majority, anyone wishing to purchase a long gun will have to obtain a certificate. A certificate will cost $10. Once they get the certificate, they will be able to buy any kind of gun for the next five years.
The point being made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw is that small storekeepers, owners of small hardware stores or corner stores should not have to pay a fee. It is true that the maximum is $250, but why should they have to pay that? If the minister and the government are honest, and that is questionable, particularly with regard to this legislation, they will state that what we should be considering is protecting the public against crime. They should not be charging a fee to the individual who operates a store in the town of Strathmore, Alberta; or Rockyford in the former constituency of Bow River which I used to represent. They should be considering whether the merchant has the integrity to ensure whether the certificate is being properly issued to someone who comes in to purchase firearms, particularly long guns.
This bill does not control guns in Canada. Let us get that straight. There are 11 million guns and two and a half million owners who will not be controlled. In committe I asked the minister to assure me that those two and a half million owners are all sane, none are alcoholics and none are emotionally distressed to the point that they might do something unlawful in a community. Many of these guns have no registration, either on the barrel or elsewhere on the gun. Therefore how will this control crime? This is merely window-dressing.
Does anyone believe for a moment that this bill will control murder and other crimes? It is straight window-dressing to
7606

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
bluff the Canadian people that the government is doing something about crime.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yesterday the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) asked for something which I and other members of this party have asked for on several occasions, namely, an inquiry into crime in Canada. The reply was that we do not need one, there was one in Quebec and they only found out about dirty meat. Therefore I say this is complete window-dressing. That is why many members today were annoyed when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) issued a press release after wandering down to an incident which was caused by long guns, which are not covered by this bill.


John Allen Fraser: There was another one in Toronto, exactly the same.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and there has been one in Calgary and one in Vancouver. The question we are asking is: why should the small businessman have to pay a price to the federal government with regard to crime? Who pays the wages of the police forces in Canada? Naturally it is the taxpayers. Why should owners of small hardware stores and other stores which sell long guns, that are not included in this bill, have to pay a fee of up to $250? That is the point the hon. member is making. That is the point this party is making. I need not say any more.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) touched on most points I wanted to raise in the context of small business. It is worthwhile mentioning that we have a minister responsible for small business who travels across the country assuring small businessmen that the government is sensitive to their concerns, that the government is going to reduce the bureaucratic load that these small businessmen must shoulder, and that it is going to reduce the paper work that assails them every month for StatsCan, RevenueCan, this Can and that Can-


Mr. Symes:: And the trash can.


Robert Hylton Brisco: They then turn around and find another minister introducing more bureaucracy to be placed on the shoulders of small businessmen.
Whether it is $250 or $2,000 the question remains: is that sum going to purchase integrity? My hon. friend from Calgary North has made a valid point. Perhaps there should be some selection, but by and large we can rely on the integrity of the small shopkeeper. I wonder, in light of the statements made about the hon. member for Kootenay West and others, whether we can rely on the same integrity from the minister.
I should like to make a further suggestion. If these fees are to be charged, let them not disappear into the limbo of National Revenue. Let us use these fees for a constructive purpose in the area in which they apply. Let us develop, with

provincial agreement, a national program of hunter training. Let us set a national standard and use this money to provide for such a program. After all, there are provinces which use the revenues obtained through the sale of hunting licences for recreational services, conservation, and the improvement of the environment.
I am confident that if this amendment fails the government will accumulate more dollars, saddle the small businessman with another bunch of bureaucratic bumf, and accomplish nothing except to drive small businessmen further away from any sense of belonging. If any government has alienated small business it is this one. I hope the minister will pay attention to the views expressed by the opposition in reference to this amendment.


William Arnold Peters: I want to support the argument that this large fee should not be levied-and it is a large fee if we are thinking about many of the businesses which sell guns in my area. Though I have said earlier that I should like to see many of them not selling guns it cannot be denied that setting up the bureaucracy necessary to deal with the effects of this legislation will involve these small businessmen in a considerable expense. Every time a customer comes in to buy a gun it will be necessary to ensure that he has a permit, to examine the permit, to take down and enter the serial number of the gun and, no doubt, to send all this information to the firearms registry in the area.
The minister has made the point that this does not apply to ammunition. But here we are certainly talking about ammunition. The small business operator will have to pay $250 for a licence to sell, perhaps, $50 worth of ammunition.


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, he will not.


William Arnold Peters: It says so here in the bill. It speaks of a permit being necessary to carry on business under subclause (2)(b)(i), and this applies to anyone buying or selling, wholesale or retail, or importing ammunition. So I do not know how the minister can say this does not involve ammunition.
Camp operators are obliged to sell ammunition if they are to carry on their businesses. If they are selling duck licences or moose licences they must at least have a few boxes of ammunition on hand. They do not sell guns but they are expected to keep some ammunition for sale along with the permits they issue. The minister does not seem to know why they sell these permits or this ammunition. They do so because it is a service to those who stay at the tourist camps. The nearest town is often 50 miles or so away.
The minister is not being honest in his interpretation of what a "business" is likely to be under this clause. The little guy will be asked to pay $250 for a licence under this clause though his total sales will amount to less than the fee. Oh, I imagine the minister will probably say there is to be a sliding scale provided for by regulation and that the fee will only be $10 or so. But if the minister is really interested in removing guns from the market, I would be surprised if he does not see this clause as a good way of discouraging people from going into
July 12, 1977

the firearms business. The clause says that a person engaged in this business must get a licence and that this licence will cost $250.
I repeat that a great many of those who are selling ammunition in my area are not doing so for profit but as a service to customers. Customers rent room and board, they rent airplane service, they rent boats and guides from the operator, and then they go into the bush. The selling of the ammunition is surely incidental. Nevertheless, the ammunition must be on hand. An operator cannot send his customers over to a competitor and say, "Buy your ammunition there, and then come back to my camp." The minister has all along been talking about preventing the sale of guns to people who should not get them, preventing them from being stolen and so on. But it seems to me he is hitting all these little people, and I certainly would not be representing a northern Ontario riding if I were to agree with the minister in the course he is following. In any case, the tourist industry now is not in a good position-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Because you people opposite drove out the Americans.


William Arnold Peters: Most of them are not in a position to put up this $250. They would probably have to hire somebody to look after the bookkeeping involved in selling a few boxes of .22 shells or shotgun cartridges. They are not in the business of manufacturing, distributing wholesale, and so on. What are they going to do? What I would advise them to do is bootleg. They should keep a few extra boxes of shells for themselves and, if necessary, give them to their customers.


James Hugh Faulkner: The NDP is in favour of bootlegging.


William Arnold Peters: Well, I always enjoyed bootleggers. 1 lived in Timmins for many years where bootlegging was a very honourable profession, as I expect it was in Nova Scotia and many other areas. And as for young people who haven't enjoyed going to the bootlegger, maybe they have something to look forward to yet.
Why would a guy make this outlay? Ele could not make $250 profit selling ammunition in my area. I suggest he would do better to give it to his customers and charge them an extra buck for the room or on meals. Certainly he could not make a living out of selling ammunition. Ele cannot make a living if he does not have ammunition, even in my hon. friend's area which does not have bootleggers. 1 have been around the Sturgeon Lake area and they had a bootlegger then. The hon. member does have some tourist operators in his constituency and I am sure they will want to sell a few boxes of shells to duck hunters in the fall. But I am sure most will not sell enough to make a profit of $250, and if they do they are only working for the government. If they were in the business of selling ammunition they would have to make a lot more than that.
I do not want to belabour the point but I say the government is being very unfair in this provision to all those people who depend on hunting and fishing for their livelihood.
Criminal Code


Mr. Gilbert:: We can always refer the bill back to committee at third reading.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, perhaps we should refer the bill back at third reading to discuss this clause. However, I think the minister should assure us that he is not out to do in the small entrepreneur. It seems to me that these are not the people who get into trouble. I am not aware that even the most valid anti-gun lobbyists contend that shotgun shells and a few rifle shells in a hunting lodge are dangerous to anyone.
The poeple who run a hunting lodge for a bunch of duck hunters in the fall are a very limited group. They possess gun licences of one kind or another. The hunters from the States will have an American licence, as well as one from the province of Ontario for the hunting season, and they will also have undergone other tests. I suggest that this is an added one which does not serve any purpose or make a great deal of sense. I am very much opposed to it, and I think at third reading the bill should be referred back to committee so this clause may receive further study.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion put forward by my hon. friend from Moose Jaw. I support the motion because, since this bill has been brought forward, it has become quite clear that no other legislation that has been introduced into this House recently has raised so much objection among the public at large as this. Other measures which raised a lot of objection were the abolition of capital punishment bill and the change to the abortion law. Those are the only two I can remember which have aroused the public as much as this one.
We have before us an urban oriented minister presenting an urban oriented bill which tries to impose urban views upon many people who are not urbanites. The minister should be flexible enough to recognize that not everyone lives in an urban area and that not all of the laws of this country should be tailored for urbanites only.
It seems to me that one of two possibilities exists so far as the minister is concerned. Either he is grossly misinformed about the use of guns, or he is trying to bamboozle the people of Canada into believing that somehow this legislation will reduce the number of crimes committed with guns. If indeed he believes that, then I am very anxious to hear from him how he thinks this bill will achieve that objective.
This motion is not designed to block the bill. It now appears that with the majority which the Liberal government has in the House it will force through this unacceptable legislation, as it has on many other occasions, against the objections of Canadians everywhere. About the only thing we can do at this stage is to voice our objection on behalf of many Canadians and to try to soften the bill as much as possible, knowing that the Liberal government is going to force it through the House anyway.
A number of my colleagues speaking on behalf of small businessmen have said that the fees which the minister is prescribing will hurt them financially and indeed may cause many to go out of the business of selling guns and ammunition.
80020-17%

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
I support statements to that effect. We already know there is so much government red tape involved in running a business that it is almost impossible for businessmen to continue in business. The average small business requires one person working practically full time to fill in all the forms the government requires to be filled in, whether it be for income tax, the Canada Pension Plan, workmen's compensation, the AntiInflation Board, and so on and so forth. All of this form filling increases the cost of doing business.
Another aspect that concerns me is that those who want to own a gun, or those who have guns and want to purchase a new one, will now be required to pay a fee. It seems to me that they should be relieved of this burden. The minister has in no way offered any explanation of why individuals should be required to pay a fee for this purpose. If he wants to find out whether an individual is mentally suited to owning a gun, then it is not necessary to make that person pay a fee; the information can be provided to the licensing officer without any fee being involved. Therefore I urge the minister to relieve individuals of the burden of paying a fee for a licence to own a gun, as well as businessmen who are in the business of selling arms and ammunition.
I do not think I am any less intelligent than any member on the other side of the House, but I repeat that I cannot comprehend how the minister comes to the conclusion that by requiring a person to buy a licence to own a gun he will reduce the crime rate in this country, or the number of crimes committed with the use of a gun. We know there is no real evidence to suggest that this result will ever be achieved. We can only conclude that the minister is being pressured by those in his urban constituency and he feels he has to appear to be doing something in this regard.


John Allen Fraser: He is not being pressured by anybody; he feels this in his own mind.


Paul Yewchuk: My hon. friend from Vancouver, who represents an urban riding, says the minister is not being pressured, and perhaps it is the minister's own idea of trying to do something useful in the House. But I doubt that this bill will be useful. The minister is putting the bill forward, as he did as recently as last night, as some kind of measure which will prevent people from sniping from rooftops, or will prevent murderers from using guns, or prevent bank robbers from using guns to rob banks. All of these crimes will continue whether or not this bill passes. If we want to come to grips with this particular problem, some other measures will be required. Certainly these measures will not solve crime in the country but will only impose an unnecessary burden on many law-abiding citizens.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on this particular section of the bill. I made my views on this whole matter of gun control known in committee when it was discussed there. As the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) said, it is an urban oriented

piece of legislation. When the minister goes out of the urban centres and into what I call real Canada, he seems to wear blinkers and does not understand what goes on there. He looks at the big sporting goods stores, which are part of national chains, in the big urban centres where they display and sell hardware. He assumes this will not create any great hardship to the chain, to take out a licence to sell and display these firearms.
The reality in rural Canada is much different. Often one deals with a small corner grocery store or a co-op store which is unincorporated. A person operates a general store more for the convenience of his neighbours than for profit. He tries to provide a service to his neighbours in a manner similar to that mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mi. Brisco) by stocking a few boxes of ammunition and one or two rifles.
I would not have used the time of the House tonight, had it not been for the minister's public comments outside the House against some of my colleagues. I was very much appalled by his particular statement. His statement was city oriented. Of course we have a problem. One can cite a whole series of accidents which have happened as a result of improper use or criminal use of a firearm in a city. After the minister strolled down to the scene last night to take command of a critical situation, to involve himself in the way he did this morning by bringing this debate into the context of his press release and to name members of the opposition, who are exercising their responsibilities by debating this bill, is less than honest. As a matter of fact it is an infringement against the privileges of every member in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Frankly, if 1 was one of the members he named,
I would be in contact with my solicitor and I would have this gentleman answer for his actions.
It would have been a greater source of comfort to me if he had assured those of us who are concerned with crime in our country that the kind of person who perpetrated this crime last night will not walk around the streets in the future, and furthermore, if he has been incarcerated today, that he will stay there until we know how to deal with him and until we know he is cured. The minister is not giving that assurance to Canadians today, not to us in the House. He wants society to pay the price of crime. If we find a rotten apple in the box, we have to cure this apple at the expense of all the good apples in the box. Society and the storekeepers have to pay the price because some people in the cities cannot understand that a farmer has to carry a gun around with him because of predators which attack his cattle, and in order to protect his property. The minister cannot understand that.
Once the ultimate is achieved in gun control, in the minister's view, we can open the jails and let the criminals out because there will be no more guns, and thus there will be no more crimes. I suppose knives will have to be taken away from them as well. We will all be a happy society then.
July 12, 1977

There is a feeling of mistrust and anxiety throughout this land, particularly in the rural areas. As a matter of fact I got trapped into defending Bill C-83 last year, and the minister knows the situation in which I found myself. There is no such thing as the registration of firearms in this bill. We are not asking Canadians to register their firearms. When I met with my constituents I told them that 1 could not see this provision in the bill. They said they did not trust the minister, that this will be the first step. First they will register firearms and then they will be confiscating them. This is what was said by real Canadians who live in the frontier areas of our country, people who are still people up in the Peace River country and places which I represent. I could not convince them that the minister does not have any other motive. I was chased out of the meeting. I could not convince them. Of course the minister could not convince them either during meetings which he has had all across the country.
One afternoon last winter an opportunity arose for four of my friends-three from this side and one from the other side-to go to the police academy and join some of the officers there in a game of curling, a bonspiel. I am an ardent sportsman and a curler. The other team was not doing too well. We had scored all the points, and we had time to rest. We were talking about gun control and a police officer said: "What utter nonsense. I have been working here for six months setting up a national registry here in Ottawa". I said: "You cannot be serious. The minister has said there is no gun registration". He said: "I do not know what 1 have been doing for the last six months, but we are going to register every firearm in this country". In committee I told the minister about this and he said that it was not the registration of firearms that was being set up, but a registration of firearms licences. The fact that the firearms licence a person will carry around has the registration number of every firearm the person owns was conveniently ignored by the minister. That is why 2Vi million Canadians who possess long guns do not trust the minister. Probably they will not be affected by this paranoiac piece of legislation.
Canadians outside the urban centres consider it to be their right to own a gun or a firearm. They are of the pioneering stock. They feel a man's home is his castle and he has a right to defend it. The minister is telling them that they must surrender some of their rights and privileges to the bureaucrats, to the adjudicators, and to the cabinet who will keep these rights in trust for us. One does not have to go too far off Parliament Hill to find there is very little trust in the guardians of civil rights and those people who are taking these minor rights and privileges away from us in the interest of the common good.
There is no need for this watered-down version of the gun control bill. If the minister were serious he could have negotiated an arrangement with the provinces which would have co-ordinated his efforts and theirs.
Criminal Code
Another bureaucracy will have to be established. The storekeeper has to pay another licence fee and keep another set of books. He is already tied up with provincial licences and now he has to fill out a federal form showing how many pieces of ammunition were bought, who bought what rifle and so on and, at the command of some bureaucrat, submit the record forthwith for inspection.
The minister says he does not wish to interfere with those who presently own long guns, mostly for legitimate reasons. It is hard for people who live in concrete jungles to understand the need for these guns. I do not need one in Ottawa, but I certainly do when I ride the range in Peace River country where the wolves are eating my cattle.
The minister could have gone to the provinces and said, "Let's get together. With your hunting licence requirements and the competency test, let's add a requirement that a person buying a new gun needs a certificate." I agree with that, because there have been accidents. Incidentally, the happening last night was not one of these, regardless of what the minister says about a man who walks out of a beer parlour and goes to the hardware store and purchases a gun to deal with a bartender who cheated him out of a round of beer. There have also been accidents when children have misused firearms.
We certainly understand that not everybody should have access to a gun, particularly not criminals. It appears to me that the minister is not too much concerned about those individuals, however, because if he were he would keep them behind bars where they would not have access to guns.
Every province has its own regulations and most of them work quite well as they are tuned to local needs. This bill provides that the minister may negotiate with the provinces to co-ordinate the kind of thing he is trying to achieve here. He does not need an extra bureaucracy at all.
The society that I represent in the northern parts of British Columbia is not prepared to pay the price that the cities of this country are imposing on it with this bill. The people I represent need firearms everyday, some for sport and others for business, but they are not prepared to pay this $10 in order to give the minister peace of mind. Let the user-pay principle not be applied here. The users are the people who live in rural areas, and they are in the minority. It is not fair that the hardware merchant should have to pay $250 as his share of the expense of keeping guns away from criminals. I cannot condone that. My finer sensibilities are aroused, Mr. Speaker.
I had no intention of prolonging this debate tonight, but the hon. minister has taken some liberties in this House today, and he took some liberties last year with Bill C-83. It is rather strange that a man who has been in this House as long as he has and represents the great area he does should be less than honest with the committee, with this House, and with the people of the country.
We cannot support this bill, Mr. Speaker. We do not need it-unless the minister has other motives. It is tied in with other things that we shall hopefully debate tomorrow.

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
This bill will come home to haunt the minister, Mr. Speaker. I will no longer defend this rather silly and seemingly innocent piece of legislation in my constituency. The minister must have other motives, and I will identify them and tell my constituents what they are. I will not have myself identified as having blood on my hands because there was an incident last night, tragic as it was. In no way will I accept responsibility for that, nor my friends who have been named. Had my name been mentioned in that connection the minister would hear from me through the courts. What a cheap shot at the opposition, because the government is having a hard time with something that should not have been brought before the House in the first place.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening for a few moments to some comments which I find extremely interesting. Being from a province which will experience some difficulties with that legislation which is being forced upon us by any means, I do not really understand the objectives of that legislation since we know that the basic objective will not be attained, far from it. There has been some reference to a reduction of criminality. 1 do not know how many organizations or societies have made representations to that effect and I think that there is not one member in the House who has not received some mail about it. Being a representative from Quebec, I had such correspondence as many others and 1 think that every Quebec member got some mail asking that pressures be exerted on the government in connection with that bill.
The matter now under consideration, in view of the motion introduced by the member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), is extremely interesting and I wish to support the previous comments made by my colleagues. The problems which have arisen in other provinces are also found in my province, Mr. Speaker. And I am wondering how my friends across the aisle can remain silent when a bill like this appears to us totally unacceptable. I am thinking, for instance, about the good intentions of small merchants who may have to pay $250 for a permit allowing them to offer services to amateurs, to organizations anxious to take advantage of our resources and the government refuses to correct the error put in the legislation in spite of very plausible arguments that have been made.
I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, how it is that government members cannot assess our arguments nor why they take no notice of representations that have been made by their constituents or hunting clubs in their ridings. It is not possible, Mr. Speaker, that government members did not receive representations along this line. But they take good care not to bring these arguments before the House or in committees, to urge the minister to realize how mistaken he is and how the government seems to have lost all sense of responsibility. Mr. Speaker, after listening to the comments made by my colleagues, I cannot remain silent about the businessmen of my riding who are affected and who would rather refuse to buy a permit than pay $250. Once again, all that business will be diverted to the larger stores which will not mind paying the $250.	.

But I think it is important to remind the minister that it is much more to help hunting enthusiasts that the small businessmen do it, and if they were to make small benefits to keep their business running, no government would have the right, in my opinion, to hesitate any longer before withdrawing its proposition, considering the motion now before us. I think that hon. members, particularly those on the government side, should have understood long ago how important it is to make this correction which seems extremely fair towards those poor businessmen.
In my riding, some businessmen will be affected by this legislation and I realize that some members would rather laugh at what we say, instead of being concerned by legislation which some of their constituents will have a hard time swallowing.
I think I do not have anything to add, only to ask the minister to take his responsibilities, to get out of his office and visit the areas concerned across this country. As my colleagues pointed out earlier, he is certainly not aware of what is going on, how badly this legislation will be received and how it will also bring difficulties. Why trouble those dealers who do not deserve to be penalized because they are indeed being penalized by this legislation. I am still wondering why this government takes pleasure in troubling poor innocent people who, again, go all out to provide Canadians with services in all areas of this country. But they will again choose to be quiet.
I see the young hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) who must have received correspondence about that as we did. If he has not I would be surprised but it will come. The people in his riding will get to know him and will probably urge him to help us bring the minister back to reason when we have the necessary evidence. I am talking about the comments and recommendations that we had, the briefs that were submitted. We as members of the opposition have the obligation to do everyting we can to bring this government back to reason and stop the suffering of innocent people like those dealers who will have to pay for a permit. Yet we know that they keep those few items in their stores a lot more as a service to tourists, visitors or citizens living in the area. But you still have to get out of large cities to know that that exists in our areas, in rural areas, in hunting areas. So, I dare hope that those few comments and those that were made before me with a lot more eloquence will make this government and hon. members understand that what we have in mind is the wellbeing of those poor dealers who are again the victims of a totally inadequate legislation.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the comments of my learned colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), when he drew to the attention of the House the discriminatory nature of this motion as it applies to tourist operators, particularly in my area of northern Ontario, whereby the tourist operator or the camp operator who is in the business of selling hunting licences
July 12, 1977

and usually stocks a few boxes of ammunition to sell to hunters will be liable, as we understand it, to a fee which could range from $10 to $250, according to the testimony in the committee. There is nothing that outlines that in the bill and we are at the mercy of the regulations.
I think that we need from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) an explanation in the House this evening as to how the fee structure will apply. Can we get a clarification from him? This will expedite moving on to the other clauses in the bill.
I want to reiterate that I would find it very discriminatory for the small businessmen to have to face a fee of $250 or even more-because it is not outlined in the legislation-when he is selling only two boxes of ammunition during the hunting season. He is obviously not selling the ammunition to make money on it. It is unlikely that he would even make a profit of $250 in a very good year. I find that kind of fee for a permit to sell ammunition most discriminatory and retrogressive in terms of what it will do to small business operators who depend on attracting customers by providing the varied services that hunters want, one of them being the stocking of ammunition.
I would like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Would he clarify for members of the House just how this fee is to operate? Will it be on a sliding scale based on the amount of ammunition the tourist operator sells in a given season, or will it be a set fee, and what would it be? We have heard figures ranging from $10 to $250. I hope the minister will clarify that for us, otherwise members of the House, and certainly small businessmen, will be left with the impression that the maximum amount will be charged, and I do not think members of the House would agree to that kind of discriminatory fee for small business. Can the minister answer that?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1 will be happy to repeat the explanation I provided in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that the fee under this subsection, which is a permit to carry on business, which will be set in the regulations, will range from $10 to $250 depending on and totally related to the volume of business of the dealer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 put this to the minister, and 1 know he would not want to mislead the press or the House, that there is nothing in the bill that sets the limit at $250. We have to rely on his word, or that of some unknown minister who might get into the cabinet in the shuffle in October, to set that fee. Where does it say in the bill that the limit will be set at $250?


Stanley Ronald Basford: If I may be allowed to complete my remarks, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), let me say that I indicated very clearly in the committee, because we had an amendment on the subject, that the fee is not set down in the statute. As I was saying earlier, the fee will be set in the regulations. I indicated to the committee that the fee would range from $10 to $250 depending on the volume of business of the dealer. The largest
Criminal Code
dealers, such as Eaton, Simpson or Hudson Bay Company, would obviously be in the top range.
The cost for the local gunsmith and the local sporting goods store in a small community obviously will be set at $10. The range from $10 to $250 is designed to be explicitly related to the volume of business of the retailer. We have consulted various organizations on this proposal. We consulted the Retail Merchants Association, the Association of Hardware Dealers, and the association of sporting goods stores. I have forgotten the precise name of that latter association.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Did you talk to the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand)?


Stanley Ronald Basford: These various associations have not registered objections with me either as to the form of the statute or the form of the proposed regulations.
In response to allegations that the fees are intended to be revenue generating, they are intended to cover solely the cost of the dealer's records, the cost of inspection and the cost of seeing that safe storage facilities are maintained. It is simply a cost recovery scheme with fees ranging from $10 to $250.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I really did not intend to debate this motion, but I am moved to participate because the minister said this is not a revenue-producing scheme. We know that this government operates very expensively. We know that passports are not supposed to be revenue-producing either, but their term was reduced from ten years to five for the same fee. That was quite an increase when it was instituted, and then within two or three years, in spite of the Anti-Inflation Board's being in operation, the government went well beyond the guidelines set for everybody else in the country. Many examples of the government's not obeying rules and regulations could be cited.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Post office boxes.


Douglas Charles Neil: And stamps.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) cites the case of post office boxes. Those were not supposed to be revenue-producing either. The only protection the ordinary citizen has-and it has been mentioned before that two and one half million people are affected-will cost more all the time.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and others have pointed out that the government is placing an onerous and heavy burden on businessmen by compelling them to keep complicated records to maintain the gun registration which is going to be put into place under this legislation, although the government protests that it is not going to do so.
Reference has also been made to all the other reports which will have to be made by small businessmen. That will be dealt with by regulation as well. The fee is not going to be fixed at any level. There is no guarantee that it will be fixed at $10,

July 12, 1977
Criminal Code
$250 or anything else. Elere we have another example of the law being regulated by bureaucrats under the name and hand of the governor in council. We will find that this is the camel's nose in the tent. We will have another form of taxation introduced under the guise of some type of license fee. I do not think this is the time to increase the cost of doing business or the cost of living. I urge the House to consider seriously this very reasonable motion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw and to support its passage.
[ Translation]


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have carefully listened to the remarks made by my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative and New Democratic Parties, and I felt compelled to take advantage of the few minutes that are allocated to us to discuss a little this amendment presented by the Progressive Conservative Party. I cannot but congratulate them given the fact that I represent in the House a riding where the major sport of my constituents happens to be hunting.
Once again, we are going to force small businesses to pay amounts varying between $10 and $200, according to what the minister just said, and I am asking myself the following question: How is it that the federal government has once again decided to tax the small businesses, while the province of Quebec already has a law whereby these small businesses are being taxed when they want to sell the necessary goods not only to Quebec hunters but also to hunters who come from the United States and other countries to enjoy this beautiful sport which is hunting?
Mr. Speaker, I think this government is again making a mistake, under Bill C-51, by asking our small businesses, those little stores, to disburse additional amounts, as the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) stated so well, while the sale of these firearms or ammunitions is not their primary source of income, taking into account the fact that they stock only very few of these items, but that they provide a great service to all the people who want to practise their favorite sport during their vacation time by going into remote areas of Quebec and of other provinces. I am asking myself why this government is trying to deter hunters, especially American residents, from spending their money on purchasing certain types of firearms and ammunitions, as well as all sorts of things.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, in accordance with Standing Order 40 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on June 27 in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) I directed the following question to the government House leader, who was then Acting Prime Minister:
Is it correct that the increase in oil and gas prices recently announced by the federal government will result in windfall revenues of some $1 billion going to oil companies, largely foreign owned, without any obligation on their part to use any of this money for exploration for and development of oil and gas resources?
I will not read the rest of the question. It is in Hansard. The reply of the acting Prime Minister was only that he was not in a position to confirm the alleged facts pointed out by me. He said that my question was in the nature of a representation which would be considered.
In announcing a couple of weeks ago an increase in the Canadian crude oil price of $1 a barrel as of July 1 and three subsequent $1 per barrel increases at six-month intervals, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that the purpose of these subtantial increases was to encourage development and production of oil resources. But how would these objectives be achieved if, of the added revenues as a result of these increases, 24.6 per cent-that is, in effect, 25 per cent- would go to the oil companies, 48.4 per cent to the oil provinces, and 27 per cent to the federal government, and if in fact the oil companies would get their 25 per cent without doing anything extra at all by way of exploration and development? How would this windfall to the oil companies create increased exploration and production activity?
Well, Mr. Speaker, in today's Globe and Mail a letter appeared signed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, which constitutes an attempt to give the kind of information I was seeking in my question. First of all, his letter confirmed the provision of the additional revenues I have just mentioned. However, it disputes the claim that the 25 per cent to the oil companies would total $1 billion over the next 12 months. The letter claims, instead, that this is a gross amount and the net amount after royalties to the producing provinces would be only about half of this. Additional amounts from these revenues would go as federal taxes, the exact sum depending on the extent to which the industry re-invests the additional cash flow. But, Mr. Speaker, from the letter it seems clear that after taking taxes and royalties into account, the oil industry would still be left with as much as several hundred million dollars at the very least without doing any exploration and development in addition to what they are doing now, or would be doing anyway.
July 12, 1977

If the purpose of the increase is to bring about increased production of our petroleum resources, why should the oil companies get any additional revenue, even one dollar, that is not used for exploration and development, to bring about such increased production?
The oil companies, Mr. Speaker, have increased their profitability substantially in recent months. The figures indicate a better profit performance than our secondary manufacturing industry. If the purpose of the increase in oil prices is to encourage conservation by consumers and industry, the second reason for the increase presented by the minister when he announced it, surely there is no sound reason why the oil companies should benefit from this objective. Surely if this is the purpose, additional revenues from the price increase should be used by the government for further research into alternative energy sources, particularly renewable ones, and into better methods of conservation. They should be used to assist low income Canadians to insulate their homes, to provide meaningful financial assistance for them to do this to a greater extent than that made possible by the forthcoming federal government home insulation program, rather than letting this money go into the coffers of the oil industry.
The minister in his letter in today's Globe and Mail said his cash flow monitoring bill presently before parliament will give him the information necessary to evaluate oil industry behaviour. But if after this legislation is passed it is found the industry did not use the additional income from these oil price increases for exploration and development, there is no provision in the bill that I am aware of for getting this money back. It is gone forever. And even though the minister argues the information provided as a result of his bill will prepare the government to take corrective measures, and these are his exact words in the letter, there is no commitment from the government as yet to take such measures, or any indication as to what they might be.
Finally, in his letter the minister argues that the oil price increases will prevent our secondary industry from expanding, and I quote him, "into activities where competitive advantage depends on artificially depressed prices." Mr. Speaker, this is turning reality upside down. If through proper government policy oil prices reflect the actual costs of production and exploring for our own Canadian energy resources, plus a reasonable return, surely these prices will not be artificially depressed. The really artificial prices are those set by the OPEC oil cartel, prices which have no relationship to the cost of production and reasonable returns.
Canadian consumers and workers would, I am sure, prefer that the minister and the government were not seemingly so willing to bring our prices up to the level of the articificially high prices set by the OPEC cartel.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: You are making a good NDP speech.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying higher prices in Canada may not be necessary to bring about development and production of our own petroleum resources, but surely they should be justified on the basis of real cost plus reasonable rate
Adjournment Debate
of return, and surely the oil companies should get additional revenues through such increases only if, as, and when they carry out exploration and development work in addition to what they are doing now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member, whose allotted time has expired.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, to a large extent the hon. member has provided the answer to his question by quoting the minister's open letter which The Globe and Mail published today to describe fully what will happen to this additional $1 billion which the companies are expected to receive.
In fact, as the hon. member indicated, the companies will keep only half of that amount. And if the industry continues investing in 1977-78 at the same rates as in 1976, the added revenues of nearly half a billion, after deduction of the operation costs and royalties, will go into capital investments in Canada. Therefore, $160 million will be paid in federal taxes and $35 million in provincial taxes. This will leave the industry with retained earnings of approximately $60 million, and not hundreds of millions as the hon. member indicated.
It should be said also that the federal government will have to spend $105 million in increased equalization payments to the provinces, from the $160 million in added income tax received, as a direct result of the increase in oil and gas prices. [English]
The government is taking all necessary steps to protect the interests of the Canadian consumer and has instituted a petroleum industry monitoring program. In order to follow more closely the reinvestment behaviour of the petroleum industry, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has introduced the Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act, Bill S-4, which provides legislative authority for the collection of cash-flow and re-investment data from members of the Canadian petroleum industry. This program has indicated an increase in reinvestment from 66.9 per cent in 1973 to 76.4 per cent in 1976 for a select sample of 35 leading members of the petroleum industry.
In the absence of any alarming divergence from this encouraging trend, the government will continue to support the view that the corporate sector is the best judge of the risks involved and the best judge of what and where to invest. The above-mentioned monitoring bill will also provide the minister with the information necessary to propose changes to the present system should future investment behaviour of the industry prove to be in contrast with our national interest.
AIR CANADA-PROPOSED COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATION LARGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WANT TO LEAVE * QUEBEC


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport and
7614

July 12, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Communications on June 21 I presented a motion calling for the committee to investigate the situation in Quebec where 2,600 Air Canada employees requested a transfer out of the province. My motion was accepted by the chairman and the committee. They were to request an order of the House authorizing the committee to launch an investigation.
Because of the seriousness of the matter, I raised a question the next day, June 22. I directed the question to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who replied that he would consider the situation and see what could be done. Since June 22 I have heard nothing whatsoever from the government with regard to presenting this very serious problem to the committee. That is why I am raising the matter tonight.
I also pointed out at the time that the chief executive officer of Air Canada, Mr. Claude Taylor, has been unable to solve the morale problems, and employees are organizing to further their request for transfers.
I made a trip to Dorval today to visit the Air Canada overhaul and maintenance base there and to meet with the Canadian Aviation Fellowship, an organization which has provided me with information with regard to the 2,600 employees who are requesting a transfer from the province of Quebec.
The Canadian Aviation Fellowship was formed about six months ago by a group of Air Canada employees who were very concerned about radical political events occurring in Quebec which would have a profound effect upon their future. Since its beginning the CAF has expanded considerably and is an official federally chartered organization with approximately 1,000 card carrying members located mainly in Quebec. Their membership consists of people in all areas; mechanics, pilots, flight attendants, ramp workers, clerical, and management. In addition to their card carrying members, they have the full support of several thousand other aviation workers throughout the Canadian aviation industry, many of whom have not formally joined the CAF out of fear of reprisals.
There seems to be some support for their request to move out of the province of Quebec. The federal government and Air Canada are presently completing a SI5 million hangar in Winnipeg, and Air Canada has recently been moving maintenance personnel to Toronto. I have here a copy of a letter dated December 1, 1976. It is signed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), and it was forwarded to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who had written the minister on behalf of a constituent who was requesting the decentralization of Air Canada's facilities currently located in Montreal. My hon. friend was informed by the Minister of Transport as follows:
Air Canada now has a decentralized organization with much of its staff and facilities located at points across Canada. In this connection, I would point out that an overhaul base will be established in Winnipeg.
So they are building a hangar, and the minister has stated that an overhaul base will be established in Winnipeg. I see no reason for any further delay, and I would suggest that my
[Mr. McKenzie.)
motion be considered immediately and this serious problem presented to the committee which would begin immediate hearings to consider all the complaints and suggestions of the employees, the unions, the Gens de l'Air and any other interested parties in connection with this serious problem, one which I confirmed today when I visited the Dorval Airport.
These are some of the concerns of the Canadian Aviation Fellowship. They want to know what is going to happen to an English-speaking, non-francophone employee whose job is suddenly designated as bilingual or "French-essential". I can understand that question because Bill-101 put forward by a separatist government is designed to drive Anglophones out of Quebec-there is no doubt about that in my mind; it was confirmed today and it is one of the concerns of these employees. There is no way in which we can operate a national airline safely and efficiently under these conditions.
The Aviation Fellowship further asks what is to become of the opportunities for advancement of English-speaking nonFrancophone employees in comparison to those available for Francophone and other bilingual employees. For what jobs would employees be required to take French courses and qualify up to a certain level of competency within a given period? How will this be accomplished?
In a letter to me they point out, further, that the premier of Quebec has already talked about carving up Air Canada after Quebec achieves independence. This, they say, is a very real possibility and cannot be ignored, especially with the Parti Quebecois in power. They add that according to Mr. Levesque's timetable this may well happen within 18 months. The big question is: what is Air Canada's contingency plan to deal with Quebec independence? Never mind acting like ostriches or trying to sweep difficulties under the rug. I have mentioned safety and efficiency. There are other concerns which preoccupy the employees.
Here is an article which appeared in today's Montreal Star. It states:
A committee of priests and laymen speaking for English Catholic parishes in Montreal says that debate on language is producing quarrels in French-English marriages.
In addition to spreading fear among the English and sparking an exodus of both French and English from the province, the committee said in its brief on language that the government's bill is "having a divisive effect" on mixed marriages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member just did here and in committee is tearing at the Canadian fabric, tearing at Canadian unity. I think on these occasions, we replied to him. [English]
With respect to the hon. member's motion which he moved before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on June 21, 1977, I think it is important to clarify at this time, as I sought to do during a question of privilege on
July 12, 1977

June 22, and as I replied at the time, that this motion has by no means been agreed to in substance by the committee. Air Canada has no plans to move its Dorval maintenance and overhaul base out of Montreal. In regard to moving all the operations from the province of Quebec to Winnipeg, I would like to know from the hon. member if the policy of the Conservative party is to move all the operations from the province of Quebec to Winnipeg-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just answer the question.


Marcel-Claude Roy: I would like to know exactly what he means by this motion. That is why 1 call it "dechirure pour l'unite canadienne".
Allegations that as many as 2,600 base employees are wanting to move from Montreal are completely unfounded and the airline has no knowledge of any morale problem at the base resulting from the current political situation in Quebec. Although approximately 325 people are known to be seeking transfers from the maintenance and overhaul base, this total is not significantly higher than the normal number, which is between 100 and 200, given that the over-all work force at the base is about 4,000.
Furthermore, as president Claude Taylor told us in committee, the airline has assured all its employees that no jobs will be threatened because of Quebec's political uncertainty. Nor will an employee's status and job advancement potential be affected by the impact of bilingualism. In fact, Mr. Speaker, although bilingualism will become an increasing asset in Air Canada in Quebec and elsewhere, there will continue to be jobs for unilingual employees in all areas, including Quebec.
| Translation]
The motion we received is tearing at Canadian unity. I should therefore like to know the position of the Progressive Conservative Party, whether or not they agree that all Air Canada's operations be transferred to Winnipeg.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).


A. Daniel McKenzie: Let us get it into committee, then, and we will find out about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Nova has the floor. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has had his chance.


INFORMATION-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE CITIZENS WITH RIGHT OF ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT FILES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is with some anticipation that I look forward to the opportunity of debating the Prime Minister's answer to my question on February 7, 1977, regarding more freedom of information for Canadians.
The Prime Minister in his answer did not say that we have lesser rights than Americans; he only said that he would not
Adjournment Debate
admit it; and he did not answer my supplementary question as to whether he would consider introducing methods to improve the situation because of the necessity of Canadians having to go to the United States to receive information about their own country. He did not answer that question at all.
But this is still an issue of current interest and importance, Mr. Speaker. For example, it is very significant that a leading Canadian newspaper reported, under yesterday's date, July 11, the speech of Ralph Nader, one of the most important and well respected consumer advocates in the world, broadcast on the CBC, in which he said the following:
In Ottawa secrecy shrouds even the most routine information-auto safety reports, meat and poultry inspections, the specific reasons for government decisions.
He also said that law students working in Washington last year got Canadian government information which was classified secret by using the American law. The law students, after hearing the Canadian government had refused to divulge the information, asked the U.S. postal service for the information and got it. Mr. Nader reminded Canadians that in the United States a government agency can be hauled into court for withholding information from the public. A Canadian information law with similar clout would reduce government corruption and waste, which Mr. Nader argued thrive in secrecy. He said that a Watergate type scandal in Canada would create a stronger push in parliament to pass a freedom of information law.
Never in the history of our country have we had such a secretive and incompetent government. It is a fair comment that the secrecy is partly the result of a desire to hide its incompetence. Nor have we ever had such a misguided or misinformed Prime Minister whose dreary and pedantic pronouncements in parliament have been remarkable only for their consistency in being incorrect. It is not appropriate under the terms of this adjournment debate to provide examples of his previous patently wrong pronouncements about unemployment, inflation, and the death of separatism, thus I will confine myself to examining the inconsistencies in this one about freedom of information.
The Prime Minister must know that in December, 1975, the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments brought in a report approving the principle of legislation dealing with freedom of information and that the House unanimously accepted and approved this resolution on February 12, 1976.
The Prime Minister must also be aware that at the Liberal policy conference in Toronto last fall, that august body of privileged Canadians not only endorsed the concept of a meaningful freedom of information act, but gave it a standing ovation. In view of the almost unanimous cry for a meaningful freedom of information act coming from the public, the press, interest groups, and all political parties, including the Liberal party, one can only wonder why the government and the Prime
80020-18'/2

July 12, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Minister refuse to enact any freedom of information legislation.
I wonder why the government, in the face of a unanimous resolution of this House and even in the face of the enthusiastic endorsation given to such a proposal by its own party, would continue to refuse to put forward a freedom of information act. The government must have serious reasons if it is prepared to face this almost unanimous demand and to fight to the end for secrecy. In view of the government's part performance, the reason is obvious. This government is the most incompetent, corrupt, and scandal-ridden government in the history of this country. It is determined to see that as little information on its activities as possible is made public because of the likelihood that such information will reveal, as it has so often in the past, that the government's performance has been incompetent and its activities suspicious.
This government is practised and experienced at hiding its activities, shielding them from public scrutiny, and keeping its activities secret, and better than all his ministers of this part of "participatory democracy" is the Prime Minister himself. No one has done more for the cause of secrecy than he.
A partial list only of organizations which agree with the need for meaningful freedom of information legislation is as follows: Canadian Association of University Teachers, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Community Newspapers Association, Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Consumers Association of Canada, and the last one 1 will mention is the Canadian Bar Association which passed the following resolution on freedom of information:
Whereas openness of government is essential for participatory democracy;
And whereas access to information is a prerequisite to the exercise of other fundamental rights and freedoms;
And whereas the citizens of Canada have no legal right to government information;
Now therefore be it resolved that the Canadian Bar Association urges that access to information legislation be enacted by the Parliament of Canada and all provincial legislatures in Canada creating a statutory right of persons to obtain access to information held by all governments or their agencies, subject only to a limited list of narrowly defined exceptions, with any refusal to provide such information and any unreasonable delay or costs subject to review and enforcement by the courts on the merits with the burden of proof on the government.
It is obvious that this country does not have adequate freedom of information. Mr. Speaker, I rest my case.


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 has now been given third reading in both Houses of Parliament. Under part IV of Bill C-25, Canadians will be given a right of access to personal information held on them by government departments and agencies. This is the first time that legislation granting such a right has been enacted in Canada or within a parliamentary system similar to Canada's. The right is not an absolute one, and there is general agreement that it cannot be absolute. The rights of the individual have to be balanced against public interest. Every effort, however, has been made by the government to limit the exemptions to the greatest extent possible. Several amendments to part IV were proposed by the government at committee stage in the House, which served to tighten the exemptions.
The exemptions which have been included in part IV are similar to those contained in the U.S. privacy act. If anything, those in part IV should prove to be somewhat narrower.
No amendments to part IV were moved by members of the opposition in committee or report stages in either the House of Commons or the other place. Although the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) made several adverse comments about part IV, neither he nor anyone in his party actually moved any amendments to it.
In third reading debate in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Flynn) recognized that the bill opened up a new field of legislation and should be passed into law to see how it operates in practice.
I should point out that if the secret of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) success is being pedantic, perhaps the official opposition should follow suit if they intend to form the government sometime within the next half century.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is not worth it if you have to do it on that basis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, July 13, 1977