1977-05-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This will be of particular interest to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). In light of the results of yesterday's referendum in Selkirk regarding the establishment of a federal maximum penitentiary, the results of which were 1,711 in favour, 974 opposed, a two to one ratio in support of locating the new penitentiary in that town, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the Solicitor General move quickly and decisively to locate the new Manitoba federal maximum security penitentiary in Selkirk, and that this decision be communicated immediately to mayor Lloyd Wersch and the council of Selkirk.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED REFUSAL OF INCREASE IN WELLHEAD PRICE OF OIL-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the fact that the energy ministers' conference of yesterday has resulted in an agreement to raise the wellhead price of oil by another $2 a barrel. In light of the fact that officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have produced figures showing that the result of such a price increase on the economy would be a rise in the consumer price index of two per cent and an increase of nearly half a percentage point in the unemployment rate, resulting in the loss of 42,000 potential jobs, and in light of the fact that this price increase announcement comes at a time when the most
recent labour force figures show a rate of unemployment already at a record 8.3 per cent and the most recent consumer price figures show an annual rate of increase of over 11 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the government to refuse any increase in the wellhead price of oil within the foreseeable future on the grounds of its disastrous effect on an already weak economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to raise a question of pressing necessity.
Since the Quebec Federation of Raw Milk Producers are objecting to the request of the federal government for a 25 cents contribution per hundredweight of milk under the pretext that this request announced in the recent dairy policy is unconstitutional, while those raw milk producers consider that it is quite constitutional to receive a gross subsidy of $2.66 per hundredweight exclusive of their quota for their production, and especially since they have gained 25 per cent of the quotas for manufacturing milk producers against whom a 20 per cent penalty was levied last year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House immediately suggest that the Minister of Agriculture take the necessary steps, through the organizations involved, to state once and for all in all fairness to manufacturing milk producers that if the constitution allows subsidies to producers, it also allows to withdraw or amend them and to table in the House a thorough report on this matter in the shortest possible time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. 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.

May 12, 1977
Energy


HOUSING
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent and important matter.
Since 40 per cent of construction workers are unemployed in Montreal and considering that the housing sector in that area has reached a critical point and that it is urgent to find solutions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the government grant as soon as possible the funds available for the Montreal region to undertake public works and urban renovations, in order to relieve the unemployment which affects that area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR MORE RIGOROUS SAFETY STANDARDS FOR OFFSHORE DRILLING-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development just recently released a report recommending the establishment of minimum training standards for workers on offshore oil platforms and requested the member countries of OECD to ensure the best possible safety standards are applied on offshore rigs to prevent injuries and oil spills, and in view of the fact that there have been 80 deaths in connection with attempts to retrieve oil from the North Sea and that the potential for such may be high in the Beaufort Sea, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That Canada immediately take a lead in establishing more rigorous standards and support early actions on this important OECD recommendation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, this week once more Canadians have been informed of record unemployment and record inflation levels. The consumer price index released today shows a year-end inflation rate from April 1976 to April 1977 of 7.6 per cent. The Minister of Finance said one and one-half months ago that the government would meet the 6 per cent annual inflation guideline. Two weeks ago he upped it to 7 per cent, and with today's announcement we see that for the first four months of 1977 Canadians are faced with an annual inflation rate now of 11 per cent. In view of the absolute bankruptcy of government policies, what new measures, if any, can the Canadian people and this House expect from the government? Will the government now abandon its inflation rate forecasting procedures which are obviously beyond a joke.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the report on the price increase. We still think that the goal set by the hon. Minister of Finance will be met by the end of the year.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, may I put a further supplementary question to the minister. In so far as the minister announced a target of 6 per cent a month and a half ago, then two weeks ago it was 7 per cent and now it is 11 per cent, may I ask the minister how he can make such a statement and can he inform the House that the government will now abandon its forecasting procedures and announce new methods?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if you look carefully at the statistics published today you can see a trend that will lead to the goal set by the Minister of Finance.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question and it is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since the figures announced today largely involve an excessive increase in food prices with terrible effects on the many people unemployed and low-income Canadians, may I ask when the minister intends to announce to the House a precise and coordinated national food program?
Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member correctly identifies, a large part of the increase was occasioned by an increase in food prices but a large part of that increase was occasioned by
May 12, 1977

the importation of foodstuffs from abroad that are beyond our control.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Like wheat and puffed rice.


Mr. Abbott:: The government is continuing to work toward the preparation of a national food strategy, an effort that I strongly endorse.


MEASURES TO ESTABLISH NATIONAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The increase in gasoline and heating oil prices comes at a time when the annual rate of inflation this year is up to 11.4 per cent. The minister has rationalized the increase in oil and gas prices as a means of encouraging energy conservation and exploration. These price increases are only acceptable if there is an effective conservation and exploration program. In view of the fact that the International Energy Agency has said that our achievements in conservation are below average, may I ask if the minister is now going to create a truly effective national conservation program for energy and if so, how does he plan to do it?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken a look at what the International Energy Agency had to say about our efforts, particularly in the area of conservation. They have given us a great deal of credit for the initiatives we have taken in energy conservation but they have been critical in one area and that is with respect to our prices. They said that Canada had been holding down prices for too long below international price levels and they strongly urged that Canada should increase its prices. I would say that the view of the majority of ministers yesterday that we should raise our prices in orderly steps, is very much the view of the International Energy Agency.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question. At the meeting yesterday I believe the minister suggested he is going to do something to expand the energy conservation home insulation program from the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to the rest of the country and this would be an effective step. Would the minister tell the House what other effective steps he might take and how does he explain, if he has an effective conservation program, now, that the chief of the office of energy conservation, Mr. David Brooks, resigned on the grounds of a dispute about conservation policy, describing the minister's policies as minimal? How does the minister explain that? This is a man on the scene in Canada and not some international agency.
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Dr. David Brooks has served my department and Canadians extremely well.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: He continues to do so.


Alastair William Gillespie: I want to make it quite clear that I wish him well with the work he has chosen to do. In making a change as he has at this time, after a year's sabbatical granted to him a year ago to consider other options and career opportunities and where he would like to place his efforts, he has chosen a path that will undoubtedly be of advantage to Canadians. I wish him very well.


John Carnell Crosbie: My question to the minister is this, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Brooks explained that he left the federal government because of a disagreement with the minister's department over conservation and he called the conservation policy minimal. We all wish the gentleman well in his next career, but can the minister answer his statement to the effect that the minister's policy is minimal, and what is the minister going to do about that?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member were to check he would find that Dr. David Brooks was misquoted.


EFFECT OF INCREASED PRICE FOR OIL ON COST OF LIVING-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the minister's announcement that the price of crude oil will rise $2 per barrel during the next 12 months. Since federal government studies show that a $2 per barrel increase will result in a 2 per cent increase in the cost of living, a 1.2 per cent decline in the gross national product and the potential loss of 42,000 jobs, I ask if these facts were taken into consideration when the federal government decided to approve the $2 per barrel increase? If so, will the minister tell the House if the government has considered that the plight of wage and salary earners in this country, who are restricted under the AIB to a 6 per cent pay increase and who now face an 11 per cent increase in the cost of living, will be further aggravated by the $2 per barrel increase in the price of oil? What does the government propose to do about the fact that this represents a reduction in the net incomes of millions of Canadian workers in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the hon. member's figures at all. Frankly, I think there are serious errors in his figures.


Mr. Rodriguez:: What are the minister's figures?


Alastair William Gillespie: The point which the hon. member, and I hope other Canadians, should recognize is that we would be derelict in our duty if we did not consider the long-term needs of

May 12, 1977
Oral Questions
Canadians for future energy supplies, and the importance of energy conservation. Energy ministers yesterday addressed themselves to that question and overwhelmingly-I include in that the majority of the consuming provinces as well as the producing provinces-they felt it was in Canada's interest that we should move our price up, because any other policy would have disastrous consequences for Canadians in the future.


OIL-ALLEGATION COMPANIES SPENDING LESS ON EXPLORATION WHILE RECEIVING HIGHER PRICES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The figures I quoted were given to a meeting of federal and provincial officials on March 4, 1976, and were quoted at the meeting of ministers over which the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources presided on March 5, 1976. The minister should be familiar with the figures of his own department. I ask the minister a question arising from a statement he has made repeatedly inside and outside the House, that these price increases are necessary in order to secure exploration and development. In the light of that, how can he explain that this country's petroleum industry in 1976, according to his own department's figures, when the price of oil was $9 a barrel, used 52 per cent of its internally generated cash flow for exploration, whereas in 1971, when the price of oil was only $3 per barrel, the industry invested 61.7 per cent of its cash flow in exploration. Will the minister explain why, despite the billions of dollars Canadian consumers have paid the petroleum company, that industry is spending a smaller percentage of its cash flow on exploration and development, therefore nullifying completely the minister's argument that higher prices will accelerate exploration in this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being extremely selective with his figures; I suppose we should not be surprised. But if he would look at the next year, 1972, which was also a year before the increase of international prices and the start of the rise of Canadian prices, he would find that the percentages for 1976 which he quoted at 52 per cent, were higher than those in 1972. The hon. member has been selective in taking a particular year which best illustrates his particular case. I suggest to him that he look over the whole five year period. He would see that there is an increasing trend on the part of the oil industry toward exploration and development.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he is satisfied that the additional cash flow which the oil industry has received from the steady increase in the price of oil is only 52 per cent. May I ask him what percentage of the oil companies, internally generated cash flow ought to be used for exploration and development. What is the percentage? Will the minister tell us what the goal is that the federal government has set or is he leaving that matter entirely to the discretion of the oil companies?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should also acknowledge there are other calls on the internally generated funds such as increases in working capital during an inflationary period and other capital expenditures which produce jobs for Canadians right across the country. The hon. member has not acknowledged this. If he were to acknowledge this, he would be able to state that a much larger proportion than the proportion he mentioned has been devoted to these capital projects. I say to him that I hope to see that particular trend increase for some years to come.


AGRICULTURE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture of which I gave him a copy.
Can the minister tell the House about the results of the meeting he had with the supply management committee and the provincial Ministers of Agriculture which he mentioned in reply to my question of Tuesday last concerning manufacturing milk producers' provincial quotas for the 1977-78 production?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we had a lengthy discussion. Two provincial governments or their milk marketing boards have made a decision that they will participate in the program. The others have not. Some wanted longer to consider. Some took a strong stand toward participating in our program in the way we had suggested to them. We said if there was any other way they could come up with an equitable method of finding a way to pay on all class one milk, we would accept that, and that they had until the first week of June to do it.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER JUSTICE WILL BE GIVEN QUEBEC INDUSTRIAL MILK PRODUCERS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Can the minister tell us whether the people he met, who represent the manufacturing milk producers for the year 197778, are willing to recognize the problem of equity towards the Quebec manufacturing milk producers, whether that problem can be solved and whether government has the power, through the bodies involved, to demand that justice be done to those producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the provincial minister of agriculture for Quebec did not attend the meeting yesterday. One of his representatives was
May 12, 1977

there. He sent the message that he thought what we were suggesting appeared to be fair. However, there is no way that I, as federal Minister of Agriculture, can deal with the inequity of quotas and so on, which may be as the hon. member has intimated, and tell the provinces how its quota should be administered.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, on a final supplementary.
Can the minister tell us whether the special envoy of the Quebec government is aware of the problem, whether he takes seriously the problem facing our manufacturing milk producers who have been wrongfully denied 25 per cent of their raw milk quotas in some provinces?


Eugene Whelan: The representative sent by the government of Quebec is very familiar with all aspects of the dairy industry. He is one of their top civil servants and he has attended many meetings in Ottawa in the past.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government received an explanation from the chartered banks as to why they have chosen to delay lowering their prime lending rate until June 1 when the Bank of Canada obviously hoped for an immediate reduction in interest rates when it made its announcement last Friday. If such an explanation has been received, would the hon. gentleman inform the House as to its nature? I ask this, bearing in mind that every day's delay in lowering the rate by even half a point means that an extra one million dollars at least is being charged to Canadian borrowers.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I noted the article on which the hon. member bases his question. I have looked into the matter and it appears that some banks did respond immediately by lowering their rates but that others did not. I am disappointed that the banks did not respond more immediately to the change in monetary policy indicated by the governor. I expressed my disappointment to the governor and I expect that he will convey our views, and the views of hon. members expressed here, to the banks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The answer just given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance indicates that some banks have responded while others did not. Could the Acting Prime Minister or the parliamentary secretary go further and tell us
Oral Questions
what banks have failed to respond and what explanation has been received in this regard?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We have not asked the banks for an explanation. I do not think the article which I read indicated which banks had responded. But some have done so. I would point out that banks are in competition with each other. The public ought to know that some banks have responded and are offering to lend money at lower rates of interest than others, and govern itself accordingly.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the Provincial Bank has announced plans to lower consumer interest rates by half a per cent to 13 per cent, would the hon. gentleman indicate whether the government has used, or intends to use, moral suasion to induce banks which have not chosen to lower consumer interest rates to do so, bearing in mind that lower rates on consumer credit would help reduce prices and create the stimulus which is presumably needed to deal with unemployment?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the public has a free choice among the banks. If some banks are offering lower interest rates, the public ought to know it and act accordingly.


CANADA SUMMER GAMES
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Amateur Sport and Fitness. The Canada Summer Games will take place in Newfoundland this year and I invite all hon. members to visit the province and enjoy our hospitality at that time. In view of the fact that there is now an urgent need in this country to express national unity, and since there is no more appropriate place to do this than on the sports field, I want to ask the minister, coming, as she does, from the beautiful west coast, what plans she has for the promotion of these games on the equally beautiful east coast?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We are in fact beginning to promote the Canada Games at this time. We have an agreement with the Western Canada Lottery to promote the games via television twice a week starting very shortly. Also, the CBC is scheduled to commence regional television promotions of St. John's and the Canada Games. Its live national coverage of the games will be the most extensive ever in the history of the Canada Games. I should like to offer an invitation to all hon. members to attend the official kick-off ceremonies which will be taking place on Monday, May 16.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 12, 1977
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM DATE PROGRAM WILL END-CONTROLS AS A METHOD OF FIGHTING INFLATION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman said last Monday in the House that the law clearly stipulates that contracts cannot continue after December, 1978, even though I think there is a twist in the law which might permit the government to continue them after that date. Since the parliamentary secretary said a week ago that controls will not end by the end of 1977 because the expectations of Canadians have not decreased to the level where we can accept voluntary restraints, I should like to ask whether the government has now abandoned ail hope of ending controls before the end of next year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: In view of the continued presence and even acceleration of high inflation despite some 18 months of controls, is the minister still satisfied with controls as the main attack on inflation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, sir.


POSSIBILITY OF EXPANDING HOME INSULATION PROGRAM IN NEWFOUNDLAND-DEVELOPMENT OF GULL ISLAND PROJECT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the increases in oil prices agreed to at the conference yesterday will cause serious hardship to the Province of Newfoundland which is already torn asunder by increases in fuel prices affecting low income-earners, is the minister now prepared to expand the insulation program, or Enersave, in that province to alleviate the serious situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am pleased the hon. member mentioned Enersave. I think the response in Newfoundland to this federal initiative for energy saving has been almost 100 per cent. I think it has demonstrated to Newfoundlanders the real opportunities for energy saving which exist. As to whether we shall be able to provide any help additional to that which we have provided and are now providing to Newfoundland, I am not in a position to give the hon. member any information at this point. I do know that energy ministers all across the country are addressing themselves to the question of what additional measures they, and we, may be able to take in the near future. Perhaps in a matter of a few months I shall be in a position to say more.


Jack Marshall: The minister realizes the need to develop alternate sources of supply. Has any progress been made to help the province develop the Gull Island site?


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member would be helping his cause and the cause of Newfoundlanders if he would ask the premier of Newfoundland to get on with the job of providing me with the information. I have been waiting for six weeks now, for information which was promised to me much earlier.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The Science Council of Canada stated that the food and agriculture sectors of the economy in this country consume about 28 per cent of the petroleum products used. Since there is to be another price hike amounting to about $2 per barrel on oil, may I ask whether the minister has studied the impact of this increase on food prices? If he has, what does he intend to do about it? Is he considering tax cuts or other benefits of that nature for farmers and fishermen?


Eugene Whelan: The government's concern in this area is evident from its actions. The fact is, we are taking care of our farmers in a better manner than ever before. We have surpassed the United States in the measure of aid we give to farmers through our stabilization programs and the marketing programs available to our farmers. In most instances these costs are taken into consideration and if necessary we use the stabilization legislation as a further measure of assistance.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of that totally useless answer I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would he tell us whether his department is making any study of the impact the rising energy costs will have on the price of food, the Science Council having stated that food and agriculture use about 28 per cent of the petroleum used in Canada?
Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): My department is not equipped to carry out research of that sort.
May 12, 1977


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM REASON INDUSTRIAL WAGES INCREASING AT RATE ABOVE GUIDELINES-RESTORATION OF COMPETITIVE TRADING POSITION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Statistics Canada has reported that average weekly earnings increased by nearly 10 per cent in the 12 months ending in February-a rate considerably in excess of the second year wage guidelines under the anti-inflation program-can the minister explain to the House why, after well over a year of controls, average industrial wages are still increasing at rates well above the wage guidelines?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the answer is extremely complex because all wages are not necessarily controlled in Canada. Businesses with fewer than 500 employees are not submitted to the controls, and I shall have a look at the figures which were mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member and give him a more explicit answer tomorrow.


Stan Darling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Noting that the latest available measures indicate that Canadian average industrial wages are rising at a rate of some 4 per cent faster than comparable wage rates in the United States, can the minister explain to the House what factors led the Minister of Finance to pronounce so confidently in his budget speech that the erosion in our competitive position was being checked, and can he indicate to the House when he expects some progress to be made towards the restoration of our competitive position?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think it is evident that since last year, when the Canadian dollar went from $1 to 95 cents U.S., we have substantially improved our competitive position.


EFFECT OF INCREASED PRICE OF EXPORTS ON TRADING POSITION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As Canadian export prices have increased 18 per cent in the first two months of this year, can the minister tell the House why this sudden increase has occurred, whether it will likely continue for the balance of the year, and will it erode our export position?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, according to the forecasts for the cur-
Oral Questions
rent year, we are doing quite well on the export market in spite of the increase mentioned by the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Now that another weekly cabinet meeting has come and gone is the minister in a position to announce the formation of a national chicken marketing agency, and if not, why not?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport?
Could the minister tell the House whether the government will soon be in a position to consider the representations which have been made by the Quebec Urban Community and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Metropolitan Quebec about dredging to 41 feet the shipping channel of the port of Quebec City?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we had asked for tenders at several depths, and on examining the tenders it did appear that we would be able to get a very good price at the 41 foot level. I have today joined in announcing that that would be done. This, of course, respects the representations of members of parliament from the Quebec region as well as from the city and chamber, to the effect that the development of that area very much depends upon that extra depth. Therefore, we decided to go ahead with it and act immediately, in the hope that the dredging can be completed by November of this year. That is our expectation and we will deal with the question of appropriate cost recovery in another manner.


REASON FOR CLAIMING STATEMENTS AGENT NOT USED IN SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA FALSE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and are further to those raised Monday regard-
5550

May 12, 1977
Oral Questions
ing the fee paid to Shaul Eisenberg on the sale of a CANDU reactor to South Korea. Having read the report from the Canadian embassy in Seoul which quoted the ex-president of Korean Electric Company as having said that Eisenberg performed the normal liaison functions of a commercial agent, and as well having read and listened to the statements of the vice-president and the executive vice-president of that same company who state categorically that there was no connection with an agent and that the Korean Electric Company negotiated directly with AECL for the sale of the CANDU reactor, can the minister say on what basis he makes the claim that the statements of these two top ranking officials of the Korean Electric Company are false, as he did in the House on Monday?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, based on the testimony of the senior officer who was present at the time. May I say I think the hon. lady is referring to another press report which appeared in a Toronto newspaper this morning. If that is the source of her information, I have been told that the two persons who gave that information were not members of the Korean Electric Company at the time so they did not have first-hand knowledge of the events at that time. If she wants to put further questions on this matter, though, I suggest to her that perhaps the right person to ask would be Mr. Campbell, the chairman of AECL, when he appears before the committee. I believe that the public accounts committee will be meeting next week and that is surely the place to pursue her inquiries.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Having put numerous questions to Mr. Campbell on this already with no response forthcoming, I should like to ask the minister this question. Given the fact that there has been very little information forthcoming to the public accounts committee, and vouchers to substantiate the $15 million in payment of fees to Mr. Eisenberg have not been produced, and since both Eisenberg and Korean officials refuse to appear before the public accounts committee and we are now presented with two quite strikingly different accounts of Mr. Eisenberg's activities, is the minister satisfied that this brief report from the Canadian embassy in Seoul is sufficient to warrant the expenditure of some $15 million of public moneys as an agent's fee? In other words, is this as far as the government is prepared to go to satisfy itself that this money of the Canadian taxpayer has not been misspent?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I want to help the hon. lady and I will do everything I can.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Answer the question then.


Alastair William Gillespie: We have gone to the source where we think the information is likely to be accurate. She is quoting from a newspaper report based on the supposed statements, the alleged statements, of two persons who were not even there at the time. If she is not satisfied with that information, let her put those questions to Mr. Campbell.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is supplementary. Will he not establish a revolutionary precedent in this House by admitting that he does not know what he is talking about and is only parroting the statements made to him by his advisers, who have a vested interest in concealing the facts on this issue?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Would the Minister of Transport shed a little light on his attitude respecting the invoicing of CALPA and CATCA in connection with trips made by executives of those two organizations to Ottawa about a year ago at the request of the minister's departmental advisers, who helped resolve the very serious air travel situation existing in this country at the time and indicate whether or not he is prepared to rescind or to cancel those invoices and arrange to have whatever billing is necessary paid for out of departmental accounts?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet prepared to comment on that question. I had not been aware until very recently that there was any dispute about it, and I have not received a report.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if 1 understand correctly the minister's comments on this matter that is now before him, to which he is directing some of his attention, that perhaps we will have an answer within a week?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be reasonable.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General whom I trust will help to resolve the current confusion in the mail service in the Toronto area. Has the Postmaster General been made aware of the test conducted recently by Alderman Ying Hope on mail delivery in Toronto, where only five of 49 letters reached their destination overnight; some took over a week to deliver; and six letters never arrived at all? In view of the vital importance of a reliable speedy mail service in the Toronto area, will the minister launch a wide-scale investigation in an attempt to resolve the problem and give the city of Toronto the quality of mail service it urgently requires?
May 12, 1977


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: And that it has been used to, I might add, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated to the hon. gentleman in committee, when we were dealing with the estimates, the situation in Toronto is an aberration that is of short duration. It is one that was brought about as a result of the acceleration of the program of transferring from the manual sorting in terminal A to the three postal plants. As of Monday of this week, the backlog represented one shift in Toronto, and that was concentrated in the south central plant.
With reference to Mr. Ying Hope's experiment, I am not personally familiar with his experimentation or what the criteria were that he employed in conducting his test. All I know is that it is an old test, and surely he has received all the pieces of mail. The discrepancy in the usual service provided, which is the service he has been used to, was due to what I have just advanced to the hon. gentleman, namely, a temporary aberration and one that we are sure has now been removed. I am now asking all members if they have any specific instances of difficulty which they are encountering to make me personally aware of them so that I can check them all out.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is with regard to the same subject. I am sure the alderman agrees that "hope" springs eternal in these matters. Arising from the complaints of the Independent Businessmen's Association with regard to the fact that mail is so slow in the Toronto area and that the cancellation date on envelopes is no longer accepted as a payment date for outstanding accounts, would the Postmaster General also investigate this problem to see if he can resolve it as well?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, I am very interested in the opinions of small businessmen and of the federation as well. We depend on them as they depend on us. I am not aware of the substance of the representations of the hon. gentleman having been made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen. I will look at those representations and see what can be done.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. President of the Treasury Board who is responsible for so many matters affecting the Public Service. My question is prompted by reports in the press this last day or so indicating that a language boycott has been organized by some 13,000 public servants in the Montreal area by refusing to provide services in the English language until certain conditions are met. I am wondering whether the minister can say what steps he and his government are taking to restore these services to the taxpayers of Montreal?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the situation could be described as being some-
Oral Questions
what hypothetical because, other than the press reports, there have been no communications to us about this action. As of this moment, the best information I have-and I have checked with all departments-is that there are in fact no instances of refusal to serve in both official languages. Thus, it is more of a threat than concrete action at the moment.
Having said that, I want to clearly indicate those people in Quebec or anywhere else, who are incumbents of designated bilingual positions, clearly understand that their duties are to perform a service and to deliver information and services in both official languages to the populace as requested. That is the official policy of this government, and indeed it will be enforced. Dealing only with the press report, because there have been no other indications of this issue, compensation bonus is one of the issues which is subject to final determination when we complete the deep analysis of the implementation of the official languages policy which is now under way. We anticipate that completion within a few weeks.
The other issue is an apparent request to reduce the number of bilingual positions in Quebec, which is rather interesting to us because just a year or so ago the very same people, who are now complaining about it, were pressing for an increase in the number of bilingual positions in that area. Indeed, we might favour their newer proposal rather than their earlier one.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has been able to clear this up. It is perhaps pressure tactics on the part of that group. I am wondering if the minister has any comment to make about the study undertaken, which started about two years ago, concerning the bonus, and whether in fact there is some date that can be looked forward to for the publication of this report and its implementation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there was an earlier statement by the government that such action would be effective. That would be, of course, retroactive to November 1, 1976. At that time it was clearly indicated-and I think the unions fully understand-that it was a very complex single issue. There was the question of methodology, the question of amounts and the question of criteria for making available such compensation. That complexity has been further exacerbated because it is totally related to the announced intention of the government to review its official languages implementation policy, not the least important of which would be the delineation of the number of designated bilingual positions which would carry access to such compensation when implemented. I also heard comments by union spokesmen that they fully recognized the first thing that should take place, which is the announcement of the new implementation policy of the Official Languages Act when that is available. As I indicated in my previous answer, that is likely to be forthcoming before the end of this session hopefully, but I would think within the next few weeks.
80016-11%

May 12, 1977
Oral Questions ENERGY


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON WHETHER MR. JUSTICE BERGER EXCEEDED MANDATE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He indicated earlier that Dr. Brooks has been misquoted by the press. I would like to give the minister a quote of his own to see whether he has been misquoted. This appeared in the Alaska press two days ago. The article quoted the minister as saying that no one invited Mr. Berger to recommend against a pipeline. Would the minister advise the House as to whether he was misquoted? If he was not misquoted, would he advise the House whether it is now the government's position that Mr. Justice Berger has exceeded his mandate in the Berger report?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have lauded the Berger report as a very comprehensive document and indeed a very eloquent statement. I have nothing further to add at this time.


NATIONAL INSULATION AND TAR SANDS PROGRAMS- MINISTER'S PREFERENCE FOR FUNDING
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to find out, first of all, if the minister made the statement. Second, the minister indicated, when he announced the insulation program in Nova Scotia, that the cost of gaining an extra barrel of oil by saving it is a fraction of the cost of finding and producing the same barrel. I commend the minister for that statement.
In view of the fact if we had a national insulation program that we would save more energy than we can get out of the Mackenzie Delta and it would be at one third of the cost; in view of the fact that the minister has two programs in front of the Treasury Board-one a national insulation program and the other another tar sands program-and in view of what the minister said about conservation, would the minister advise which one of those two programs he wishes to have funded? Would it be the national insulation program or the extra tar sands?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend to the hon. member that he reread "Energy Strategy for Canada-Policies for Self-Reliance". If he does, he will see the kind of gap we are faced with-the gap between domestic production and foreign imports of oil-that is to say, the problem of reducing a growing dependence on foreign oil which is what the situation will be in 1985 if we do not increase our conservation efforts, bring on a tar sands plan and bring down our resources from the north. We will be in real difficulty.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My final supplementary question is this, Mr. Speaker. On the program for national insulation some prov-
[Mr. Andras.l
inces have indicated acceptance and some have indicated refusal. Why does the minister not proceed with the national program with the provinces that have accepted and are willing to go on with the program, so that we can make some energy decisions?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on, Alastair, up on your feet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) rose on a question of privilege in connection with a news bulletin issued by a Radio-Canada reporter and reflecting on the political loyalty of the hon. member for Bellechasse.
I have examined most attentively this question of privilege, together with the following motion:
That considering the prejudice to my reputation as the hon. member for Bellechasse, this House request Radio-Canada to set the facts straight as soon as possible.
I have considered a number of precedents, especially that of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) on May 20, 1976. I suggest the two cases are similar. This issue of the objectivity of the media is often discussed in the House following questions of privilege. It would be difficult, however, to claim that the quality of the information spread by the press could warrant a question of privilege.
As I indicated in the decision I rendered on May 20, 1976, we must take into account here a basic right which is as important as parliamentary privileges, namely the right of the freedom of the press which must not be interfered with, except in cases of very serious contempt of Parliament, which is not the case today. The hon. member for Bellechasse certainly entertains an important grievance but, on the basis of our precedents and parliamentary practice, I must regretfully find that this is not a true question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General in his position as deputy House leader. I should like to ask whether he can inform us of the business of the House for the balance of this week. I understand he is prepared to designate two days next week as opposition days. If he could do that, I would be grateful.
May 12, 1977

I wonder, at the same time, if he could tell the House the intentions of the government with respect to the notice of motion appearing in the name of the President of the Privy Council respecting the question of northern gas pipelines. It appears on page VIII of todays order paper. I am really interested in knowing the purpose of the motion. Is it merely as window-dressing, or is it the intention of the government to bring in that motion for debate quickly and, if so, is it the intention of the government to bring the motion on in such a way that the matter may come to a vote? I really want to know why it is there.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I had hoped the hon. gentleman, in raising his point of order, would seek information and would refrain from editorializing or engaging in debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: If the hon. member is interested in knowing the business of the House, I would be pleased to inform him. If he wants to engage in debate on various items on the order paper, we can oblige him as well. I am pleased to advise him that we will be continuing today with Bill C-51. Tomorrow is an opposition day, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton knows. On Monday we will resume debate on Bill C-51 and, I hope, dispose of it-if we do not do so today. I hope we might refer it to the committee this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Don't editorialize.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Then we will proceed with Bill C-38, the fisheries and environment bill. Subsequently, we will deal with the customs tariff, the excise tax legislation, followed by the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. As well, we will be dealing with allotted days on Wednesday and Thursday of next week, as the hon. gentleman has indicated. We hope that the items I have enumerated will take us through next Friday. With reference to the item on the order paper mentioned by the hon. member, I have a great deal of respect for the President of the Privy Council and I believe that when he puts an item on the order paper it is there, not as window-dressing but as a substantive item to be dealt with by the House.


Walter David Baker: I am surprised that the deputy House leader should think I am editorializing, when I speak so gently to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I asked him two questions which may have escaped him. He has indicated that the President of the Privy Council seriously put the motion on the order paper. I asked him two questions arising out of it. He can tell me if he has no instructions, and if he has instructions I would appreciate an answer. Is it the intention of the government to arrange to bring that matter to a vote? If that is the case, would he be prepared to discuss that motion? Also, can he tell the House when the motion will be brought forward? It deals with an important matter. If he does not have instructions on this, let him say so today and I can put
Privilege-Mr. Fortin
my question to the government House leader. If he does, can he answer the questions?


Jean-Jacques Blais: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have announced the business for next week. It is not the habit of the House leader or the deputy House leader to deal with a matter of that importance without due consultation with all the representatives of the other parties. Today we have not discussed that; we have not entered into any discussions relating to that item. When it is time to discuss that item and negotiate the time the House is ready to allow, the hon. gentleman from Grenville-Carleton will be advised.


Walter David Baker: In other words, you don't know.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Postmaster General has indicated why there is some concern about this motion. It was understood there would be a discussion among the House leaders about a possible debate on the northern pipeline situation, so it comes as a surprise to us that a motion is on the order paper without that discussion having taken place. But in view of the question asked by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton about the motion coming to a vote, may I ask what is the point of having a vote on a motion which simply says we will not take any decision?


Mr. Woolliams:: It has been done before.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege. I could not do so before since I just received this answer to a question I had asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) through the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the by-election coverage by Radio-Canada of the Social Credit Party of Canada. Here is the answer, and I submit that our privileges are actually affected. This answer comes from the Secretary of State himself.
Dear Sir:
As I had promised in my answer to your oral question on May 3, 1977, I am happy to inform you that I have received from Radio-Canada a report about the news coverage made last weekend on the by-elections.
Radio-Canada has given me the following information:
The French TV network initiated in the middle of April a First series of programs regarding the by-elections to be held at the end of May.
One must then not assess the value of the coverage on the First part alone.
The objective of those programs was not to take stock of all nominations in each riding, partly because all parties do not yet have candidates in all ridings, and the nominations are not all made.
The objective was to give a preliminary picture of the ridings with the main forces already in place and committed for sure in the election campaign.

May 12, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Fortin
Now, Mr. Speaker, here is where our privileges are violated.
In Langelier and Louis-Hebert, the candidates already identified and campaigning at the time of the program were Liberals Lamontagne and Dawson and Conservatives Hamel and Lavoie. Apparently the third parties had not yet fielded candidates.
So far, this is true.
In Terrebonne-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and to refer him to the provisions of the rules of the House, and in particular to Standing Order 17 which reads as follows:
17.(2) Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 42, any Member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to the opening of a sitting.
I shall particularly underline for the hon. member Standing Order 17 (2). Unfortunately, in the absence of the formal notice described in this subsection, it is impossible at this time to hear a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I could not give you a notice in accordance with the rules of the House, because I have just received this answer. This is a question of urgent and pressing necessity since the by-election is underway and since this discrimination objected to by the Secretary of State himself and the Prime Minister is continuing.
Mr. Speaker, I raised myself that very question in the House. As I was saying:
In Terrebonne, two leading personalities are engaged in the by-election bout. Liberal Comtois and Conservative Delorme. Our reporting related to the campaign already launched and to the fight that was already going on.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that it is Radio-Canada management which decides by-election results. They decide to eliminate systematically Social Credit candidates from their information programs. Our candidate for Terrebonne has been nominated since March 9. This information was conveyed by Telbec to Radio-Canada as well as other electronic media during a press conference which was held in Sainte-Therese city hall. Therefore, Radio-Canada was aware of that fact. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State undertook to inquire about that fact so as to ensure that our party was being fairly treated. Is there or is there not any democracy in this country, Mr. Speaker?
Radio-Canada decides by-election results by ignoring Social Credit nominations in its news bulletin. That is how they totally ignored our candidate in their letter. And moreover, Mr. Speaker, the letter states the following:
In Verdun, our reporting insisted particularly on the nomination of a surprise candidate from the NDP, a well known personality among consumers.
No mention is being made of Liberal, Progressive Conservative and surely not of Social Credit candidates. Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada has no right to interfere in the democratic rules of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is obvious that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is not raising a question a privilege

under the Standing Orders, but he certainly makes a grievance, maybe against Radio-Canada. The grievance was adequately set out by the hon. member this afternoon. He expressed himself in strong and clear terms. When recognizing the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I gave him, I think, a very reasonable opportunity to formulate and air his grievances against Radio-Canada but it is in no way a question of privilege, in the sense of the rules regarding the rights of members of the House. Perhaps this is a grievance introduced by a political party which does not involve the executive or the government in the House, as far as procedure is concerned, but a grievance from a political party against Radio-Canada. The grievance was well handled, expressed and set out very clearly and vigorously by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, but technically this is not a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order prompted by the exchange between the House leader of our party, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, and the Postmaster General who occasionally, when he is not looking after the Post Office, doubles as deputy House leader. It involves the very serious issue which involves the opposition day tomorrow and the motion in the name of the government House leader dated May 11, 1977, dealing with the question of northern pipelines. If we are to believe the press releases and other information from the New Democratic Party-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre nods his head, and I give to the nod of his head the same acceptance as if it were made under oath-


An hon. Member:: He is just clearing his ears.


Gerald William Baldwin: -the issue tomorrow will be a question dealing with the Berger report on these pipelines. This is a very important issue for parliament and this country. We all have reason to believe that the Prime Minister has made a secret agreement with President Carter.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Gerald William Baldwin: During the time this House will be in recess the government will make decisions which will be irrevocable. We in this House demand the right to debate and discuss this matter, to move amendments and to put questions. This question was raised yesterday and the day before. An indication was made by the government House leader that some opportunity would be given for this. If that is the case, it may well be that the motion appearing in the name of the President of the Privy Council represents that view of the government and that that is the decision. If that is the case, we should be advised, because tomorrow we will be debating an issue on which there will be a vote and which is subject to amendment, and by that vote and by that amendment we may be binding ourselves to a very narrow issue and preventing ourselves from debating the rather broader issue which the government may want to raise.
May 12, 1977

We may be finding we are irrevocably prohibited from debating, moving amendments and having the question put on the whole issue of the development of northern pipelines, what we do about the native peoples, the environment, the ecology, and so on. I think there is a responsibility on the government before tomorrow to tell us truthfully and honestly, if the government can bring itself down to that level, precisely what its intentions are with regard to this motion. Otherwise, there may be decisions made which may make it impossible for us to proceed.
1 suggest that if we are to have meaningful debates in this House which are of some value, we should have them in light of what is proposed in advance. If the government's intentions with regard to this motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council are to be realistic, it may well be that the Minister without Portfolio has been appointed as the spokesman for the government on this, and it may be that he is able to respond to me and say what are the government's intentions. He nods his head. I expect him to rise after I have spoken and tell us what the government is going to do. However, I suggest that this parliament has fallen to low enough levels at the insurance of the government and that it should not be allowed to handle this matter in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Peace River, it is interesting to observe how the opposition performs when it is in a box.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: The difference between the suggested wording of the two motions, the one on the order paper in the name of the President of the Privy Council and the one described in general terms by the House leader for the New Democratic Party, indicates very clearly a difference in approach on this particular point. I do not think there is a problem presented to the House as the hon. member for Peace River has described. The President of the Privy Council has indicated that parliament will have a significant role to play with respect to this question. The acting House leader, the Postmaster General, indicated a few moments ago that the motion appearing on the order paper in the name of the President of the Privy Council is not an exercise in window-dressing; it is a serious proposal and one which parliament will have to consider.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to Standing Order 17(2), page 14, where it is said that any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of the proceedings during the course of the sitting is allowed to do so by giving to the Speaker a written statement of the question at
Privilege-Mr. Fortin
least one hour prior to the opening of the sitting. The question of privilege I raised referred to a question and to the proceedings of the House. Therefore, the letter I mentioned and which gives evidence that Radio-Canada has inopportunely decided of the result-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The point raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere certainly did not arise from the proceedings which took place during this afternoon sitting. This is quite clear. If the question had been about events which took place this afternoon during the oral question period, it would not have been necessary for the hon. member to give the Chair notice of the question. That goes without saying but if it has to do with the proceedings of a previous day, under the rules of this House a notice is required. That too is quite clear.
I recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want, as the Standing Orders say, to challenge the decision of the Chair, but you did admit earlier that my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) has a valid grievance. From now on we will not be able to talk to one another without being filmed and without Radio-Canada being able to interpret that the way it wants. You just stated that this is an excellent grievance. Well, Mr. Speaker, nowhere in the Standing Orders does the word "grievance" appear, and that means we are going to go into the by-elections without of any kind of possible recourse.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere can certainly understand that I already gave him ten minutes this afternoon just to allow him to make a point that is undoubtedly a grievance. I recognized him and allowed him ten minutes to state this grievance, but it is indeed a grievance, and not a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order!


Mr. Speaker:: Presenting reports.

May 12, 1977
Committee Report



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I quite understand the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I decided twice that there was no question of privilege or point of order. I recognized the hon. member and let him talk for ten minutes so that he could state his grievance. That is enough. Order.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker! I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker! I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


TRANSPORTATION
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table the agreement signed between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia concerning ferries, signed on April 18, 1977.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker! I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For the last time, I must say to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that I decided there was no point of order or question of privilege. The Speaker's decisions cannot be appealed and, to my mind, both questions are settled.


PETITIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 67 to ask leave of the House to present a petition. The petition is signed

by several hundred persons living in nearly 60 communities in Saskatchewan and in other provinces as well. It asks that the parliament of Canada consider increasing the basic amount of the old age pension, lowering the eligible age, establishing a department of senior citizens' affairs, and taking certain other steps to improve the quality of life of our senior citizens.
I am happy to present the petition on behalf of the Saskatchewan Senior Citizens Action Now Association, for the consideration of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 182, 328, 1,868, 2,092, 2,148, 2,165, 2,167, 2,168, 2,176, 2,245, 2,307 and 2,370.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. Chris Patterson, Senior Operations Officer for the Unemployment Insurance Commission at Belleville, Ontario, presently taking a course in the French language at the government operated Asticou Language School in Hull, Quebec and, if so (a) on what date did his course commence and on what date is it estimated that it will conclude (b) what funds have been expended to date on behalf of Mr. Patterson including accommodation, meals, etc. (c) what is the total estimated cost of his entire course upon completion?
2.	Has the government at any time used Loyalist College in Belleville, Ontario, for employees of UIC in Belleville to study the French language and, if so, for what reason did Mr. Patterson not take his course in the city of his employment?
3.	Does Mr. Patterson's French course at Hull, Quebec, create more cost to the taxpayer than if he took it in Belleville, Ontario?
4.	What is the cost of a French course for UIC employees at the Loyalist College in Belleville, Ontario, based on any charges paid by the government for such courses in the past?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance and the Public Service Commissions as follows: 1. Yes. (a) Commenced August 9, 1976, with a possible duration of 52 weeks, (b) As of September 30, 1976: $1,632.62 (c) $8,800 provided that the course is of 52 weeks' duration.
2.	Yes, Courses were not available at Mr. Patterson's level of learning ability as established by P.S.C. diagnostic tests.
3.	No. To take the course in Belleville would require the establishment of a special class with private tutors.
4.	The staff development branch of the Public Service Commission has a contract with Loyalist College in Belleville for the teaching of French. The contract is for one year, from July 1, 1976 to June 30, 1977. It calls for the payment of $35 per group-hour, with five to eight students per group. The cost is met by the branch from its appropriations budget, and is not charged back to the participating departments. The size and composition of any group may vary from time to time, depend-
May 12, 1977

ing on the number of students who require training, and the length of time required by any individual student for completion of his or her training.


Mr. Orlikow: Have the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway increased programs of improvement of standard of track and maintenance of some which will require more staff, more and better material, such as new, heavier rail and fastening, and more work equipment as recommended by the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission on April, 1973 and, if so, how much has this staff been increased?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Canadian Pacific Limited: Since 1973 CP Rail has installed over 1,200 miles of heavier section new rail and fastenings, including 215 miles of special chromium alloy rail, together with 200 additional miles of heavier section rail in their relay rail program. Heavier rail section, whether new or relay, is mainly installed as continuous welded rail or welded in lengths of 78 feet or 72 feet. Approximately 300,000 larger tie plates have been installed since 1973 and six-hole joint bars are now being used. Over this period, almost 5,000,000 treated track ties have been installed along with a test section of 1,300 concrete ties in the Pacific Region. Ballasting has been carried out on 2,600 miles of track since 1973. In 1973, a track-recording car was placed into service and each year 26,000 miles of track are tested. During this period, 96 bridges have been replaced and over $7.5 million was spent on additional roadway machines. The actual number of employees involved is difficult to ascertain, but the following has been developed as the actual man-hours worked during the period of 1973 to 1975 as follows:
	Man-Hours Worked
Year	Maintenance of way only
1973	13,283,055
1974	14,316,913
1975	14,004,873
Canadian National Railways: Since 1973 CN Rail has installed 2,035 miles of heavier section new rail. Major grade stabilization, tie renewal and ballast improvement projects were carried out as required in conjunction with the installation of heavier rail. During the next five years CN Rail proposes to install approximately 2,000 track miles of new rail, together with grade stabilization, tie renewal and ballast improvement work. In addition, a program for the installation of concrete ties in heavy curve areas on its Transcontinental main line between Capreol, Ontario, and Vancouver, British Columbia has been initiated. Approximately 1,500,000 concrete ties, equivalent to over 550 track miles, will be in place by 1981. A substantial investment in track maintenance equipment has been made in conjunction with the track renewal program. In 1977 an additional $4.5 million in operating funds has been allocated to field activities to retain a high standard of maintenance throughout the system. The actual number of additional employees involved is difficult to ascertain, but the
Order Paper Questions
following has been developed as the actual manpower count of maintenance of way employees, excluding management:
Maintenance of Way
Year	Manpower
1974	11,031
1975	11,082
1976	11,121


Mr. Allard: 1.	In (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76, what was the amount of operating and investment expenditures of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in each province and territory?
2.	For the same years, what amount did the government recover from the provincial and municipal governments in the (a) western provinces (b) Maritimes?
3.	For the same years, how many RCMP officers were posted in each province and territory?
4.	What are the RCMP's areas of activity in the Province of Quebec?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police): 1.
(a)	(b)	(c)($000's)	($000's)	($000's)British Columbia	$50,564	$64,007	$ 84,982Alberta	26,026	32,364	39,705Saskatchewan	29,478	39,178	46,335Manitoba	15,290	20,079	26,219Ontario	82,761	99,533	122,168Quebec	18,426	23,956	35,381New Brunswick	8,431	10,918	13,500Prince Edward Island	2,061	2,479	3,216Nova Scotia	11,235	13,514	15,619Newfoundland	9,429	12,130	14,532Northwest Territories	(see note)	7,567	8,197Yukon Territory	(see note)	1,868	4,522Note: Separate figures for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon	Territory are not available in territories is $7,343,000.	1973-74; the combined figure	for these2. 1973-74	1974-75	1975-76	($000's)	($000's)	($000's)	(a) $52,925	$60,624	$72,516	(b) 12,475	14,626	17,216	3.	1973-74	1974-75	1975-76British Columbia	2876	3044	3320Alberta	1402	1504	1607Saskatchewan	1448	1495	1531Manitoba	797	839	917Ontario	3767	4092	4235Quebec	1090	1086	1183New Brunswick	429	465	492Prince Edward Island	102	110	121Nova Scotia	531	565	587Newfoundland	501	532	558Northwest Territories	164	179	196Yukon Territory	79	81	88
5558

May 12, 1977
Order Paper Questions
4. The activities of the RCMP in the province of Quebec center around the maintaining of national security and the enforcing of all federal statutes and executive orders. The RCMP also provide investigative and protective services to other federal departments and agencies, and provide investigative assistance to other Canadian and foreign police forces upon request. The RCMP Security Service collects information touching on Canada's internal security relative to subversive activity, including espionage, as defined in section 16(3) of the Official Secrets Act. Security inquiries are also conducted on employees of the government of Canada or applicants for employment who occupy or will occupy positions requiring security clearance.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75 (c) 1975-76 (d) 1976-77 to date, did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce provide grants to
the shipbuilding industry and, if so (i) to which firms (ii) in each case, what amount?
2.	For the same years, how many workers were employed in each shipyard and for each category of worker, what was the average hourly rate of pay?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Insofar as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. (a) see Public Accounts of Canada, volume 11, Section 35, pages 21-22 (1973/74); (b) see Public Accounts of Canada, volume 11, Section 35, page 19 (1974/75); (c) see Public Accounts of Canada, volume 11, Section 35 page 21 (1974/76); (d) see following list.
Note: All grants and contributions are included in the amounts given.
2.	This information is considered commercially confidential and could be released only by permission of each of the companies listed in the reply to Part 1 of above question.
1. (d) Fiscal Year 1976-77 to March 18, 1977:
Shipbuilder	Shipowner	AmountKeen Industries	Keen Industries	$169,592Canadian Shipbuilders and Engine	N. M. Paterson & Sons	736,981Canadian Shipbuilders and Engine	Algoma Central Railway	1,779,900Canadian Shipbuilders and Engine	Min. of Transport and Comm. Prov. of Ontario	204,194Canadian Shipbuilders and Engine	Gypsum Transportation Co.	507,272Summer Equipment	Egmont Towing and Sorting	26,953St. John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock	Shell Bermuda (Overseas) Ltd.	11,765,879St. John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock	Cygnet Chartering Corp. Ltd.	1,625,804St. John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock	Esso Tankers Inc.	1,798,004Marine Industries Ltd.	Karageorgis Group	9,446,307Marine Industries Ltd.	Gulf Oil Canada Ltd.	1,846,458Marine Industries Ltd.	Empresa Maritimo Portuaria de Importacion	1,051,463Marine Industries Ltd.	Societe navale chargeurs Delmas-Vieljeux	994,677Canadian Dredge & Dry Dock Co.	Canadian Dredge & Dry Dock Co. Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Prov. of B.C. as	163,194Allied Shipbuilders Ltd.	represented by the Min. of Transp. & Comm.	95,276Allied Shipbuilders Ltd.	Arctic Transportation Ltd.	732,483Burrard Dry Dock Co. Ltd.	Prov. of British Columbia	1,221,721Burrard Dry Dock Co. Ltd.	Dome Petroleum Ltd. D. S. Milavsky, R. P. Govier, J. A. Hanlon; B. R. Torchinsky, T. A. McLellan, F. D. McCarthy, D. J. Bishop,	276,610Burrard Dry Dock Co. Ltd.	P. Kozicki, L. Lashyn	38,080Vito Steel Boat & Barge Const.	Valley Towing Ltd.	85,427John Manly Ltd.	Westminster Tug Boats Ltd.	4,310Port Weller Dry Dock Ltd.	Upper Lakes Shipping Ltd.	2,848,446Port Weller Dry Dock Ltd.	Cornwallis Shipping Ltd. Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Prov. of B.C. as	1,058,466Vancouver Shipyards Ltd.	represented by the Min. of Transp. & Comm.	715,148Vancouver Shipyards Ltd.	Aqua Transportation Ltd.	188,413Vancouver Shipyards Ltd.	Seaspan Overseas Ltd.	213,569Vancouver Shipyards Ltd.	Exploraciones y Explotaciones Mineras Izabal S.A.	173,398Thirty Thousand Island Cruise	Thirty Thousand Island Cruise	10,087B.C. Marine Shipbuilding Ltd.	Dome Petroleum Ltd. Centre Bay Holdings Ltd., North Arm Transp. Ltd. W.	663,382McKenzie Barge, Marine Ways Ltd.	Tocher, R. McLean, C. B. MacDonald, D. A. Dewar	124,398McKenzie Barge, Marine Ways Ltd.	Rockrete Marine Ltd.	86,396Streeper Bros. Marine Transport	Streeper Bros. Marine Transport Her Majesty the Queen, in right of the Prov. of N.B. as	76,388Apex Machine Works Ltd.	represented by the Min. of Highways.	81,449Ferguson Industries Ltd.	Canso Seafoods Ltd.	460,995Haste Fisheries Ltd.	Haste Fisheries Ltd.	123,044Verreault Navigation Inc.	Les Pecheries du golfe Saint-Laurent Inc.	559,160Marystown Shipyard Ltd.	John Penny & Sons Ltd.	267,645Marystown Shipyard Ltd.	Cargill Grain Co. Ltd.	460,244Marystown Shipyard Ltd.	National Sea Products Ltd.	386,750Gananoque Boat Line Ltd.	Gananoque Boat Line Ltd.	64,160

May 12, 1977

Order Paper Questions
1. (d) Fiscal Year 1976-77 to March 18, 1977:
Shipbuilder	Shipowner Her Majesty the Queen in righ of the Prov. of B.C. as	AmountYarrows Ltd.	represented by the Min. of Municipal Affairs.	754,446Int'l Hydrodynamics Co.	The Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.	100,000Int'l Hydrodynamics Co.	Usesojuznoe Exportno-Importnoje Objedininije	161,887Int'l Hydrodynamics Co.	Vickers Ltd.	149,308Int'l Hydrodynamics Co.	Hyco Subsea Ltd.	190,906Marlin Yachts Co. Ltd.	Sherwood Marine Inc. Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Prov. of N.B.	69,929Halifax Metalworkers Ltd.	represented by the Min. of Highways	81,259Bel-Aire Shipyard Ltd.	B.C. Dept, of Highways	49,556Bel-Aire Shipyard Ltd.	Zapata Marine Service Ltd. S.A.	198,014Bel-Aire Shipyard Ltd.	Seaspan Overseas Ltd.	46,645Hawker Industries Ltd.	Sedco Inc.	675,793Hawker Industries Ltd.	Marine Drilling S.A.	6,426,751Hawker Industries Ltd.	Overseas Drilling Ltd. The Cunard Steam Ship Co. Ltd. Ogden Saguenay Transport Inc., Ogden Ottawa Transport Inc., Athel Line	3,476,330Davie Shipbuilding Ltd.	Ltd.	7,174,077Matsumoto Shipyards	Jaybel Nichimo Ltd.	32,352


Mr. Brisco: 1.	What was the cost to date of all advertising in newspapers and other media to promote in 1977 the (a) Canada Works Programme (b) Young Canada Works Programme?
2.	What was the total cost of advertising in newspapers in the Constituency of Kootenay West for the (a) Canada Works Programme (b) Young Canada Works Programme?
3.	What was the total amount allocated to the Constituency of Kootenay West for the funding of the (a) Canada Works Programme (b) Young Canada Works Programme?
4.	What was the total amount of all applications received from the Constituency of Kootenay West for the (a) Canada Works Programme (b) Young Canada Works Programme?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	(a) and (b) The Canada Works and Young Canada Works advertising programs were combined in one advertising campaign; Cost to date: 985,259.68.
2.	(a) and (b) As noted above, campaigns were combined. Cost: $2,860.43
3.	(a) Subsequent to the provision of an additional $50 million to the first phase of the Canada Works program, a supplementary allocation of $72,000 was made to Kootenay West, for a total allocation of $225,000. Under the program's second phase, the constituency will of course receive a share of the some $120 million to be committed to direct job creation, (b) Subsequent to the provision of an additional $20 million to this year's Young Canada Works program, the constituency of Kootenay West received a supplementary allocation of $51,000, for a total allocation of $117,000.
4.	(a) $1,512,487; (b) $517,895.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged in investigating criminal activities?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: (a) During the course of their duties, some 215 employees were involved in investigating violations of the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act. (b) Approximately 350 employees were involved in investigating violations of those acts mentioned in part (a) as well as violations of the Radiation Emitting Devices Act.
In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: (a) General records disposal schedules of the government of Canada require that records be retained for a five-year period only. Therefore, information is not available, (b) 634.
In so far as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned: (a) 5,341; (b) 8,787.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged in the inspection of meat and poultry for purity?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: (a) 970; (b) 1,381.
In so far as Health and Welfare Canada is concerned: in 1968, the Health Protection Branch (then the Food and Drug Directorate) employed approximately 150 inspectors. By December 31, 1976, the figure had risen to approximately 225. These inspectors undertake activities related to food, drug, cosmetics, medical devices and radiation emitting devices. Slightly more than half of these inspectors spend their time on food safety matters. The inspection organization is involved in a wide variety of food commodities, including meat and poultry, fruits and vegetables, dairy products and beverages. The main responsibility for meat inspection in Canada lies with the
sooie-nVi

May 12, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Department of Agriculture. Health Protection Branch inspectors do visit some meat plants. Specimens of various meats are obtained at both the retail and manufacturing level and are analyzed for microbiological and chemical content and, in some cases, for nutritional concerns.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to inspect imported goods?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: (a) 177; (b) 207. Departmental personnel devote only a portion of their time in the inspection of imported goods.
In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: (a) General records disposal schedules of the government of Canada require that records be retained for a five-year period only. Therefore, information is not available, (b) 726.
In so far the Ministry of the Solicitor General is concerned: inasmuch as the inspection of goods imported into Canada is primarily the responsibility of Revenue Canada (Customs and Excise), this question has only limited application to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP has on occasion, been involved in investigations, and has acted on information received, which resulted in members of the force examining goods which were unlawfully or lawfully, imported into Canada. The majority of such members would have been attached to our customs and excise sections which, in 1968, had an approved establishment of 151, and in 1976, an approved establishment of 237. As these sections carried the dual responsibility for both Customs and Excise Acts enforcement, it is not possible to provide a further breakdown of responsibilities.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to inspect ships arriving at Canadian ports?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: (a) 30; (b) 33. Departmental personnel devote only a portion of their time in the examination of ships.
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: the number of quarantine officers employed to inspect ships arriving at Canadian ports: (a) 18; (b) 7.
In so far as Transport Canada is concerned: there are no employees in Transport Canada who were engaged exclusively to inspect ships arriving at Canadian ports. The number of employees on staff of the Ship Safety Branch of the Canadian Coast Guard available to inspect ships arriving at Canadian

ports were: (a) as of December 31, 1968, 122.; (b) as of December 31, 1976, 176.


Mr. Brisco: Are applications for funding by individuals, groups, organizations, municipalities or others within national parks given the same consideration as applications for funding from outside of national parks for (a) the New Horizons Programme (b) LIP (c) Canada Works (d) Young Canada Works and, if not, what are the details of the differences?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Manpower and Immigration as follows: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (d) Yes.


Mr. Fortin: Are there any laws limiting the proliferation of nuclear stations and, if so, what are they?


Alastair William Gillespie: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: no. However, the construction and operation of these stations are controlled by the Atomic Energy Control Board, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Control Act and Regulations.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	Is it standard procedure for the Passport Office to require that parents of children 16 years and under, must have their children's passport applications and pictures signed by the same guarantor as the parents and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is there a stipulation on passport applications that a guarantor must have known the applicant for at least a period of two years?
3.	Can the parent's guarantor sign the children's application and pictures if he/she has not known the children for the required period of time?
4.	Would the signature of another guarantor fulfilling this time requirement be acceptable and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Children under 16 cannot apply on their own for passports. The parents apply and guarantors are required to know them for a minimum period of two years. While the guarantor generally could be expected to know the child for whom the passport is required, personal knowledge for a period of two years is not essential, particularly in the case of a very young child.
2.	Yes.
3.	See answer to part 1.
4.	Not applicable.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 12, 1977



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received on May 12, 1977.
Government House Ottawa
May 12, 1977 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Jean Beetz, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor general, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 12th of May, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General


Léonel Beaudoin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Léonel Beaudoin: I would like to ask government members, members of the opposition, as well as the NDP and my own colleagues to hear me out concerning changes that have to be made to our rules.
Whenever we have grievances, cases of encroachment upon our parliamentary or private rights as representatives of a political party in this House, we cannot express them because our rules forbid it.
I would ask Your Honour to give the Committee on Procee-dure and Organization the possibility of changing our rules so that between the hours of 7 and 8 or 10 and 11 in the evening, we may express our grievances and obtain a reply from the minister responsible for the CBC, the Canadian National Railways, or any other agency to obtain a specific answer concerning our grievance.
At the present time, in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), a serious grievance has been expressed in the House but according to our rules Your Honour does not have the possibility of allowing the minister responsible for the CBC or other agencies to reply. I hope that eventually we shall truly solve this problem once and for all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Richmond has certainly raised an important and interesting question. In my opinion, one of the weaknesses of our procedure in Parliament is the lack of opportunities for private members to express grievances according to the Standing Orders; one aspect of the political life of an elected representative consists in expressing grievances in the House. In general, it is easy to do so by asking questions, but this is not absolutely perfect for this purpose. However, it is possible for a few members to ask
Criminal Code
questions at ten o'clock, but this is limited to two or three members maybe twice a week.
This is a very interesting question and I hope that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization will be able to find a means to allow members to express their important grievances and to request an immediate reply from the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford 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 read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday before debate on this bill concluded I gave the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) notice of my intention, as a solicitor, citizen and one charged with responsibility for making a decision on the bill in this House, to voice my concern about the electronic surveillance provisions of the bill. I said that if the minister was proposing a far-reaching change in law affecting the civil rights of people in society, then he is under the duty of explaining to the House of Commons why the practice established under that earlier bill introduced in the twenty-ninth parliament ought to be changed.
The minister did not, during his speech introducing this bill, deal with that point to any great extent. Perhaps he will differ with me. Nevertheless, I suggest he ought to deal with it substantially. He is asking the House to grant to our police forces powers they do not now possess under the law. If he seeks to change the law concerning privacy in this manner, he is under a heavy onus to prove the need.
I will not take up much of the time of the House. The opposition does not intend to delay this bill. Before concluding, I pay tribute to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) whose remarks of yesterday on the content of this bill deserve the commendation of all hon. members. He showed how far our jurisprudence as interpreted by the courts has strayed from the law we thought we had established in 1973. By presenting his argument forcefully, clearly and succinctly, he did a great service not only to the legal profession and the courts but to parliament and the people of Canada.

May 12, 1977
Criminal Code
We are all in his debt for the work that obviously he did in preparing his argument. It was well handled, well in keeping with his pre-eminence as a member of the Bar of Alberta.
I also pay tribute to the former member for St. Paul's, Mr. Ronald Atkey of Toronto, who served in this House in the twenty-ninth parliament. He led the battle in 1973 against the use of sophisticated electronic surveillance devices snooping into the day to day lives of Canadians and their documents. While such snooping may to a certain extent be inevitable in our society, he insisted, against the objections of the then minister of justice, on including in the bill then before the House certain safeguards or limitations governing the conditions under which surveillance could be carried out. I have read several times what he said in this House, and I commend to hon. members a reading of the speeches made on the bill in 1973.
I suggest that because of our determined opposition a sense of justice and fair play became evident in the government's approach to amending the Criminal Code. The amendments proposed under this bill can in part undo that which was fair and just. Therefore, we should not lie down, as it were, and say there is not a battle to be fought-because there is. Any time a free society accepts an amendment which without justification provides intrusion into the private lives of citizens by unusual and electronic means, by means too complicated for the ordinary citizen to understand, freedom in that society is diminished. That is what I am afraid of, and that illustrates my concern about this bill.
As reported in Hansard at page 3477 of May 7, 1973, Mr. Ronald Atkey spoke these words in the House of Commons:
To put my jurisprudential premise at its simplest, I believe that in a free society the right to privacy should be protected by law and that there should be derogations from this protection only where public need is clearly demonstrated by those who seek to use means to invade privacy in a rational way for the public good. The onus should always be on those invading privacy, not on those seeking the legal protection of the right.
Those are important words, straightforward and easy to understand, whether one is legally trained or not. Simply and fairly, they put forward the proposition the minister must answer. Really, the minister is saying that society in general, the members of which are just as interested as the Attorney General of Canada in defending individual rights, should grant the minister those powers he seeks in the bill without asking him to defend his request for such powers. We take that position. It is important for the House of Commons to speak loudly, and for its members to protest loudly against the government's attempt, no matter whether it is well-intentioned, to intrude one step further into the right of privacy, the right of civil liberty, the rights which accrue to any member of a free society, without first coming to parliament or one of its committees to justify what it is doing. They have not done so thus far. Until they do, this bill is a suspicious one, and the onus that is on the government as set forth by Mr. Atkey has not been satisfied.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard speeches by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the main spokesmen of the opposition parties. I have never heard such an exchange of flattering remarks concerning the Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). In fact, I heard somebody say they were statesmanlike speeches. My definition of a statesman is a dead politician. Therefore, I am not going to make a statesman-like speech today. I am going to tell it the way it is with regard to Bill C-51.
I say to the Minister of Justice that he has abdicated his responsibility to Canadians to make certain there is adequate protection for the safety and security of law-abiding citizens and to protect the legal rights and dignity of the government. That is the first comment I have with regard to the Minister of Justice. Second, the Minister of Justice has surrendered to the pressures of the gun clubs with regard to firearms, and to the police on wiretaps, thereby endangering the safety and freedom of most Canadians.
With regard to the main spokesman for the Conservative party, the hon. member for Calgary North, after making a fine speech showing the shortcomings and failures of the legislation, ended his speech by making a motion to refer the subject matter to the committee which would, in effect, kill the bill. To me and to many other people that was an irresponsible action with regard to a very important matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would have thought the distinguished member who is now speaking would have told it as it really is. My motion was within the rules of second reading as far as I could go. I set out very clearly that it was being done so that the committee could sever the bill. The bill would be severed into the five different parts of the legislation so that we could pass our opinion as parliamentarians according to our responsibility. I think it ill behooves this member to misrepresent the position I took yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to intervene for a moment on this question of privilege. I think the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has stated the position correctly. While I will oppose his motion, I do not think it has the effect that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) is suggesting. That, of course, is the difficulty when the hon. member for Broadview tries to be a politician rather than address these important matters of justice and law like a statesman, as he should.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, when I look at the content of the bill, I think the Minister of Justice far outstrips me as a politician. He certainly does not appear like a statesman when I read the provisions of the bill. It is a cop-out with regard to
May 12, 1977

some of the main problems affecting the peace and security of most Canadians. If the motion of the hon. member for Calgary North were accepted, this bill, for all intents and purposes, would be killed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a question of privilege. I do not know how much clearer I can put it to the distinguished member. If the hon. member reads the motion, he will see it clearly states that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs can direct that the bill be severed, sent back to this House and debated in the normal way on the five points. If he does not understand that, then I am sorry for him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Walter David Baker: Now, Stanley, you stay out of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why should I stay out of it? It is a point of order which is being used to try to twist the situation. The motion which the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) made yesterday is very clear. It asks that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to a committee. The hon. member stated that his purpose is to get that committee to recommend the splitting of the bill. However, if his motion were to carry the committee would not have the bill: it would have only the subject matter. Notwithstanding what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) tried to say, that would be the end of the bill for this session.


Walter David Baker: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been ruled scores of times that a motion to refer to committee the subject matter of a bill precludes its second reading. If you do not give the bill second reading, there is no bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this question of privilege. Clearly, what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says is so, if the government does not act. Surely, if the government is intent upon the provisions of the bill as they now stand, and I take it they acted seriously, if the hon. member's amendment passes and the bill goes back to the committee-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not the bill.


Walter David Baker: If the subject matter went back to the committee, and the committee made a recommendation-which it would do with reasonable speed because the object of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is so clear and so helpful to the House that they would so act-it would still be the intent of the Minister of Justice to bring that new bill into the House of Commons, and the House would deal with them properly. That was the whole point of the argument made yesterday and the day before by the colleague of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not know how that party can suck and blow at the same time.
Criminal Code


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: You want to kill the bill. We do not.


Walter David Baker: A very eloquent argument was made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) that it was immoral and wrong for the bill to be dealt with in that way. What the hon. member for Calgary North has done is provide a way for this House to deal with the subject matter of the bill properly and in accordance with the position taken by the hon. member for New Westminster.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, if I could answer the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I would like to ask the distinguished member what we are talking about when the subject matter goes back to the committee. Let's not play ducks and drakes with words. The bill is full of subject matter. It is made up of five things. What are those five distinct things? There are the questions of gun control, electronic surveillance, dangerous offenders, parole, and prison reform. That is the subject matter of the bill. When the subject matter goes to the committee, the bill goes to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, not the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If that is not the procedure of the House of Commons, then there is something wrong with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The point raised by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is well taken. I do not think any hon. member should reflect on the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North. I would therefore suggest that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) should resume debate on Bill C-51.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I and many others are very concerned about the problem of peace and security for most Canadians. It is the intention of those of us in the New Democratic Party to vote for the bill because of the necessity to ensure the safety of Canadians, even though parts of the bill restrict their fundamental freedoms.
I was hoping the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) would speak before me. I was going to say that the provisions with which he is going to deal, dangerous offenders and release of inmates from custody, concern the effects of crime and not the cause. Therefore, we in the New Democratic Party find it is necessary to support the legislation in order to give a small measure of security at the price of infringement of personal liberties.
What is the problem? On March 8, 1976, on the introduction of second reading of Bill C-83, the Minister of Justice set forth the problems in Canada concerning peace and security. This is what he said, as recorded on page 3 of his statement:
Few would dispute that many people today are deeply and genuinely concerned about the increasing incidence of criminal violence, the growing penetration of organized criminals in our midst, the number of accused or convicted offenders on the streets committing further crimes and the difficulties the system of justice has in coping with criminal activities.

May 12, 1977
Criminal Code
He went on to say:
This is not to suggest for a moment that crime in Canada is out of control. Indeed, it is not, and our timely response to these concerns will ensure that it does not become so.
In addition to setting forth the problem, the minister outlined his attitude in this way:
The criminal justice system is both a powerful and delicate instrument for achieving justice and order. In adjusting the policies underlying it we must exercise great care to guard the continued proper balance between the system's two imperatives: the adequate protection of the safety and security of the law-abiding and the legal rights and dignity of those charged with offences.
He set this forth in a clear and concise way back in March of 1976. Here we are, in May, 1977, with Bill C-51 before us, and his response to the problems which he set forth is, to my mind an abdication and a surrender. It is an abdication with regard to the duty providing adequate protection of the citizen, and it is a surrender to the gun clubs on the firearms issue.
I shall deal only briefly with the firearm question, because my hon. friend from New Westminster yesterday set forth our position in detail. What is the problem? These are the facts from the booklet which was published by the Department of the Solicitor General. They say there are 10.2 million firearms in Canada, and this number is increasing at the rate of about 260,000 annually. The department also states there has been a substantial increase in deaths and robberies in which firearms have played a part. There has, in fact, been a sweeping increase in the number of deaths caused by firearms and in the number of robberies in which firearms have been used.
Yesterday, in the most eloquent terms he could muster, the minister spoke about the availability of guns. He told us how easy it is for a person to go into a department store and buy a gun. Other members reminded us of various horrific incidents, for example, those at Brampton and in Ottawa involving students who went berserk and killed other students. Then there was the mental patient who, after his release last October, went to a store, purchased a gun, proceeded to wound five people in Toronto and then turned the weapon on himself. What is the attitude of the public? Gallup polls have shown without a doubt that between 80 per cent and 85 per cent of all Canadians want strict gun control.


Mr. Brisco:: Garbage!


John Gilbert: The Gallup poll to which the minister referred yesterday reflected answers to questions which asked, in general terms, whether a person should be required to possess a permit before being allowed to buy a gun. The answers showed that between 80 per cent and 85 per cent of all Canadians want strict control to be exercised over the purchase and use of firearms.
What has been the response of the minister in this legislation? It is that if a person owns a long gun, he may continue to use it without having to register it, without having to secure a certificate of competency or a licensing certificate. In short, nothing is required of those who already possess long guns. But the bill does provide that if a person wishes to buy a gun he must possess a firearm acquisition certificate, and conditions

are imposed with regard to the obtaining of such a licence. For example, such a person must be without a criminal record or history of mental disorder. But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this relates only to the purchase of a gun. Nothing is said with regard to a person already in possession of a gun.
Moreover, cleverly shifting the onus, the Minister of Justice says that provincial attorneys general may request the federal government to require that certificates of competency be issued within provinces. Mr. Speaker, this was not within the terms of Bill C-83. As I say, the minister is doing nothing about people who already have guns in their possession. He is only imposing restrictions on those who propose to buy guns, and he is shifting the responsibility from the federal government to the provinces in the area of competency tests.
No one in this House complains about persons who hunt or trap to support themselves or their families, and no one wishes to impose upon them measures which would be restrictive and onerous. But as far as other classes are concerned, most Canadians want restrictions. Possession of a firearm is not a right, but a privilege, and conditions should be imposed upon ownership. Thus, we need provision for registration, competency tests and licensing. Why? Because we must control availability. The proliferation of guns has been enormous. Not only the federal government, but provincial governments should restrict the sale of guns in stores. They should be sold in stores which are government-approved and inspected.


Robert Hylton Brisco: With government inspectors?


John Gilbert: Absolutely. Controls should be imposed with regard to the possession of guns. That is why the minister, in Bill C-83, attempted to impose competency tests. This is why I say the minister has caved in to the pressure of the gun clubs.
Let me relate to the House what happens in gun clubs in England. Members of gun clubs do not take their guns home and leave them there; they leave them on the premises of the gun club, where they are properly secured and a count is easily available. This is what is required of members of gun clubs. All others who are not members of gun clubs and who are in possession of guns surely have some responsibility regarding those guns. This is why it is so important to know the number of guns in circulation. We may have to impose registration but, more important than registration, we have to impose some form of licensing.
We accepted the approach of the Minister of Justice in Bill C-83, which he said would have taken three years to phase in. I suggest the approach of the government in Bill C-51 will take at least 20 to 25 years to implement. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that registration of hand guns in Canada gives the proof of the requirement of registration. We must register hand guns, and rightly so. The number of murders committed by persons with hand guns in Canada compared to the number of murders committed by persons with hand guns in the United States proves my point. In Canada, 10.4 per cent of all murders are committed by people with hand guns; in the United States the
May 12, 1977

figure is 54 per cent. Does that not prove the necessity of registration and control of guns? In Canada, 46 per cent of all murders are of the domestic kind-murders committed within the family, among acquaintances or neighbours. Of that 46 per cent, 72 per cent are committed by people with rifles which are not registered and are easily available.
All of us are in agreement with the expanded powers of judges to restrict the use of guns. There are mandatory provisions and there are discretionary provisions, and power is given to a peace officer to take away guns without a warrant in disputes involving the family, acquaintances or neighbours. That is not in issue, Mr. Speaker. What is in issue is what is contained in this bill. I respectfully submit the minister has caved in; he has shifted responsibility to the provinces and, in doing so, has endangered the lives of Canadians. This government will have to accept responsibility for deaths in the future caused by carelessness with and failure to control the availability of guns. Those are my comments with regard to firearms, Mr. Speaker.
With regard to electronic surveillance, the House will recall what I said about the famous speech of the Minister of Justice of March 8, 1976, in which he said he wanted to protect the legal rights and dignity of individuals. He set forth that there should be no invasion of privacy, but he said that we had to make certain exceptions. What are these exceptions, Mr. Speaker? The minister said, "I think there should be a right to wiretap in regard to indictable offences carrying a sentence of over five years"-I think it was. In this bill the minister wants to expand this provision to bookmaking and smuggling as well as to organized crime.
With regard to notification, the minister said, "I think a person should be notified not after 90 days have expired but any time between 90 days and three years". On the subject of intercepts, the minister said, "It should not be 30 days; experience has shown the average has been about 54 days; therefore it should be 60 days for intercepts, with the right of renewal". Then the minister comes right to the nub of it and talks about derivative evidence. The minister says that use will not be made of the complete transcript of illegal wiretaps, but part of the transcript may be used.
If I were living in the United States, perhaps I would feel that that type of legislation is appropriate; but this very provision is totally opposed there. We now have a movement in England which claims that experience has shown that derivative evidence obtained from illegal wiretaps is not a good rule and that in no time at all changes regarding that type of evidence will be made. We have had some experience of wiretap laws in Canada-and what has been the performance? The performance in 1974, 1975 and 1976 shows that there has been almost no refusal to tap on the part of the police. Last year, 614 applications were made under the legislation, none of which was refused. More importantly, last year 1,062 people were arrested as a result of taps yet there were only 13 convictions. Surely, the obvious inference from that is that there are very few charges laid, and very few convictions
Criminal Code
obtained. It is also obvious that the police are not reaching the so-called untouchables in crime.
One reason put forward when the wiretap legislation was presented a few years ago was that we had to get to the heart of criminal activity. I should like to quote to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General some of the remarks of Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general and opponent of electronic surveillance, in his testimony before the justice and legal affairs committee in 1973. Please remember, Mr. Speaker, that these are the remarks of a former attorney general of the United States who worked very closely with Senator Edward Kennedy who wanted strong electronic surveillance provisions.
He said that wiretapping was not used between 1966 and 1969, yet indictments against members of organized crime tripled. He concluded that wiretapping is a wasteful and inefficient means of investigation and is not, moreover, effective against organized crime. Having had very wide experience, Mr. Speaker, a former U.S. attorney general has gone on record as saying that indictments against members of organized crime tripled, yet no use was made of electronic surveillance. He also said wiretapping destroys the professionalism of investigators, that electronic surveillance encourages, not investigation but just sitting and waiting for something to happen.
This is what a good number of the members of our police force will be doing. It is enormously expensive; for example, the use of laser beams that can pierce walls up to 12 feet thick. Such all-encompassing eavesdropping evades human dignity. This is the example he gave: the listening in on the sexual activities of Martin Luther King and the subsequent use of this information to smear Martin Luther King's reputation.
I have heard the spokesman for the Conservative party speak, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and the spokesman for our party. They spoke in very eloquent terms in regard to how it destroys the basic freedoms of people, how it endangers, how it infringes and how it destroys the human dignity-not only of the police but of the public. This is why we are concerned about the firearms' legislation and the electronics' legislation.
The next subject I am going to deal with is something the Solicitor General will also deal with. That is, dangerous offenders. We have learned from experience the shortcomings of the present provision of habitual offenders and dangerous sexual offenders. Experience has shown that some of these people were not violent. The best case was the Klippert case which finally went to the Supreme Court of Canada. We have also seen lack of uniformity with regard to application of the legislation concerning habitual offenders and dangerous sexual offenders.
The Ouimet report studied this in depth wherein it was stated that we are now going to change the habitual offender and the dangerous sexual offender to one title-"dangerous offender". I would have thought the minister would have

May 12, 1977
Criminal Code
picked that up from the Ouimet report. The report indicated that before an application to make a person a dangerous offender is made, which carries with it an indeterminate sentence, such person should be confined for six months in a diagnostic institution. This institution would have facilities to diagnose the person's problems and may or may not have treatment available. After that we could determine whether a person should be classified as a dangerous offender. I do not see that recommendation in the legislation. All I see is some protection with regard to the person. The protection is composed of the fact that the application requires the consent of the attorney general and requires evidence from a psychiatrist and a psychologist which can be tendered on behalf of the person who is being termed as a dangerous offender. The other protection is that three years after the sentence and two years thereafter the decision can be reviewed.
I would like to ask the Solicitor General, with regard to the question of violence, to look at the study by Professor Greenland of McMaster University who studied this problem in depth. He studied five groups, Mr. Speaker. The first group was of 100 people who had committed violent crimes against persons and had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. Also included in that group of 100 was another group of people detained in the Ontario mental hospital because they were found unfit to stand trial. These were serious offences- murder, manslaughter, sexual offences and violent offences. The second group was a group of 100 people who were inmates of penitentiaries who had been found guilty of the same types of offences. The third group was one of 96 people who were currently incarcerated as dangerous sexual offenders. The fourth group consisted of people involved in murder followed by suicide. In the last five years, in Ontario, 65 individuals have murdered, usually their children, then their spouses and then destroyed themselves. The last group was with regard to the battered child.
What were the conclusions with regard to this problem of violence? This is what we are dealing with under the dangerous offenders section. Professor Greenland's conclusions were as follows: First, there was a tremendous overlap in all these groups and in all these cases. The same people and the same members of families appeared in each of the five studies. It was dealing with violence, which takes on many forms but often involves the same individuals and families.
Second, and this is the most important part, almost all the individuals studied had a common experience of severe deprivation in childhood. They were victims of inadequate child welfare and health services which failed to provide them with a basic system of care and protection. There has been a cycle of deprivation passed on from generation to generation, thereby multiplying violence and abuse in our society. His third point was that between one-third and one-half of the cases of violence, more especially criminal violence, involved alcohol and drug abuse. Lastly, in half of all the cases involved there was adequate warning and help-seeking behaviour. In other words, the person would have a mental problem; the mother of

a young family would seek help; and the failure to deal with that problem resulted in the subsequent conduct.
Is it any wonder that we cannot deal with the question of dangerous violence in isolation? This is why we must have programs to deal with environmental stresses-the problems of poor housing, the problems of poverty and the problems of unemployment. We have to set up research to identify the problems and to identify the persons. What the minister has done does not begin to touch the very serious problem with regard to violence. It deals with the effects; it does not deal with the causes.
Dealing with the problem concerning the custody and release of inmates, I am sure no member in this House can complain about those provisions. There is a tightening up of provisions with regard to prison escapes. The increase is from five to ten years. There is an abolition of statutory parole in favour of earned remission, which is a step in the right direction. There is an improvement with regard to release. There is an increase in the number of members who will be appointed to the board. There are amendments with regard to the Prisons and Reformatories Act. One cannot complain about those measures. The measures on firearms, electronic surveillance and dangerous offenders cause a great deal of concern to most Canadians.
In closing, I would repeat that the provisions of this bill do not provide adequate protection for the safety of most Canadians, more especially with regard to firearms, and the provisions of electronic surveillance infringe the fundamental freedom of most Canadians. Mr. Speaker, it is a cave-in, in many respects, by the Minister of Justice. It is weak medicine for a very sick society.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased this afternoon to participate in the debate on Bill C-51.
As we know, this bill proposes major amendments to the Canadian Criminal Code and related acts. Its main object, and some people could be inclined to forget it, is to give Canadian society better protection against those individuals who commit violent crimes. Yet in so doing the legislator must always bear in mind the importance of reaching a measure of harmony between the protection owed to law-abiding citizens, the respect of their rights as well as the rights of any individual facing a charge.
There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that society not only has the right but the duty to protect itself against those who commit crimes, particularly in the case of violent crimes and that in performing this part of its mandate, the government is not only bound to carry out punitive measures, namely those steps taken after a crime has been committed, but also to apply measures of detection likely to help the police in getting their job done and finally to adopt an increasing array of preventive measures concerning rehabilitation of prison
May 12, 1977

inmates and what can be done to help reduce the number of crimes committed in our society.
However, it goes without saying that as far as preventive measures are concerned, one cannot expect, as the hon. member from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) would imply, that this whole task can be accomplished thanks to the Criminal Code alone. It goes without saying that all the other governmental social policies must play a part in helping us meet this objective.

I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that the measures we have before us today are in keeping with these principles. They are aimed at keeping that delicate balance between protection of society and the rights of individuals while, at the same time, being responsive to emerging concerns about crime.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has already outlined the proposals to you, Mr. Speaker, but as Solicitor General I would like to take some time to reinforce some of his points and to expand on some of the measures for which I bear a special administrative responsibility. I would like to discuss, first, the proposal in Bill C-51 concerning firearms, and if I repeat some of the themes and points of my colleague, the Minister of Justice it is because I share his very deep concern on this question.
Hon. members will, of course, have noticed a number of significant changes in the proposals contained in Bill C-51 as compared with those contained in legislation introduced last year. Reconsideration was given over the course of last fall and winter to the many suggestions made by MPs and by concerned groups.
As a result, several changes have been proposed, especially to the provisions dealing with the prevention of potentially dangerous users from gaining access to firearms. Instead of a universal licensing system, Bill C-51 provides for the screening of all new acquirers through the requirement for a firearms acquisition certificate. In addition, there is an element of what might be called "negative screening" for present owners who are shown to be demonstrably unfit in the opinion of a judge. The expanded potential involvement of provincial systems calling for competency testing, and the possibility of certificate equivalents in such circumstances, is an innovation which could very well lead to making the legislation even more effective.

And concerning that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is an innovation which has not been noticed until now by most commentators. It is obvious that as government we have the responsibility to make legislation under our jurisdiction over criminal law, and we have the authority to do so. In fact, the question of jurisdiction has been raised by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). For him, it is the solution to the problem: that area is under the jurisdiction of the provinces. We have attempted in our bill to encourage provincial governments to exercise their authority, their jurisdiction, because we strongly
Criminal Code
believe that stricter requirements in competency and firearms use training could only have beneficial effects.

But in saying this I cannot stress too strongly the point that the over-all principle is maintained in the bill we are discussing now. Nor can I emphasize too much the fact that action is required on this issue. I urge hon. members, Mr. Speaker, to ask themselves the fundamental question of whether it is acceptable that long guns continue to be as easily accessible as they are today to people clearly unfit to own them. This is the key concern I have; this is the key concern the government has.
The danger of a situation where someone may walk out of, or escape from, a prison or mental hospital and purchase a shotgun, rifle or semi-automatic weapon and ammunition with absolutely no questions asked was never brought home to Canadians more clearly, or more brutally, than last winter in the incident in Toronto described by my colleague. Other tragic incidents-in Brampton, Vancouver, Whitby-have shocked the public in the last several months.
I cannot but repeat the statistics cited by others in this debate concerning the rising toll of firearms deaths in Canada, up 27 per cent since 1970 to over 1,400 in 1974. Firearms murders have risen 46 per cent since 1970. Firearms robberies in 1975 increased by 53 per cent over 1974. We simply must make an effort to stop this shocking trend. The key to the problem, as I have said before, and as the Minister of Justice has said before, is the too ready availability of such weapons to the unstable and criminal. For this reason, the government is proposing measures directed toward three main goals: first, of reducing the access that potentially dangerous users have to firearms; second, of discouraging the use of guns in criminal activities; and third, of promoting responsible gun ownership.
In suggesting proposals to fulfil these objectives, the government is mindful of the need to balance the need to protect society with the need to protect individual rights and freedoms. Furthermore, care was taken to balance our aims with regard to reducing the misuse of Firearms with those of providing services which maximize both efficiency and effectiveness. This, I believe, has been achieved by providing for the enlistment of already existing groups and agencies at the provincial level and in the private sector, and by cutting red tape and bureaucracy to the bare minimum necessary to accomplish the goal.
As Solicitor General, I might be expected to have the most enthusiasm for the measures which crack down on the criminal misuse of guns, and I do strongly support the provisions which impose stiffer penalties on people using firearms in the commission of crimes, including a minimum mandatory sentence of one year for a first offence and three years for a subsequent offence. Also, there are new penalties for use of a firearm while committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence. This sentence, which could be as long as 14 years, would run consecutively to a sentence imposed for the commission of the substantive offence.
Provision is also made for increasing the maximum penalty to five years for several other firearms offences, and to ten

May 12, 1977
Criminal Code
years in cases of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose or to commit an offence. These are important parts of this legislation. They constitute a clear indication to the courts that parliament, if it adopts the bill, will not condone the criminal use of weapons and that the legislative will is to see stiff sentences imposed in such cases. But in saying this I must again stress the importance of not losing sight of the fact that most of our crime with firearms is not committed by people we would normally think of as hardened or professional criminals. Two-thirds of our murders occur in circumstances where the victim and the murderer are either related or have had previous relationship with each other. Too often neighbourhood disputes or family quarrels are transformed into tragic incidents by the ready availability of a firearm.
In order to keep such dangerous weapons out of the hands of those unfit to use them, the government proposes that new acquirers of guns be required to apply for a firearms acquisition certificate, which would then enable a firearms officer to ascertain that the applicant had no record of conviction for an indictable offence under the firearms sections of the Criminal Code, nor for an indictable offence involving the threat or use of violence during the previous five-year period. Further, a check would be made to verify that the applicant had no known record of violent behaviour or treatment for a mental disorder associated with violence.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, these proposals make use of existing information and do not place an onerous burden on responsible citizens who would acquire firearms, while at the same time providing an essential and fairly simple method of screening-out new acquirers who are clearly unfit to own or handle firearms. Those who already own firearms but who are considered to be potentially dangerous could be subject to court-ordered prohibitions.
I would like to make it clear that the onus would be on the peace officer applying for a prohibition order under clause 98(4) to satisfy a judge that the gun owner is not fit to possess a weapon. Other clauses provide for the seizure of firearms in potentially violent situations without a warrant, but subject to later justification before the court.
Responsible use of firearms is encouraged by the active promotion of safety and competency training in all provinces. In fact, clause 106 of the bill authorizes agreements with the provinces designed to maximize co-ordination of the firearms part of the bill with provincial laws and programs dealing with game hunting, firearms competency testing and firearms safety training. This would enable some provinces to substitute hunting licences or competency certificates in place of the federal firearms acquisition certificate, though the normal screening procedure would apply to the substitute firearms acquisition certificate. Such programs can be a prime vehicle for participation by gun clubs and wildlife associations, which are equally concerned about the responsible use of such firearms.
For the minority of gun users who use, carry, handle or store their firearms or ammunition in a careless manner, thus endangering themselves or others, provision is made for legal penalties. It is not anticipated that there will be many charges under this clause, especially since many gun clubs now carry out the training function which educates new gun owners on the proper and safe use and storage of weapons. But the fact is that many gun owners are not members of such clubs, nor are they covered by provincial competency test requirements, and the misuse of weapons by such people leads us to propose these penalties.
Care has been taken in the development of these proposals to take into account special needs and special situations, and for this reason several exceptions and modifications to the basic plan are built into the measures. Many of these modifications were developed as the result of concerns raised during consideration of legislation brought before the Flouse of Commons last year.

It is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation reflects the government's and the public's concerns that a stop must be put to increasing firearm abuse, without undue restrictions upon legitimate use, for leisure or as a livelihood by a number of responsible Canadians. The current system, including the review of police records, prohibition by the courts, public and private provincial proficiency and safety courses, should help reach that goal without the need for a huge bureaucracy, and at minimal cost to the user and the taxpayer.
The proposals put forward after discussions with the Association of Police Chiefs, provincial governments, gun clubs, wildlife societies and native groups are both practical and reasonable in my view.
I hope they will receive favourable consideration in this House and will soon become law. I would now like to review the provisions in the bill now before us dealing with detention and release of inmates, a specific responsibility of the Solicitor General's department. While discussing those provisions, we should remember that this legislation has two goals, which is protecting the Canadian public against crime and humanizing our laws, making them fairer and more equitable.
Of course, these two goals must be considered in the broader context of the commitment made by the government to have its programs and its policies continuously reviewed as to their efficiency and flexibility. Therefore, Bill C-51 should be regarded as the latest of a long series of measures designed to improve the penitentiary system and to adjust it to changing situations and concerns, with a continuous view to ensure protection and justice.
This means some parts of our criminal law and regulations must be strengthened to give Canadians better protection against dangerous and violent criminals whereas other parts of the legislation and regulations can be changed to humanize the penitentiary system. I would like to set out briefly some of the changes that were put forward in these two general areas.

May 12, 1977

Many measures to ensure better protection for Canadians are submitted to hon. members' attention. Although the number of escapes has considerably decreased in recent years, and hon. members will hopefully consider the recent developments in this regard, Mr. Speaker, the government is determined to move forward and ensure that inmates convicted by the courts to serve their sentence in a penitentiary be kept in safe custody throughout their sentence. For this purpose, we propose to increase from five to ten years the maximum sentence for escaping or attempting to escape from a penitentiary.
From now on temporary leaves without escort will be authorized by the National Parole Board rather than the Penitentiary Service. Therefore, all leaves without escort in the community will fall under National Parole Board jurisdiction and thus the law will be more consistently enforced throughout the country. There will be delegation of powers from the board to penitentiary authorities for specific classes of inmates and under conditions prescribed by the board. Under that provision, the board will have the power to authorize the Penitentiary Service to grant temporary leaves without escort to inmates considered less dangerous and to concentrate its attention on dangerous offenders, of those having committed serious crimes and who cannot leave unescorted, without the authorization of the Board. The number of National Parole Board members will be increased from 19 to 26 so that the board will be able to study each case more carefully.
This bill also provides for the appointment of regional teams of the National Parole Board. The members of the community will participate in decision making concerning the release of inmates convicted of murder or placed under preventive custody. Those members could be representatives of police forces from any area, representatives of provincial, municipal or local authorities, members of local community labour or profession-nal associations. The bill proposes also the addition of a provision providing for the arrest of inmates and their immediate return accompanied by an armed escort, under a warrant delivered by order of the parole board pending the cancellation of a suspension order or the annulment of the release on parole. It will be proposed to issue a regulation under the parole legislation so as to ensure better control over the release of prisoners. That regulation would forbid the board to release an inmate on parole before he becomes eligible.
Second, offenders convicted of certain violent crimes and who have already committed violent crimes in the past will not be eligible for release of parole until they have served half of their sentence or seven years, whichever is the shorter period. Most inmates are now eligible for release on parole after they have served one third of their sentence or after seven years, whichever is shorter.
Third, no inmate will be eligible for temporary leave without escort if he has not served six months of his sentence or half of the period preceeding his date of eligibility, for release on parole, whichever is the longer period.
Under the current legislation, no prisoner can go out unescorted on a temporary leave of absence before completing six
Criminal Code
months of his prison term. The bill maintains the exceptions for convicted murderers and prisoners in a number of other categories. Before they become eligible for parole, these must have served a larger share of their sentence.
Mr. Speaker, the new legislation would also repeal statutory remissions. Following the coming into force of the new legislation, no prisoner would have his sentence automatically reduced by one fourth. Instead, he would have to deserve any remission he could get. If he mends his ways, fulfills his work duties and complies with the regulations of the institution, the prisoner who is not entitled to parole may obtain a leave of absence after having served approximately two thirds of his term. The clauses which provide that all sentence remissions must be deserved, that no part of this remission is automatic and may be lost if the prisoner behaves reprehensibly, will hopefully compel prisoners to assume more fully the responsibility for the advancement of their liberation. This should promote a better operation of our institutions, especially through increased participation in penitentiary programs. This last proposal, Mr. Speaker, shows that the two objectives of protection and humanity are closely related, since the concept of the deserved reduction of penalty implies responsibility on the part of the inmate and the notion of responsibility extends to the notion of right.
With your permission, I will now describe some of the other proposals contained in the bill and which are aimed at making the system more human. As far as the Parole Act is concerned, a measure of fairness and equity will be introduced by adding some safeguards to the procedure for individuals appearing before the board. Under the regulations to be implemented, the board will be compelled, when holding hearings on applications for parole from federal inmates to comply with the rules set in the regulations and justify its decisions. The regulations will also provide for the creation of an internal organization to review the decisions of the board. In addition, the board will start to place at the disposal of the inmate, before the hearing, the major part of the information on which its decision will be based, thus giving him some form of representation before the board; it will also hold revocation hearings after parole is suspended. Those regulations, which will be applied gradually over the next few years, will introduce obvious procedural guarantees for those who appear before the board. In this regard, I do intend to examine very closely what recommendations the sub-committee on penal institutions may make in the report it will be submitting soon.
It is also intended, Mr. Speaker, that parole will no longer be automatically forfeited, as is now the case, when a paroled inmate is found guilty of a criminal offence punishable by two years of imprisonment or more. The circumstances that can lead a parolee to commit a new offence are so varied that no automatic punishment should be stipulated by law. The problem of those delinquents will be settled through revocation hearings at which each case will be looked into individually by the board.
On the other hand, it is suggested that in cases of revocation, the inmate will be credited anew that part of his term of

May 12, 1977
Criminal Code
imprisonment which he spent successfully while on parole. In addition, the board may, according to criteria it will determine on its own, recredit the inmate, in whole or in part, that part of the remission automatically lost as a result of revocation of parole. Those criteria would allow the board to deal with cases where attenuating circumstances indicate that the inmate could become the victim of unfairness or be inflicted too severe a penalty.
Under the new provisions of the bill, an inmate will be allowed to stay at the institution instead of being placed under mandatory supervision, this in order to take into account those inmates who may not feel ready to go back to society and could not manage to adapt to it, thereby exposing themselves to the penal sanctions provided for by the regulations on mandatory supervision. The bill will also give the required legislative authority to pay indemnities in cases of disability or death resulting from accidents occurring in the course of an inmate's participation in the normal life in an institution.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, these twin objectives of protection of the public and humanity toward the inmate should be viewed in the framework of the continuing need to adapt and improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. There are several provisions in this bill which can be described in terms of the ongoing process of improvement of the system itself. I expect to receive shortly the report of the parliamentary committee which is investigating the penitentiary system in Canada. I will be pleased to examine their recommendations in detail and no doubt will be influenced by them.
Under the proposed amendments, the Commissioner of Penitentiaries will become the commissioner of corrections, and the control and management of the National Parole Service will be transferred from the National Parole Board to the commissioner of corrections. The commissioner will become responsible for the preparation of cases for all types of release and the supervision of inmates on temporary absence, day parole, full parole and mandatory supervision. This will relieve the National Parole Board of its management responsibility for the parole service and, therefore, allow it to maintain its independence as a decision-making body.
This action will also result in better co-ordination of programs and services between the Canadian Penitentiary Service and the National Parole Service, and will lead to the formation of a unified Canadian corrections service. A possible approach to this unification was discussed in the report of the task force on the role of the federal corrections agency, published under my authority in March. I look forward to the comments and reactions of hon. members to the ideas contained in this document. I understand that the subcommittee studying the penal system expects to have its final report ready in the next two or three weeks and will undoubtedly be making comments in this regard.
[Mr. Fox.)
Under present legislation, the federal government can enter into agreements with the provinces to confine in federal penitentiaries those provincial inmates who have offended against the criminal law of Canada and who have been sentenced to more than six months but less than two years. To allow for greater flexibility and effectiveness it is proposed that the lower limit of six months be removed.
The proposed legislation also contains a complete revision of the Prisons and Reformatories Act, with the aim of leaving the provinces more discretion in the administration of provincial prisons. Several archaic and obsolete sections will be removed, and provision would be made for the lieutenant governor in council of a province to make regulations within the framework of the federal legislation with respect to the administration of provincial institutions under provincial direction.
The proposed legislation will also authorize the transfer of inmates from any penitentiary to provincial prisons under agreements which may be made with provincial governments. Also, the provinces would be enabled to enter into agreements with one another providing for the transfer of prisoners from a prison in one province to a prison in another province. The remission system presently in force in provincial institutions under the Prisons and Reformatories Act would also be repealed and replaced by a system identical to that being proposed in the federal system under the Penitentiary Act.
Another change affecting the provinces is proposed under the Parole Act, where provision is made for the establishment of provincial boards of parole. Such boards would exercise parole jurisdiction over almost all inmates serving terms of imprisonment in provincial institutions for offences under the Criminal Code, in order to allow provinces to plan a full program for the offender from entry into the institution through parole release to an ongoing life as a responsible citizen. These provincial boards would exercise their authority in accordance with the provisions of the Parole Act and regulations made by the National Parole Board.
A further proposed amendment to the Penitentiary Act would enable the Commissioner of Corrections to designate any portion of a provincial prison or hospital as a penitentiary in respect of any person or class of persons, by agreement with provincial authorities. Also, the federal government could declare any facility, such as a community-based residential centre, or a forestry camp, a penitentiary, in order to improve the effectiveness of programs and services under the federal corrections system.
As I just said, the government is concerned to balance public protection and individual rights and to exercise restraint. This point, I believe, is sometimes lost sight of in the discussion of the wiretapping sections. All of the safeguards in the Protection of Privacy Act are retained under Bill C-51. When listening to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) I was at a loss to understand whether he was making suggestions about how the bill could be improved or whether he was against wiretapping in principle.
May 12, 1977


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Take out the offences section or narrow it down.


Francis Fox: In response to some of the comments made in the debate, I should like to point out that a very high standard is required on the part of the Crown in seeking authorizations. I think hon. members opposite make too little of the internal procedures that apply to police forces, the RCMP in particular. For instance, the investigating police officer must satisfy his superiors that the need exists for such an authorization. Secondly, an agent of the Crown must be satisfied, and finally a judge must be convinced by the Crown agent on the basis of affidavits and, under the provisions of this bill, more detailed information than in the original act. The requirement for an annual report to parliament and also on the provincial level forms a part of this accountability process.
What we are trying to do here is to improve the law in so far as it unduly restricted police effectiveness in the fight against crime, and especially organized crime, while maintaining the basic right to privacy of the individual. I believe these amendments accomplish that goal.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that some have criticized the electronic surveillance sections of the code and have cited in support of their argument certain figures showing a low total of convictions registered as a result of the use of wiretap evidence. I should like to point out that trials often take some time to conclude after a charge is laid, and that examination of updated figures for earlier years indicates a larger number of convictions than shown by preliminary figures which must be released in January of each year.
Furthermore, this conviction total refers only to cases in which the electronic evidence is used as formal evidence, and therefore does not include the number of charges laid and convictions obtained as a result of wiretaps, but where the wiretap evidence itself is not adduced at trial. Furthermore, such interceptions have uncovered serious offences previously unknown or unreported and have led to the seizure of substantial quantities of illicit narcotics. In other words, the utility of the tool is highly valued in the investigation, detection, prevention and prosecution of offences in Canada.
While I do not like to engage in battles over statistics, I wish to point out that the appropriate annual report to parliament for 1975 showed, under section (l)(i), that criminal proceedings in which a private communication obtained under authorization was adduced in evidence totalled 18. The annual report to parliament for 1976 showed updated figures for 1975 under this section which revealed that the figure had risen to 70. Similarly, under the same section, the 1975 report showed resultant convictions as totalling 18, but when the updated figures for 1975 were published the 1976 figure had risen to 69.
These figures reflect only those prosecutions and convictions made on the use of wiretap evidence produced in court. It is important to realize that many persons arrested as a result of
Criminal Code
wiretap information decided to plead guilty when confronted with the wiretap evidence. In such cases, the actual wiretap evidence is not produced in court. Thus, the updated figures for 1976 show, under sections (1) and (m) of my report, that 514 convictions out of 1,492 arrests resulted directly or indirectly from evidence obtained through wiretaps. And, of course, the prosecution of many of those arrested and charged in 1975 is still before the courts. The end result will be an extremely high ratio of conviction to arrest on the basis of evidence collected under the provisions of this law.
However, it is important to realize the strength of the ratio of arrests to authorizations made on the strength of wiretap investigations. The updated figures for 1975 show that 1,492 persons were arrested on the strength of 563 applications for intercept. This ratio, of roughly three to one, is considered by all police jurisdictions to be extremely high.
These statistics indicate several points: first, that where wiretap evidence is produced in court, the resultant conviction rate is almost 100 per cent; second, that the annual reports required by parliament do not reflect action before the courts which at the time of compilation is still incomplete. Accordingly, I think it is necessary to analyse not just one year's report but successive reports in order to fully appreciate the success achieved under this law. Third, wiretap investigations are only taken when other investigative methods seem unlikely to succeed. Thus, wiretaps are used against individuals who might well be free from arrest and prosecution were this means not available. Such persons are normally important members of the criminal community and the convictions reflected in the statistics given represent the apprehension of persons more important than, say, simple burglars. In other words, wiretaps represent a means of getting at some upper echelons of the criminal community in Canada.
There are other benefits-spin-offs, if you like-resulting from investigations carried out under this law. In 1975, for example, the following narcotics seizures were made as a result of wiretap investigations: heroin 27 pounds; cocaine 18 pounds; hashish, 1,335 pounds; liquid hashish 81 pounds and marijuana 2,235 pounds. Similarly, other offences were detected, including murder, fraud, bookmaking, firearms and escape from custody.
I now deal with the dangerous offenders legislation. I sometimes think that the very stringent safeguards which protect individual rights are forgotten in the discussion. We are concerned here with the need to protect society against those very few individuals who pose a serious and continuing threat to the security of the public. This concern was voiced in such reports as that of the Ouimet committee and the committee chaired by Senator Goldenberg, which both recommended replacement of the current sections dealing with habitual and dangerous sexual offenders by dangerous offenders provisions such as those contained in this bill.
That such a need exists would be denied by few, Mr. Speaker. Yet in providing for such a means the bill takes care to surround the dangerous offenders procedure with stringent safeguards aimed at protecting the rights of the individual as

May 12, 1977
Ajournment Motion
well. The offender must first have been convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence. Then consent of the provincial attorney general must be given for a further application to the court to have such person declared a dangerous offender. The court must be convinced that the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or well-being of others, or that there is a likelihood that the offender will cause injury or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his sexual or violent impulses. Finally, the National Parole Board will be required to review the case not later than three years after conviction, and every two years thereafter.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that these amendments represent a marked improvement over the present sections of the Criminal Code dealing with habitual and dangerous sexual offenders. As with those sections, the dangerous offender provisions will be used with restraint. I trust such restraint as exercised in the past will continue, but I think such provisions are necessary to protect society from the tiny minority who pose such a serious threat to public safety that we must unfortunately contemplate their indeterminate detention.
There can be no doubt that Canadians are concerned about the problems of crime which all of these proposals are directed toward. I would therefore, ask, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members give these measures their most urgent consideration. We have talked about these issues for many months. The time has come to act.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, in view of the time I wonder if I could call it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith)-Harbours- Churchill-Status of program to alter facilities in view of cancellation of plan to lay heavy steel on railway route; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Mul-ticulturalism-Provision of English language training in Vancouver schools-Government position; the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston)-External Affairs- Southwest Africa-Alternatives to Tournhalle conference offered by delegation.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
[Mr. Fox.l
order paper, namely, notices of motions for the production of papers, private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Notice of motion No. 1.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among members of this House, and I suggest there is disposition to consider notice of motion No. 25, standing in the name of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), and to allow all preceding motions to stand.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that all motions on the order paper preceding motion No. 25 should be stood at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL TASK FORCE ON INTEGRATION OF GOVERNMENT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT
Dean Waldon Whiteway: That an order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of all meetings of the interdepartmental task force on integration of government vessels and aircraft and copies of all materials considered by the committee on search and rescue operations and the patrolling of Lake Winnipeg.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in order to make sure hon. members understand my request, I shall read again the notice of motion standing in my name:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of the minutes of all meetings of the interdepartmental task force on integration of government vessels and aircraft and copies of all materials considered by the committee on search and rescue operations and the patrolling of Lake Winnipeg.
That request, relatively simple and straightforward, relates to search and rescue operations on Lake Winnipeg. Hon. members should know that the area of Lake Winnipeg is some 9,417 square miles. So we are not talking about a body of water the size of the Prime Minister's swimming pool, large though it may be in comparison to other swimming pools in this country. We are talking about a substantial body of water on the edge of which are to be found 10 or 12 towns of substantial size, and some 20 recreational beaches. There are thousands of cottages there. Indeed, it is the source of livelihood for a thousand fishermen who glean the pickerel and whitefish that Canadians have come to love and cherish and look forward to over the years. On a day like today in Winnipeg, when the sun is shining and the temperature is 20 degrees-
May 12, 1977


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) knows it well. The lake would have the appearance of a paradise, not only for fishermen but those who love to relax and use the lake for recreational purposes.
Within a matter of an hour, the waters of Lake Winnipeg can be whipped up and become treacherous. From time to time my seatmate, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), and other members of this House have expressed concern over the capability of our search and rescue on both the east and west coasts. They have a real concern which this government has yet to recognize. On Lake Winnipeg, life is just as precious as it is on the east coast. The government has the same responsibility to provide adequate search and rescue on Lake Winnipeg as on the east and west coasts. On this large body of water of over 9,000 square miles there are only three boats designated for search and rescue.
One problem is that there are many jurisdictions. One of these boats, the largest, the Namao, out of Selkirk, comes under the control of the coast guard. Ironically, it is the responsibility of CFB, Trenton. Generally search and rescue comes under the Department of National Defence in Edmonton. However, the nitty-gritty rescue operations are with the other two boats. One is a rubber boat designed for inshore search and rescue. It comes under the jurisdiction of the RCMP. That is one problem. There are at least three jurisdictions. There seems to be a problem with the co-ordination of the efforts of search and rescue. I have requested these papers, studies by the government which I am sure must have taken place, reports, memos, minutes of meetings where they discussed the problem of co-ordinating research and rescue operations on Lake Winnipeg, to provide the critical safety measures necessary to react to the kinds of emergencies that can come up because of what I mentioned earlier.
Lake Winnipeg is a shallow lake. With the western winds which blow from time to time, in a couple of hours the lake can become treacherous. We do not have long-range warnings which they have on the east and west coasts. One of the problems is that the people, both the fishermen who depend on Lake Winnipeg for their livelihood, as well as those who use it for recreation, are anxious about this matter. I do not know whether there have been any considerations by the government, any studies, any meetings, whether those in the three levels of government I mentioned have put their heads together and studied the problem and have come up with any recommendations. The people are anxious to know whether there are any plans by this government to co-ordinate in order to have the most effective and responsive search and rescue that can possibly be put into place on Lake Winnipeg. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the production of these papers is an essential element for the effective performance of parliamentary government. The availability of these few memos, papers and studies which I have humbly requested the government to put before this House are very much linked with the issues of the
Search and Rescue
right of the public, and parliament, to information concerning the public business.
Before I outline in more detail my reasons for these remarks, let me quote from two of the most senior members of the government whose word can hardly be doubted. Shortly after assuming office, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated:
I confess to the House that in our view-
I assume he was talking about the view of the government.
-information is perhaps the most important single subject which is facing not only this government, but all governments in Canada.
Those are most noble words, Mr. Speaker. More recently, on March 15, 1973, the government House leader stated in this House it was the government's objective to make as much information available as possible. I quote:
We believe that members of parliament require factual information about the operations of the government in order that they may carry out their parliamentary duties.
That sounds good.
That statement is included in the general principle. We are also aware that the desire to make available as much information as possible must be balanced against effective public administration, protection of the security of the state and rights to privacy.
This is the important part.
It is always a delicate matter of judgment to balance the desire to make information available with the effective administration of the government, security of the state and other considerations.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, members of this House-members from all sides, in fact-will agree that matters pertaining to search and rescue operations on one of Canada's largest lakes is hardly a matter of concern for national security reasons. I am endangering no treaty, no national trust by requesting these papers. But the government is endangering the lives of those who venture on to that lake for work or pleasure by not giving us more documentation as to its search and rescue operations.
Nor is it reasonable for the government to argue that the release of these papers might jeopardize the future conduct of federal-provincial relations, or the relations of provinces inter se. I must admit my surprise to learn of the complexity involved, in terms of the various authorities and their geographic location involved in search and rescue operations. It seems that depending on the reason for the search, different levels of government, or at least different departments, are responsible. There is an administrative problem. The studies, papers and documents which I have requested show their efforts to co-ordinate search and rescue on Lake Winnipeg.
If the people of Selkirk and the members of this House of Commons are to exercise any kind of direction and proper interest in this matter. They must have all the facts, or at least some. The safety of Canadians should be of paramount importance to any government. Yet because not all the relevant material is before us, parliament is prevented from fulfilling its role in giving adequate consideration and adequate supervision for providing such an important service to the persons who use

May 12, 1977
Search and Rescue
this lake, whether they use it to earn their living or for recreation.
I have lectured in this House on two previous occasions, and I find it necessary to lecture again today as to the nature of parliamentary democracy in Canada. I said on those two occasions, and I say again today, that I agree with and recognize the absolute right of the Liberal party of Canada to govern this country and bring in legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not forever.


John Carnell Crosbie: Just until the next election.


An hon. Member:: We are ready.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Members opposite are so sure of the position of the Canadian people that perhaps they would like to put it to the test on a vote. Whenever they are ready, we on this side are.
I recognize the right of government to set fiscal and monetary policy, to set external affairs policy and to give national direction. That is their right. It has not been their practice, but nevertheless it is their right. They have the right to set taxes, a right they have exercised more than they should. They have the right to bring in a budget. In general, it is the right of the government to govern absolutely, and I recognize that. But if that is true, it is equally true that the opposition has the absolute right to scrutinize, to question, to investigate, to double-check, to suggest alternatives-yes, to criticize-and to be sure to oppose.
I cannot do my job as a member of the opposition without the kind of information I am asking for. I have already pointed out that the information I am seeking is not in any way going to jeopardize the security of the country or relations between the federal government and the province of Manitoba. I cannot in any way fulfil the responsibilities I have, not only to those who elected me to the House, but under the law of the land, unless I have this information. Surely that sort of information, which has been gained by taxpayers' money in the payment of public servants, ought to be as readily available to members of the opposition as to the government.
I am not asking for cabinet documents, or for letters or memos between cabinet ministers, or for information about what goes on in the Privy Council. I am not asking for secret agreements, if there are any, between one country and another.
I am not asking for the deep secrets which lie in the mind of the Prime Minister. What I am asking for, Mr. Speaker, is to be told whether or not there have been studies, documents and meetings concerning the three levels I have already mentioned in relation to search and rescue on Lake Winnipeg.
This question is important if for no other reason than to alleviate the anxieties of those who use Lake Winnipeg for recreation or to gain their livelihood. I am not digging in the hope of uncovering some kind of government scandal, though heaven knows I suppose I could dig almost anywhere and come up with one. The former president of the privy council, the
[Mr. Whitcway.l
hon. member for Eglington (Mr. Sharp), on February 18, 1975, said this about members such as me who request information from the government:
(The government is trying) to encourage members of parliament to be more pointed and more precise in their requests for information.
That is a fair statement. He goes on to say:
If I may use a rather partisan word, the government is trying to discourage what are generally called fishing expeditions when the member does not quite know what it is he wants but hopes that if sufficient material is produced he will find something with which to criticize the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what fisherman ever caught a fish without first casting his line? Trying to get information from this government is like trying to scoop up water with a fish net. I am not trying to dredge up a scandal or to uncover some wrongdoing on the part of government. I am simply asking for information so I can answer questions which have been put to me by my constituents, questions which time and time again have been put by civil servants, some of the very people who have been given the duty of carrying out search and rescue operations on Lake Winnipeg. It is as simple as that.
This government is paranoid when it comes to giving out information. I suppose if I asked the government for a name, they would not give it to me for fear I was asking for some devious reason. The secretiveness of this government is clearly demonstrated in its refusal, for example, to give details of the Canadian CANDU reactor sales to Korea and Argentina. The government has refused to give details regarding the degree of radioactivity in the waters of Port Hope. It has refused to give details of the arsenic poison levels at Yellowknife. It has refused to give details of the tendering practice in dredging Hamilton Harbour. It has refused to give the details of CMHC tendering procedures for Sky Shops and the student co-operative housing at Rochdale. It has refused to give the Price, Waterhouse report regarding CIDA. It has even refused to give detailed information regarding the cost of the new Air Canada logo. I can see how that can bring down the government.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the government can be paranoid if it wants, but I hope there will be at least one member on the government side who can see the reasonableness of my request. I hope it is within the heart of at least one cabinet minister to produce this information which the people of Selkirk need, which they want and to which they have a right. It is ironic that the Prime Minister, that great knight in shining armour, would deny me, the hon. member for Selkirk, information that could jeopardize the safety and the lives of virtually hundreds of Canadians.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, any government that stifles opposition by secrecy destroys the very principle of parliamentary democracy which gave it its birth.


Bill Rompkey: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Friesen@: You believe in air and sea rescue, don't you, Bill?
May 12, 1977


Bill Rompkey: I certainly do. We may even rescue you one of these days. I want, first of all, Mr. Speaker, to reply to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway). I appreciate it is his responsibility to get the kind of information he is seeking, and I believe in general terms that when it is available it should be forthcoming. I am afraid he is not going to get all the answers he wants from what I have to say, but I want to point out that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) is out of the country at the moment on business which is very important to the fishing industry of this country, and it is unfortunate that he could not be here today. Obviously, he would have been able to give a much more substantive answer.
I hope the hon. member will not think that some of what I say is irrelevant. He mentioned search and rescue regarding certain swimming pools in the country, and what I have to say is not more irrelevant than that particular aspect of search and rescue. I do want to talk about the question of jurisdiction, which was one of the points the hon. member raised. He finds there are a number of different departments involved in the administration of search and rescue operations, and I think that up until a while ago this was a problem. However, some of the difficulty has now been resolved.
I want to talk about the jurisdictional aspect of the hon. member's remarks in the context of the research done by the interdepartmental committee of senior officials on search and rescue. I want to talk about the question of how government ships and aircraft have been co-ordinated for fishery surveillance and enforcement.
Commencing in March, 1975, the interdepartmental committee representing the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport, and Treasury Board, was established under the chairmanship of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment to examine the most cost-effective means of conducting fishery surveillance and enforcement on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The interdepartmental committee was asked to make recommendations to cabinet on the minimum levels of additional surveillance and enforcement capabilities, equipment and associated costs that would be required prior to Canada extending its fisheries jurisdiction. The committee was requested to define appropriate criteria and to establish minimum levels of effort to be dedicated to the air and surface surveillance of foreign and Canadian fishing activity offshore, and to the enforcement of fisheries regulations required to achieve a credible management regime and effective conservation of Canada's fishery resources.
It was also requested that the committee identify all shortfalls in both surface and air surveillance between existing and proposed minimum levels of effort; the most cost-effective mix of existing federal resources, ships and aircraft, to eliminate the shortfalls; and the associated equipment and cost that would be required to overcome the identified shortfalls.
The interdepartmental committee's examination of this subject resulted in a report to cabinet in early 1976. The commit-
Search and Rescue
tee concluded that the minimum level of fishery surveillance patrol activity required for effective surveillance of fishing activity enforcement of regulations must be sufficient to permit at-sea inspection of one third of the foreign fleet and one sixth of the Canadian fleet every month. At the same time, the patrol fleet must maintain a Canadian presence over all of the most lucrative fishing grounds found within 200 miles of our coasts. Air patrols must be sufficient to permit location and identification of every fishing vessel in areas of Canadian interest, once per week throughout the year as a minimum, with an additional increase in total flying activity to ensure more frequent coverage of sensitive areas and areas of high foreign fleet concentration.
In order to meet these requirements it was determined that a total of 1,950 on-station sea days and 4,230 flying hours were necessary. It was also pointed out that the Department of Fisheries and the Environment could not, alone, meet these required levels and that it would, therefore, be necessary to rely on support both for aircraft and ships from the Department of National Defence and for ships from the Department of Transport. It was established that the Department of Fisheries and the Environment would carry out 56 per cent of the sea patrols, Department of National Defence about 31 per cent, and MOT vessels about 13 per cent. The entire air surveillance needs would be met through the utilization of DND tracker and long-range patrol aircraft.
The findings of this committee were endorsed by all three operating departments, as well as Treasury Board and the Department of External Affairs. The cabinet approved these recommendations and on June 10, 1976, the hon. Romeo LeBlanc publicly announced that, effective immediately, Canada would be doubling its level of seaborne surveillance and more than doubling its level of aircraft surveillance. To achieve these increased levels of surveillance 23 vessels are utilized on the Atlantic coast, 8 Fisheries and Environment patrol vessels, 12 destroyers and 3 transport vessels. A total of nine vessels are being used on the Pacific coast, 3 Fisheries and Environment patrol vessels, 4 destroyers and 2 transport ships. The increased levels of air surveillance are being maintained through the use of 15 tracker aircraft and 12 Argus aircraft on the Atlantic coast.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) on a point of order.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: This is rather enlightening, but Lake Winnipeg, which was specifically mentioned in my request, is some 2,500 miles from the area being described by the hon. member. I wonder if he might address himself specifically to what the interdepartmental task force said about Lake Winnipeg. That was my question.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, the hon. member's original question, as I understood it, dealt with the deployment of search and rescue facilities in general, and then the last line of the question dealt with Lake Winnipeg.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: That is not so.

May 12, 1977
Search and Rescue


Bill Rompkey: I realize in his speech today he dealt with Lake Winnipeg specifically. I indicated to him in my opening remarks that in the absence of the minister he was not going to be fully satisfied with the indications of what was being done with regard to Lake Winnipeg. I wanted to get to the question of jurisdiction which he raised in his speech. Hopefully, at some future date he can get more specific information, which is what he wants. As a member of parliament, I respect his responsibility to get that information. When the information can be made available, I hope it will be forwarded to him.
To continue with my remarks, I was talking about the deployment on the east and west coasts where we have, as the hon. member will understand, the greatest return to the country in terms of fisheries. Something like $1 billion is returned to Canada as a result of the fishing effort on the east and west coasts. It is important that this be put on the record. I refer to what Canada is actually doing to step up its search, rescue and surveillance activities.
From the outset it was recognized by all concerned that use of the diverse nature of the resources that would be employed in accomplishing the increased levels of surveillance it would be necessary to have firmly established mechanisms of co-ordination and liaison between the three operating departments. All three departments were committed to developing the necessary co-ordination and liaison mechanisms with the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, identified as the lead agency in this regard, because fishery surveillance and enforcement is its statutory obligation as established by the Fisheries Act.
Furthermore, the Department of Fisheries and the Environment was responsible for paying to the two other departments the increased operation and maintenance costs arising from the increased levels of fisheries surveillance. Against this background the Department of Fisheries and the Environment held in May, 1976, an interdepartmental meeting with a view to establishing a framework that would ensure rapid and well co-ordinated implementation of the increased levels of surveillance.
It was proposed by the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, and agreed to by all departments, that on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts interdepartmental co-ordination committees, chaired by a senior Fisheries official, would be established and would meet on a regular basis. Part of the confusion over jurisdiction on the east and west coasts, and part of the fragmentation in terms of administration, has been overcome. There is now a committee on each coast under the Department of Fisheries and the Environment to administer search and rescue activities. That was one point, albeit possibly a minor point, which was raised by the hon. member. I hope my remarks will clarify that issue.
In addition, it was agreed that, as necessary, interdepartmental meetings involving senior officials from Ottawa headquarters would be held. The Department of Fisheries and the Environment also identified officials in Vancouver, St. John's, Halifax and Ottawa who would be responsible for day to day co-ordination of the fisheries surveillance and enforcement

program. I note there is nobody identified for the area to which the hon. member referred in his question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) on a point of order.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, all matters relating to fishery inspections come under the jurisdiction of the province of Manitoba. Inland fisheries is a provincial resource and a provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, comments relating to inspections or areas of jurisdiction have nothing to do with Lake Winnipeg.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the hon. member, I would like to say he should give the Chair an opportunity to listen to argument by other hon. members. It is not helping the progress of the debate if the hon. member intervenes. I hope the hon. member, as he normally does, will stay within the confines of the motion before the House.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I understood that we were talking about search and rescue operations and the administration of those, and it is quite possible that, if in fact inland fisheries are the responsibility of the province, the hon. member should be raising his question with the province of Manitoba rather than in the federal House. If in fact that is the case and if the jurisdiction is there, obviously there must be some relevance if the hon. member is raising it in the House. He is raising the question of search and rescue. I am assuming that therefore there is some federal involvement. Possibly one of the problems here is that in fact there is a shared responsibility, and possibly the over-all responsibility is more that of the province than of the federal government.
I think that the committee which was set up had indicated that, in relation to the vessel resources advocated, the vessels allocated on behalf of the federal government would do their duty in the Great Lakes and on the St. Lawrence, as well as on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. I understand also that there is a certain lack of marine search and rescue incidents on noninternational inland waters such as Lake Winnipeg, for example, and I note also that search and rescue operations are covered for Lake Winnipeg by a new high performance MOT navigational aids vessel. The acquisition of this vessel was justified in part on the grounds that it would be used for marine search and rescue in addition to normal program duty. So it is my understanding that there is now, or at least there will be-I am not sure of the time frame of the information-a vessel which is to be deployed for use on Lake Winnipeg.
Possibly one of the difficulties here is in fact the division of responsibility between the province and the federal government. We do not have as clear cut a jurisdiction with regard to inland waters as we do with regard to the east and west coasts. On the Great Lakes, for example, our jurisdiction is shared between the two countries that share the Great Lakes, and I would assume that part of the difficulty here is the difference
May 12, 1977

in jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments with regard to Lake Winnipeg.
That is an overview of the position of the government generally with regard to search and rescue. As I said at the beginning, I know that possibly the hon. member will not be satisfied with the information that came forward today, and I want to repeat again that since this information and the recommendations that were put forward may not be available now, I hope that in the future they will be and that at a future date the minister can provide a more substantive answer on the Lake Winnipeg situation. But it is very important that we put on the record today what has been done on the east and west coasts because, with the imposing of the 200 mile limit, it is important that we step up our surveillance, as we have done to protect that resource, to protect the stocks which are so important to our fishermen on the east and west coasts and in fact to the whole of the Canadian fishing industry.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to participate briefly in this debate, not for the purpose of holding up any disposition of the motion which I know should receive the unanimous consent of every member of the House who wants to preserve the right of members of parliament to represent their constituents properly.
I was very interested in the remarks of the preceding speaker with respect to search and rescue and his obviously deep interest in this area, coming as he does from the province of Newfoundland. During the course of his remarks I detected a reference to the fact that he sympathized with the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) and considers that this is the kind of duty that a member should be expected to carry out in the House of Commons. Therefore I am sure that the hon. member will give full support to this reasonable request for papers.
While the remarks of the preceding speaker were interesting and heartfelt, I think it was clear that they were completely out of order, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Selkirk, because they did not deal with the specific request for the production of papers relating to Lake Winnipeg. There has not been as yet any indication from the government side of the basis on which the government refuses to produce these papers.
We are in the position of again being confronted with a legitimate request-as has been pointed out by the preceding speaker-from a member representing an area which is seriously concerned about search and rescue of Lake Winnipeg, a member serving his constituents, as he does so ably and well, and we are faced again with the stonewalling tactics and the arrogance of this government in refusing to give any information which should legitimately be available to every citizen of this country.
Many members of the House, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale), have spent a lot of time in the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments which, among other things, has been dealing with the freedom of information bill presented by my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Peace
Search and Rescue
River (Mr. Baldwin). I think that in that investigation there has been a certain unanimity and a non-partisan approach to the whole question of freedom of information, and there has been an indication from the government that this is committed to bringing forward some kind of legislation, although when that will be one never knows.
There is absolutely no justification, I submit to you, Sir, on the basis of the government's own guidelines which it has proposed with respect to the production of a papers, for not producing the papers requested by the hon. member for Selkirk. I simply wonder aloud why we have not heard a representative of the government indicating the reason why it is not producing these papers. I can only surmise that it will in fact consent to this motion, because there is absolutely no defence. If we have come to the point of the government being so arrogant that it refuses not only to produce papers but to give any reason for the production of papers, we have come to a very sorry state indeed.
I was interested in the recent occurrence when the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), who now has the responsibility for freedom of information, met with a representative group called Access and indicated that he was very interested in their propositions. The irony was that he refused to have the meeting in public-he wanted to have a closed meeting. Be that as it may, what are we to believe of a government which, on the one hand, pays lip service to freedom of information and, on the other hand, refuses on every occasion to provide the most innocent kind of information, the kind of information which was described quite properly by my colleague as being essential and important information to people in the Lake Winnipeg area? I suggest to you, Sir, that this attitude indicates an unacceptable degree of arrogance on the part of the governe-ment, which has lost its will to govern but not its will to stay in power.


An hon. Member:: You are dreaming.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Of course hon. members opposite are very irritated and agitated when the facts are presented to them in a non-partisan way, as I am doing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -but I want to say that if there is a particular example of why we should get rid of this bunch and put in a fresh bunch-members opposite will of course question whether members of the opposite have the same level of capabilities as their own members, but on the other hand, we poor people in the opposition try our best-it is the arrogance demonstrated by this government on every occasion with respect to freedom of information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A concerned government would give serious and immediate attention to a freedom of information bill which is really worthy of the name, and would not waste the

May 12, 1977
Search and Rescue
time of the House with this kind of attempt to stonewall attempts to obtain very straightforward, legitimate, and as far as I know, non-confidential information. Hon. members on the government side sit by idly on their hands, which they are used to doing. Backbenchers have a stake in this, and I think the rights and privileges of every member of parliament are affected.
I do not speak here on the basis of party politics. I simply say to all backbenchers opposite that it is as important to them to have access to information from the government as it is for opposition members, and if in their hearts they really believe that the institution of parliament is important, they will not participate in this sham debate and prevent information from being given to the hon. member, to this House, and to the people of Lake Winnipeg. Backbenchers on the government side have every bit as much at stake in this matter as any opposition member.
I want to conclude now. I did not intend to participate. The reason I rose was because I thought the previous speaker was going to enunciate at least one reason for refusing the reasonable request of the hon. member for Selkirk. Since that is not the case, I can only come to the very regrettable conclusion that the government is again demonstrating the kind of arrogance we have had to put up with for too long in our country.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, on other recent occasions I have had the opportunity to address a few remarks to this Chamber following my friend, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I find myself in the same position this afternoon-


An hon. Member:: Confused.


Ralph Goodale: -of having to respond to gross overstatements and misstatements which the hon. member has attempted to put on the record with reference to the subject we are discussing this afternoon, as well as other topics we have discussed on other occasions. His remarks today in relation to the question of freedom of information and in relation to the motion we have before us, which was proposed by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), overstated and misstated the case, and they seem to me to be reminiscent of remarks we often hear from Conservative members in this House and outside this House when they address themselves to the concerns of western Canada.
I would like to draw a parallel between what we have just heard from the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and what we often hear from Conservative members from western Canada. Their impact here and across the country always tends to be minimized simply because of the way they approach their arguments, and by that approach they destroy the very case they try to make. In this Chamber we often hear complaints about western issues. As a member of parliament from western Canada I believe I understand those complaints. I sympathize with a great many of them, but hon. members opposite complain in this House, in bitter and vitriolic tones

about, for example, snowslides in the Rockies with the same degree of emphasis as they complain about such legitimate concerns as freight rates, transportation problems, agricultural problems or whatever.
If they are trying to present a case to Canadians which they want redressed and if they are trying to explain what westerners are concerned about, and what westerners want to see corrected within Confederation, I think it would be more to their advantage, and certainly to the advantage of western Canada, if they could stick to the point and make their arguments in compelling terms and in realistic terms without resorting to overstatements, misstatements, or to tactics which simply undercut the very arguments they are trying to make.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: What is your point?


Ralph Goodale: The hon. member asks, "What is the point?" The point is that if we want to see our concerns addressed and redressed in this parliament or by the government, then surely it is important for us to state our cases here in fair, honest, and frank terms, sticking to the facts and presenting those cases in the best way we can, rather than trying to overstate or misstate our cases and by those very tactics themselves undercut the very arguments we are trying to make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Ralph Goodale: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member tell us what motion he is speaking about? What are we talking about?


Ralph Goodale: It is very rare that I have an opportunity to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the motion we are discussing. I am sure he is aware it is motion No. 25, the motion I am responding to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the hon. member read it?


Ralph Goodale: Yes indeed, I have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does it say?


Mr. Friesen:: He doesn't even know.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I can read the order paper as well as any other hon. member. I am dealing with the argument we heard from the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, who tried to deal with the very serious issue of freedom of information and the access of members of parliament to information, but instead of dealing with that point in a credible, realistic, and practical way, and instead of trying to obtain some real results, he again lapsed into that old Tory habit of overstating his case and of dealing with matters in a peculiar and partisan way rather than dealing with the substance of the issue. It is an important issue. The hon. member managed to undercut himself by the very way he approached
May 12, 1977

his case. That is the point I was trying to deal with, and I think that applies to the kind of approach we have seen displayed here today. That approach does nothing to back up the argument which the hon. member for Selkirk was trying to make in a serious way, I think, in his remarks earlier today.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills.
Bill C-2, An Act to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops-Chapter No. 12.
Bill C-l 1, An Act to amend the Pension Act-Chapter No. 13.
Bill C-52, An Act to provide for the consideration of certain unemployment insurance entitlements-Chapter No. 11.
Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is agreement to have the Chair call it six o'clock, unless some hon. members wish to speak.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the
Criminal Code
Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. At five o'clock the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) had the floor.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, initially I have no hesitation in supporting the position of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), namely, that this bill should be referred to committee, for appropriate division. As I recall, we went through a similar exercise when debating the predecessor bill, C-83, at which time a similar proposal made by the hon. member for Calgary North was accepted without difficulty.
I know that a proposal of the sort advanced by the hon. member has sparked much discussion and the raising of points of order, but I am confident that his amendment, if accepted, will lead to the appropriate division of this bill. Certainly it is the view of many that we should not deal with the bill in its present form. It makes little sense to debate a bill dealing with gun control on the one hand and wiretapping on the other. Except that they come under the Criminal Code, both subjects are unrelated.
I am concerned about something that has happened since the timely death in committee of Bill C-83. After that bill died in committee, and even before Bill C-51 was introduced, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and perhaps the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) expressed concern and dismay about the fact that Bill C-83 had died at the committee stage. I understand that the Minister of Justice expressed concern that in the city of Vancouver there are criminals driving the streets with shotguns and rifles in their cars. If I am accurate quoting my supposedly reliable sources, the minister made these statements on open line radio. In any event, the information I received is that the minister has indeed expressed these concerns. If that is the case, I must say that I share the concerns of the minister.
I share even more the concerns of the general public. If such has been the case, they ask why the minister has not used his good offices to discuss that type of situation with the provincial attorney general in the province of British Columbia and with the minister responsible for the legislation and the licensing of hunters in British Columbia.
If known criminals are indeed driving the streets of Vancouver with rifles or shotguns openly or covertly displayed in their vehicles, has the minister made any intervention? Surely the provincial government would be most anxious to cancel the licences of these individuals. I cannot foresee any difficulty in the province of British Columbia responding to any request by either the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General.
I have another concern with reference to the former Bill C-83, which the minister has not publicly declared was a

May 12, 1977
Criminal Code
bureacratic nightmare. He did not indicate that it was drafted in a vacuum by officials who had no concept of the issue. He did not say that the bill was such a disaster that, at least in my brief parliamentary experience, an unprecedented number of amendments had to be introduced, not by the opposition but by the government. He did not say that the preponderance of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs were opposed to Bill C-83 and the government's conception of gun control.
The minister says that the new Bill C-51 is so watered down that he is concerned that the public may be offended about this new legislation. He feels that perhaps the bill has been so softened that the public will be alarmed that it will not have the necessary impact. I could not disagree more with the Minister of Justice.
There is one point that bothers me considerably in both Bill C-51 and Bill C-83 with regard to gun control. During the summer recess of parliament I received a couple of publications through the offices of the Solicitor General. It was patently obvious that Bill C-83 had dies at the committee level. The government was certainly not anxious to reintroduce it into the House, yet during the summer recess I received a couple of booklets from the Solicitor General's office. They were very detailed, well documented, and very appealing, even though they were dealing with a bill that was dead. I had to ask myself why this unnecessary response to a dead bill? Why this unnecessary and needless cost? It does not matter whether the cost to the taxpayer is $1 or $1 million if it is spent in an unnecessary and needless fashion.
I placed certain questions on the order paper. The replies indicated that the two efforts from the office of the Solicitor General cost the taxpayers of Canada $65,000, not counting the costs of mailing these booklets to Canadians who might be interested. I estimated the cost of mailing at another $20,000.
For what reason would the office of the Solicitor General go through a needless, unnecessary exercise dealing with a bill which they knew was not going anywhere? These pamphlets or brochures were probably produced at the very time that civil servants within the minister's office were busy drafting what is now Bill C-51. I fail to see why Canadians were subjected to this additional insult to their pocketbook.
I also determined that in spite of the statements and protestations of sweet innocence made by various members on the government side, the RCMP were conducting their own inquiries in the business community. They wrote to shopkeepers and small businessmen in the business of selling guns, rifles and shotguns, asking for a lengthy and detailed report on the entire procedure. Why were they doing this? Their response was that it was for their computers. They had to have that information in order to compile the necessary statistics to implement gun control. That is very interesting in view of the fact that gun control has yet to be implemented. Again I say, at what cost? Surely the people involved within the offices of the RCMP could have been more productively occupied in other matters.
[Mr. Brisco.l
If the Minister of Justice is prepared this evening to respond to the comments of those who have spoken in the debate today on Bill C-51, I hope he will indicate whether he approached the provincial government with reference to these known criminals driving the streets of Vancouver with their rifles and shotguns on display. I hope he will indicate that he asked that their gun permits or hunting licences be revoked, because surely only under those two provisions could they legally carry these weapons.
I wish to ask another question of either the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice. I will not deal with semantics because, quite frankly, I am not aware of whose responsibility it is. Both these have declared their concern with reference to gun control and with reference to the need, which I am pleased to see met in this bill, to tighten up and increase the sentences of those who are convicted of crimes pertaining to the mishandling of guns, and possession of weapons which are restricted without permit, with reference to crimes of violence involving guns. I must ask whether or not they have indicated to the Crown prosecutors that maximum sentences should be sought between the time in which Bill C-83 was introduced and the introduction of Bill C-51.
Did these two hon. gentlemen say to the Crown prosecutors, "Look, those who commit crimes of violence involving the use of guns should receive maximum sentences as currently provided, and you have our assurance that when the new bill is passed we shall escalate those maximum provisions?" Did they approach the Crown prosecutors with that point of view or that recommendation? I must say, looking at the cases in which charges have been laid in British Columbia, the end result of one charge with which I am familiar shows that the answer to that question is no. A soft sentence was provided, and the Crown prosecutor did not in any way reflect the concerns which have been addressed to the House by either the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice.
This afternoon we had an opportunity to listen to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). I could not help smiling in some degree of agony at the hon. member's suggestion to establish yet another level of bureaucracy under the federal government. It was a revelation of the true nature of the ideals of the NDP-to strengthen and extend the bureaucracy regardless of the issue. It really makes no difference what the issue is-in their minds the answer can be found by letting the government handle the problem. "Big brother will look after you, the taxpayers will pay the shot." The NDP urges the government to establish yet another level of bureaucracy to look after gun control. The hon. member said this question should not be left to the provinces but that authority should be centralized here in Ottawa, requiring yet more civil servants. Gun control, we gather, is probably good for 600 or 700 or 1,000 man years. "Look at the reduction in the numbers of unemployed alone." One sees in the attitude of the hon. member for Broadview the basic philosophy of the NDP.
May 12, 1977

The Minister of Justice, I believe it was, provided the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs last year with a document which outlined in detail the provincial training courses and tests for those seeking a licence to carry a rifle or a shotgun. A review of this document clearly shows that the provinces are well equipped to handle the situation and that they do not need the intervention of the federal government. It is certain that the taxpayer does not need it.
The province of British Columbia requires a minimum of 20 hours of study before an application for a licence is made, and the issue of a licence is still subject to an individual who has followed that course of study passing a test on the subject material. What is the subject material? It includes outdoor ethics, in other words, how to treat your neighbour, the farmer or the rancher; the proper way of handling a gun when out with someone else; gun-handling and firearms safety; the regulations of the province of British Columbia; animal identification; bird identification; survival, and first aid. That is 20 hours of good, common sense education. I know that some provinces require certain periods to be spent on the gun range. Mr. Speaker, in every province in Canada, and in the Yukon- with the sole exception of the Northwest Territories-provision has already been made for proper training before licensing, in one form or another. I suggest the government could do a great deal to ensure uniformity by urging that certain criteria be established in every province. Beyond that, the need for federal intervention is limited.
I am disturbed that as a result of this bill the small businessman, the shopkeeper who sells guns and/or ammunition, will be subject to long and detailed documentation with regard to what he has in the store, what he sells, what he purchases, and the measures he takes to secure his stock. It amounts to one more piece of bureaucratic "bum-f", one more time-consuming operation inflicted by law upon the small businessman. No one has thought of saying, "Now look, we, the federal government, recognize that it is going to take a certain number of hours to fulfil the requirements we have laid down in the bill and we are prepared to provide some type of remuneration because we feel that this is important." After all, in British Columbia, at least, they refund 3 per cent of the sales tax, in many instances, to the shopkeeper who collects it. But not a dime is offered in this case. It is just another piece of paper to be filled out.
The other day we heard the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) telling the House how concerned he is about the bureaucratic red tape which must be cut in order that small business, the employer of more than 50 per cents of Canada's work force, may survive. Well, perhaps he succeeds in removing one piece of red tape, but when he turns around he finds another in its place. Where does it all end? Surely the Minister of State (Small Business) should have been consulted before the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice-he is the sponsor of this bill-decided to propose that particular provision, which I think is Section 104 (11). I hope the Minister of Justice will reconsider the terms of reference of the
Criminal Code
bill. I see he is scratching his head so I think my message has got through.
There are a multitude of concerns which I have about this bill, and one of them refers to murder statistics. I heard a great variety of figures bandied about this afternoon indicating that that the crime of murder involving the use of guns was escalating. The hon. member for Broadview compared the number of cases in Canada with the number of cases in the United States. This is an oranges and apples argument because he did not give the per capita ratio. I have always been under the impression, and I judge from your smile, Mr. Speaker, that you have also, that the United States has a somewhat larger population than Canada. Therefore I would seriously question statistics offered by the hon. member for Broadview having to do with the number of crimes of violence resulting in death in which the use of a gun is employed.
The hon. member also says that a Gallup poll had revealed that more than 85 per cent of Canadians were in favour of gun control. I would ask, where was this Gallup poll conducted? Was it conducted in the city of Montreal, or in the city of Toronto, or in Vancouver? What was the question asked? How was it posed? Was it a motherhood kind of question? Was it a question of: when did you stop beating your wife? How many times was the same question posed to the rural community? Where is the rural balance in this Gallup poll? I am not convinced that that Gallup poll is in any way, shape or form, accurate.
I recognize that in major urban centres crime does present a serious problem, one which the government has to date categorically failed to address itself to because of its soft treatment of violent criminals. Wall to wall carpeting and television will be next, Mr. Speaker. 1 can understand the concern of people in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. I can understand that they may feel the next step is the ghetto situation in New York, where apartment dwellers require security guards 24 hours a day and have to show identification to get into their own apartment building. It is to be hoped we will never reach that stage. These people fear crimes of violence committed by criminals who, through one means or another, have obtained registered or unregistered handguns.
No one can convince me, nor can statistics demonstrate, that crimes of violence in major urban centres in Canada or in the United States involve the use of shotguns or rifles. These crimes, simply because of the dimension of the weapon, involve the use of either licensed or unregistered hand guns, so do not give us this shallow argument that these crimes involve the use of rifles and shotguns.
I am aware that statistically, as the Solicitor General pointed out earlier today, some crimes of violence are committed by people against someone they know-for example, the family quarrel. But do you honestly believe, Mr. Speaker, that if an individual applies for a licence to buy a rifle or shotgun this week, this is going to have any bearing on a murder which may be two or three years down the line? I would challenge the
5582

May 12, 1977
Criminal Code
Solicitor General to demonstrate statistically, or in any other way, how many of these people involved in family quarrels which sadly end in death are found sane and sound, and are sane and sound at the time they register for the right to purchase a rifle or shotgun. You can twist statistics anyway you like, Mr. Speaker. 1 am not directing this comment to anyone in this House, but I could quote the old saying that figures don't lie but liars can figure.
Earlier today 1 listened to the hon. member for Broadview suggesting there had been a remarkable increase in the number of guns purchased in the past year; I think he quoted the figure of approximately 260,000. The hon. member was astounded that 260,000 guns had been purchased in Canada last year. I ask, how many were hand guns? One hundred, 200? If the figure is above 1,000 I would be astounded. The hon. member for Broadview has not the foggiest notion because he lives in the city, and probably does not know one end of a duck from the other. He would not know that the average hunter may decide that for upland game his 20 gauge is fine but that he needs a 12 gauge for the geese. He may think that because he had an 8 per cent increase in his wages under the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board he might be able to afford a new 12 gauge shotgun. Or he might decide his old double barrelled shotgun is worn out. The hon. member for Broadview probably does not realize that guns do indeed wear out and new ones must be purchased. Neither does he realize that someone with a 30.06 or gun of similar calibre may get interested in target shooting and that instead of his 30.06 or his 7 mm. or his .308 he may decide to pick up a .22 rifle, which is quite satisfactory for target shooting.
1 suggest that the increase in the number of guns purchased across Canada last year is really an innocuous and innocent circumstance. The manner in which the argument was presented by the hon. member for Broadview would give one the impression that all of a sudden 260,000 people were bent on murder and crime. That is unadultered nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
I noticed there was reference made by the Solicitor General today to the careless handling and storage of guns. I hope we are not again going to be put through that exhaustive exercise in committee, asking for a definition of what is careless storage of guns.
An hon. Member; What is your definition?


Robert Hylton Brisco: I could make some suggestions; first that the amnunition not be stored with the rifle; second, if the rifle is a type from which the bolt can be removed, that the bolt also be stored separately from the gun; and third, if you wish, that the gun itself be locked.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but remark on a response from the hon. member for Calgary North in case Hansard missed it, and Hansard does not miss very much. The hon. minister said that I was improving on my address of last year, and the hon. member for Calgary North has just

remarked, "And so has the legislation". I have to agree. I am glad to be able to put that on the record.
An hon. Member; But that is not enough.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Let us give the member credit for his interjection. Which riding is that hon. member from? Would you help me on that point, Mr. Knowles?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) should refer to another member of this House by his riding and not by his name.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: That intervention completely upsets my entire trend of thought, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Broadview, who is replete with suggestions today, suggested that those who use rifles and shotguns should store them at the local club and not take them home, as they do in England. That sounds like a jolly good idea, Mr. Speaker. I can just see the local gun club being broken into and 50 or 60 rifles and shotguns disappearing in one fell swoop! I suppose the hon. member for Broadview did not think about that particular point.
What concerns me and what concerns people in the rural areas, who do not live in cities and do not live next to or close to crimes of violence, is what point is there in storing rifles and shotguns at some remote gun club when the next evening you have at your doorstep a cougar that is about to take away your pet dog or cat? I suppose the odd member will snicker and say, "What is the member talking about?" I would refer that sneering member to the town of Nakusp, British Columbia, which is a quiet little community of 4,000 or 5,000 souls.
If one were to drive through there, one would see water, trees, the forest, people, some industry-not enough-but you would not see a cougar. Yet this winter there have been three separate instances in that community where cougars have come to the doorsteps of houses and have seized a pet dog or cat and have run off with it. In terms of size, there is not much difference between a pet dog or cat and a small child. There are documented incidents of that as well. What use is a gun in that community if it is stored at a gun club?
I remember dealing with Bill C-83 in committee last year and remarking about bears walking the streets of Trail. I was somewhat oppressed because some hon. members thought it was all very funny and really did not think it was true. Yet, some ten years ago, within 100 yards of my house a neighbour killed a marauding grizzly bear. Surely in the city of Trail you are not going to come across a grizzly bear wandering the streets. That is true, but you must remember the outer fringe of some of these communities borders on mountains, trees, streams, bush and hillside, really all very innocent-looking. Within a block and a half or two blocks of my home, regularly every summer the British Columbia department of fish and game has to establish a bear trap because bears move down
May 12, 1977

from the hillsides and into local communities. It is unfortunate when they do that, because they become susceptible to a habit pattern which keeps bringing them back. Although it might be quite fine for a child to cuddle a teddy bear, I do not recommend the same type of treatment with an unpredictable black bear.
While there are some very legitimate concerns on the government side with reference to the need for gun control, concerns that I recognize, I urge that the government maintain the posture of allowing the provinces to handle the control of this particular problem, that the government co-ordinate it, and if a shopkeeper is to have imposed upon him a great deal of bureaucratic paperwork, that he be given the right and the opportunity to receive some reimbursement for that effort. If that is not the case, then the government is giving the lie to its expressed concern that it is going to cut red tape for small businesses.
I ask that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General recognize that there are concerns which are not just urban but also rural. I notice in the bill there is a happy provision that a hunter who relies on game for his livelihood or to provide for his family, does not have to pay a fee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco).


Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was going to conclude by saying-


Stanley Ronald Basford: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Robert Hylton Brisco: Did somebody say no?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford).


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the hon. member would conclude his remarks fairly quickly. I would point out, on a point of order, that as the debate has gone on he is the first person on either side of the House who has exceeded his time. I would be happy to give my consent to his having more time, but I think the House would be interested to know that previous speakers, including the official spokesman for the opposition, completed their remarks within time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: So what? That is the same as consent.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I am now at my concluding sentence.
I note there has been special treatment within the context of the bill for those people who must live off the land by hunting and trapping. I am delighted to see that particular provision has been introduced in this bill. I am sure the native peoples of
Criminal Code
Canada will also appreciate it. I will have more to say with respect to the new gun control section of this legislation when it reaches committee stage.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make the points I want to make rather quickly. For one thing, I think peace and security seem to be in a bit of a retreat. The Toronto Globe and Mail says of this bill that some members of parliament have not read it. In fact the Globe and Mail specified six. I think the Globe and Mail is being generous. The bill was introduced on April 20. There are 86 pages in it. I suspect there are at least 40 additional pages of explanation, and the bill, of course, amends half a dozen statutes in a rather fundamental way, so I have no shame at all in saying that until I got ready for this debate, I had not read the bill either.
Mr. Speaker has ruled on whether this bill, which might be called a hodge-podge of legislation, conforms with the rules, and of course I would not presume to comment on that ruling. The fact remains, however, that I think we should reflect on whether it is good public policy to include such disparate concepts as wiretapping, gun control, dangerous offenders, custody and release of inmates, parole and probation, and some changes in the penitentiary service, within the ambit of one bill, and of course there are a couple of other aspects the enactment of which has been postponed because the bill's predecessor, Bill C-83, covered such a wide range of topics.
I think it is a great pity that this form of legislation seems to be coming more into fashion. I suspect that that means that a good many reforms that many of us would be anxious to have on the statute books are postponed because of other sections which are not acceptable.
I share the view of the minister that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) made significant contributions to the debate. I am sure that the hon. member for Calgary North introduced his amendment, not to kill this bill, but in an attempt to divide it so that those parts which are amenable to quick passage will have that quick passage. I therefore propose to support his amendment, but because I think that the wiretapping provisions in particular are reprehensible, 1 hope I have an opportunity to vote against the bill on second reading.
Having said that, I think my hon. colleagues would want to share in a commendation of the mayor of this city. He has engaged in a voluntary program for the pick-up of guns of all sorts. This is an amnesty program initiated by Mayor Greenberg of Ottawa, and I hope that his idea spreads to other metropolitan areas in Canada. I suspect that no such need exists in rural areas.
It has been my experience as a representative of a predominantly rural area that most rural people are responsible owners, and I assume that that is the reason why the minister has made some fundamental changes to this legislation. I have no hesitation in commending the mayor of Ottawa for his
80016-13%

May 12, 1977
Criminal Code
program of picking up unwanted, unused weapons. I also have no hesitation personally in saying that I like, and will support, those provisions of the bill which end over-the-counter sales of long guns, hand guns, or any other guns. I think society is at a state now where if anybody wants a firearm he should have to go through certain safety procedures to acquire one, and it will not really be very awkward for people to go through the somewhat modest procedures proposed by the minister.
I do not want to spend my entire speech on gun control; I want also to mention wiretapping. 1 do so with a great deal of sadness because I think there is a fundamental retreat by the minister. The addition of cases in which wiretapping can be used will be a retreat for the civil liberties enjoyed by Canadians, and the testimony in earlier hearings was against extending the list. There is no doubt about that. A careful examination of the evidence when the legislation first came before us shows that there should not be an extension of this list.
There are now 44 major crimes for which an authorization can be obtained. 1 believe very fundamentally that the wiretap is an extreme remedy. It should be confined to extreme cases, and the proposals of the government surprise me because of their illiberality. I think they are wrong-headed and unnecessary, and they fly in the face of the evidence given before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The current restrictions on wiretapping have not meant an upsurge of major crime, and nothing I have heard in this debate makes me change my mind on that point.
The wiretapping law is, in terms of jurisprudence, new legislation, and this legislation should be tested. I think I am correct that there were no more than three reports given by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) about wiretapping. I may be generous by one or two, but this is not any test of the efficacy of this law, and 1 am ashamed that the government would think it needs to broaden this law in such an illiberal way. Its double irony, of course, is that it is brought in under the so-called heading of protection of privacy, and it in no way protects individuals against wiretapping. Rather, I regret to say, it licenses police departments to proceed.
The government is flying in the face of editorial writers from one end of this country to the other, from the largest metropolitan areas to very small towns and communities, and I am rather proud that the press has understood the concept behind the government's extension of wiretapping and has been quick to remind the citizens of a fundamental invasion on their liberties which will take place should this bill get the approval of parliament. I am not ashamed at all to take a minute or two to say that it will be a poor day for the history of this parliament if this measure does not undergo fundamental amendment when we get to committee. I am very surprised that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Solicitor General:-for both of whom I have considerable respect- would countenance such an illiberal measure as this. Society does not need this change, and the present jurisprudence has not been tested sufficiently to warrant this invasion.
The minister seeks to make admissible in a courtroom evidence obtained by following up leads uncovered with an
[Mr. Fairweathcr.l
illegal wiretap. It is the old indirect evidence rule. I hope to live long enough to see the fruits of illegal wiretapping ended in our evidence law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: I would have thought that particularly the young Solicitor General would have been one person who would not lend his name to such a provision.
The minister wants to extend the period for notifying a person that his conversations have been wiretapped from 90 days after the tap to anything up to three years. Once again the Government of Canada is flying in the face of the evidence provided to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This will mean that it will always be three years. We are told that three years is the maximum; I am willing to bet that in 95 per cent of the cases three years will become the minimum.
The hon. member for New Westminster, in a summary of the report of the Solicitor General on this particular part of the Criminal Code, reminds us that of the 1,062 people who were arrested as a result of wiretaps, there were 824 whose names did not appear on the authorization lists-those innocent citizens become the victims of "fishing expeditions"; of the 1,062 arrested there were proceedings against 368; all the 614 applications for wiretapping were granted. There was not a single denial by a judge.
I think this says something about the use of wiretapping and the need for it in this country. I find it a fundamentally reprehensible concept. I had hoped the government would have seen the light and not have asked this parliament to change the law and make it more restrictive than ever for our citizens.
I want to speak about two other parts of the bill very quickly, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear the Solicitor General speak, but my information is that the part of Bill C-83 which dealt with dangerous sexual offenders has not been changed in the present bill. The minister nods his head. Because of this sort of package deal-this is the clumsy cliche that we are now using-when we were considering Bill C-83 this part of the legislation was not given very close examination although the standing committee on Justice and Legal Affairs called a couple of important witnesses and had some written material of very great interest.
I want to read into the record now the comments made by the undoubted expert on this subject in Canada, Professor Cyril Greenland of McMaster University. I should like to quote from a paper given to the Royal Society of Medicine, London, in July, 1971, on dangerous sexual offenders in Canada. Sadly, six years later his words are just as apt, which says something about the way we have moved to address some of the social problems facing the country. He ended by saying:
Confronted by complex problems of modern society, inaction is an enormously tempting solution for middle-aged men. In dealing with sexual matters, academic lawyers and some eminent jurists of this age also seem peculiarly prone to be more excited by shadows rather than the substance.
May 12, 1977

He went on to refer to Hans Mohr who did such excellent work for the Law Reform Commission. He said:
My friend, Hans Mohr, probably had a similar thought in mind when, in the final paragraph of his book "Pedophilia and Exhibitionism" he wrote:
'Because sexual offences evoke an emotional reaction, not only in the general public, but also in those dealings with the offender, it is especially important that judicial and correctional procedures be based on what the problem is, and not on what it is feared to be.'
I am certain that that admonition of Professor Mohr, reinforced by Professor Greenland, has not been met by the proposed amendment to the act.
Professor Greenland went on to say:
The real problem in Canada, as in other jurisdictions, is that the public are being cruelly deceived into believing that the law protects them and their children from assault by vicious sexual criminals. Dangerous sexual offender legislation does nothing of the kind. What it does-often in a mockery of justice-is to give the public a false sense of security by incarcerating, virtually for life in conditions of appalling degradation, a pathetic group of socially and sexually inadequate individuals.
Legislators, jurists, lawyers and psychiatrists must be convinced that punitive action is no solution for that most painfully human condition called sexual deviation.
I suppose that these words are not popular and that Professor Greenland and Professor Mohr are not listened to by governments. But I for one feel that in any sensible debate of an act to change the Criminal Code, these words should be considered.
My last point is about the penitentiary section of the bill, Mr. Speaker. It is somewhat ironic that we should be dealing with some changes in the parole and also in the penitentiaries section of it a day or two before the subcommittee on penitentiaries of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is expected to bring in its report. I would have thought that this section might have been hived-off and the subcommittee at least extended the courtesy of waiting for their recommendations, which we all know are coming-I suspect in a rather cross-party way-in respect of some needed reforms. Yet the government bulldozes on with this hodge-podge of legislation covering six or seven statutes, several of them in a retrogressive way; and in no way that 1 can see, except perhaps in the provincial prisons section, is there any reform in the law that is worthy of being considered liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) began his remarks by saying that not very many members have read this bill. I want to say at the outset that I have read all 80 pages of it and I cannot help but think that the premise of the legislation is that more laws will make more law-abiding citizens. That is certainly far from the truth. If it were so, Canadians ought to be the most law-abiding people in the world. But presumably the government has introduced this bill because it is a security package.


Mr. Peters:: There are more people in our jails than in any other country in the world.
Criminal Code


Benno Friesen: That may be so, and perhaps some of them should not be in jail.
My objection is that this is an omnibus bill containing five separate and distinct pieces of legislation which ought not to be yoked together. Parliament deserves an opportunity to debate and decide upon them separately, and the public has a right to know exactly what is contained in the legislation. With this kind of package we will never know for sure.
Hon. members will recall that when we were discussing the old Bill C-83 in committee last spring some members complained that certain sections got scant attention just because the package was too big. If the government were really serious about passing the measures contained in this bill then it would separate it into the logical components into which it already falls, and let us debate them separately.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has already been quoted as saying that he is afraid this bill has been watered down too much and the public may think it will have very little effect upon society. That simply underscores what I have said-that the bill is based on the premise that more laws will make more law-abiding citizens. If this bill has been watered down so much, why introduce it to the House in the first place?
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) handed me a note just before I began to speak, Mr. Speaker, with a message from the B.C. Wildlife Association which is holding its convention at Williams Lake today. The message reads as follows:
B.C. Wildlife Association at convention today voiced total opposition to Bill C-51. Disgusted with Basford's incompetence and insincerity and convention demands his resignation.
The Minister of Justice met with the B.C. Wildlife Association last year and presumably listened to them.


An hon. Member:: They also got their Liberal memberships.


Benno Friesen: That is right, at the nominating meeting. Maybe that is why the minister has announced he does not plan to run again. Perhaps the minister does not want to run again because he knows the difficulties he would face from the avid hunters in his part of the country.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he'll be made a judge.


Benno Friesen: Perhaps he will be made a judge. Mr. Speaker, if this law is necessary, it should contain provisions which will make it effective.
I noticed two days ago an article entitled "New Gun Law Measures Are 'Just For Show' " printed in the Vancouver Province. The author is Mike Cramond who, for all I know, may be one of the minister's constituents. I wish to quote part of his article. He begins by saying that he met a member of the police administration in British Columbia and asked him what he thought of the amendments to the Criminal Code. According to the article:

May 12, 1977
Criminal Code
He replied: 'Well, it looks as if the public criticism over the lawlessness of recent times had made them feel that they have to look as if they are doing something to deter it. By taking the action of presenting a bunch of amendments to the law it will get the public off their back. And, they can say: 'Look, we have done something.' Then, they can sit back and say: 'We've done our best'
He went on to say:
Frankly, for a moment I was stunned at the revelation. This was a man of the law, an experienced executive police officer. My next question was: 'Do you think the changes are necessary?'
He shook his head. 'There isn't anything ineffectual about the Criminal Code as it stands. It covers everything in the way of a crime. It just has to be administered properly. Agencies interfere with the proper course of justice. Case loads are so high that courts can't handle them.'
I asked: 'Then, do you feel that the 'gun control' measures are necessary?'
His reply: 'There is a law to cover any gun infraction right now. They might make some new infractions.'
I could see that he was uncomfortable, really not sure of his position as a law administrator, specifically talking to a reporter.
Mike Cramond went on to say that we do not need more laws. We need to make our present laws more effective, by enforcing them. He went on to take pot shots at some of my colleagues in the House, and at esteemed members of the legal profession. He said, and I quote:
The main problem for the long-suffering public, in particular the gun owner, is that delaying tactic with which the legal profession is very familiar, 'getting an adjournment', knowing that each delay suffocates the public's willingness to go on fighting to maintain its rights.
That is the nub of the problem. We do not need more laws. We need to give authority to those who administer the law; we must make sure that we enforce laws we already have. We must remove some of the rights which practitioners in law now possess of holding up due process of law. They have that ability under current practice.
Now I wish to turn my attention to the bill itself. As I said, it is divided into five parts. There have been some improvements made to the bill, as I said previously. The minister obviously has listened, but listened with only half an ear. If he had listened properly to the people representing-


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Gun owners?


Benno Friesen: -gun owners, gun clubs, antique owners, and the legal profession, as they appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs last spring, he would have introduced an effective bill which would do for the public what it ought to do. I am cheered to note that the bill now requires gun users to prove their competence with guns. I called for such a provision last spring, as did many other members. We said, what is the good of having a licence if you do not know how to use a gun?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: If you don't know how to shoot straight.


Benno Friesen: That is right. The gun licence should be something like a driver's licence. You may have a driver's licence but not own a car. On the other hand, if you possess a driver's licence you must know how to operate a car. Similarly, because you possess a gun licence does not mean that you necessarily own a gun, but you should not be allowed to use a gun unless you have a licence. In other words, you should be
[Mr. Friesen.)
able to produce proof of your ability to operate a gun properly, if you own a gun. I am glad to see such a provision included in the bill.
Why should we include in one bill provisions like the one I just mentioned, and other provisions which are reprehensible not only to members of this House but to the sense of justice of all in society? Specifically, I am referring to the wiretap provision, which is an invasion of privacy, to the parole legislation in this bill, and to certain aspects of the dangerous offenders provisions of this bill.
Let me read into the record one of the provisions in this bill having to do with the Penitentiary Act. Proposed section 26.2(1) on page 76 of the bill reads:
Where, pursuant to an agreement under subsection 19(1), an inmate has been admitted to a provincially operated mental hospital or to any other provincially operated institution in which the liberty of the patients is normally subject to restrictions, the officer in charge of the provincial institution may permit temporary absences from that institution within the limits prescribed in paragraph 26(b)...
(b) without escort, when he is delegated that authority by the National Parole
Board.
My understanding of this part of the bill may not be correct, but if that provision says what I think, it is a dangerous provision. Any provision which allows a local official to release without escort someone who has been convicted of a crime and then put in a mental institution is dangerous. I suggest that is a dangerous practice and dangerous provision to include in the bill.
Subclause (3) on page 77 reads:
For the purposes of paragraph (1 )(b), the National Parole Board may, if it has determined that an inmate or a class of inmates is one for whom or which temporary absence without escort is appropriate, delegate authority to grant temporary absences without escort to that inmate or class of inmates to the officer in charge of the provincial institution described in subsection (1) subject to any conditions it deems advisable and for such period as it sees fit.
Let us suppose we are satisfied with the gun provisions of this bill and want to pass them as they are. That is not the case, but let us suppose it is. Why should that legislation be included in the same bill which deals with the Penitentiary Act, about which we have some question? In other words, why hold up the legislation because, although we may agree with one part of it, we may have some questions to raise about the other? Bringing together in one bill these various pieces of legislation verges on the immoral.
I repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks. This bill has been drafted on the premise that more laws will make our citizens more law-abiding. We know that is not so. Therefore I cannot support this bill, will vote against it, and ask for the support of hon. members to defeat this bill.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, when I participated in the debate on the late and unlamented Bill C-83 one year ago, l drew attention to some of the zany features of it. After I had finished speaking I walked down the corridor with a friend. He said, "You must be crazy to say what you did, because no government would ever be so foolish as to put so many stupid features in one bill." I said, "Wait and see." Time has vindicated me, because Bill C-51 does not
May 12, 1977

contain three or four zany features which I had particularly illustrated in my speech. It has also helped to save Aunt Minnie from being thrust into a federal penitentiary.
First, let me allude to the zany features about which I spoke in the debate on Bill C-83. I drew the example of a Canadian serviceman trying to defend that beautiful part of Canada known as Halifax-East Hants against invaders who were armed with nothing more than that deadly weapon Bill C-83 as presented to us then by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). These bookladen invaders were able to tie our stout defender up in no time at all. For one thing, they found that as a serviceman he was entitled to carry a weapon. However, he had not obtained a licence to put ammunition in that particular weapon. This was one of the features of the brave attempt by the Minister of Justice in Bill C-83 to deal with some control of deadly weapons.
The Canadian soldier was rash enough to point the weapon at the invader. This drew a further penalty. On the way back to headquarters, they marched through a field in which was scattered ammunition. The ammunition provision in Bill C-83 provided a further penalty against our stout Canadian defender. When the Canadian defender wanted to leave all his arms behind him in the museum of his own choice, it was pointed out that this too was an offence.
By the time that particular mythical war was over, the Canadian soldier had lost 17 years of his life in the Canadian penitentiary, although some of that might have been forgiven on the grounds of good behaviour. The enemy, armed only with Bill C-83, was in firm charge of the field.
Those things have been corrected. 1 hope that the hon. member who thought that no government could be so zany as to bring in measures like that will now realize that a government can be that zany. In any event, I want to give the Minister of Justice full credit for removing those zany features.
One part of pursuing zaniness to its ultimate conclusion was when I pointed out to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that there would have to be somebody in every detachment across Canada who would licence the undermembers of each particular detachment to chase the criminal element with loaded weapons. Otherwise the RCMP officials would be in violation of the law. The Commissioner of the RCMP said that was impossible. Somebody then whispered to him and he said that they were correcting that with an amendment to Bill C-83.
I enjoyed myself. The press obviously felt like the member of parliament who said that no government could be that zany. The speech never created the slightest stir of ink on any newspaper page across Canada that I can remember. However, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), and people in their departments knew that I was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They knew they had to get rid of the zany features in Bill C-83. Some attempt has been made to do that at this time.
Criminal Code
May 1 also say something on behalf of a grateful public which never has a chance to know the depths I went to in order to try and correct the zaniness at that time? May I say something to the minister on behalf of the Aunt Minnies of Canada? These were the old souls threatened with incarceration, fines and all sorts of prohibitions, criminal records in any event, when they dared to harbour antique firearms. The provisions in that bill were also zany insofar as they dealt with firearms.
One of the great occasions I had with that particular bill was to have a group of people drive up one Sunday afternoon to my home in Halifax. They brought antique firearms, some dating back to the time when Cromwell was terrorizing various parts of the United Kingdom in the name of peace and order. Some were from the time of the American revolution, some from the war of 1812, some from the revolution in the Northwest Territories, and the like. All these weapons were trotted into my home. I was told that all of them were subject to the sanctions of Bill C-83. I do not think anybody could have been shot with those particular weapons. They would not have been able to find ammunition that could be used in them. Nonetheless, as the bill proposed by the government came before us then, the owners of such weapons could have found themselves in great difficulty indeed.
I suppose across Canada there must be thousands of homes occupied by Aunt Minnies and other people where these antique firearms exist. We now have in this measure that which we did not have before, some method of saving Aunt Minnie from going to jail, from paying a fine, or at least from having her fingerprints taken by the constabulary of Canada. I have to thank the Minister of Justice for listening to the Aunt Minnies of this world. I also have to thank him for not attempting to apply the definition presented to us in the bill before us as it was an absolute farce and led to all kinds of strange results.
I will not take too much time because I want to see the bill get into committee. There is one point I want to draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice. I thought the natives of the northwest made very strong points indeed about their difficulty in buying firearms, either from dealers in their own localities or, as they seemed to prefer, from mail order shops. I want to give the minister notice that when the bill reaches committee I will ask some questions to see that the rights of the people in Canada who should have the use of firearms, those for whom shooting game is an absolute part of their lives, have that right without hindrance and a lot of bureaucratic foofaraw, to bother them.
I should say to the minister that I armed myself with four advisers, all of whom had a hand in telling me what they thought was wrong with the bill when it came in last year in the form of C-83. They were largely responsible for initiating my speech about the mythical invasion of Halifax-East Hants. I told the House tonight some of the hilarious and crazy things that the original suggested reform would have brought about. All of the four are now reasonably satisfied with the measure that is presently before us. That says some thing for the

May 12, 1977
Criminal Code
committee system of the House of Commons. People had a chance to come before the committee, present their views and, after pounding away at the government for a while, to convince the Minister of Justice and others that the measure that was being proposed was totally inappropriate in a democratic society. Even though it did take a little bit of arm twisting and friendly persuasion, those people were heard in a democratic way. Some thanks should be given to the sinner who has reformed.
The other point I should like to make before concluding is that I think the proposal to extend what I call the liberalization of the wire tapping provisions is a heinous one. I believe it has to be fought, and I hope we do fight it as hard as we can in committee, if indeed the bill goes to committee.
Finally, I should like to support the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Calgary North. The trouble about these large helpings of Criminal Code reform-and this one runs to 85 pages-is that they cover too many subjects and make it almost impossible for one to take an honest stand for or against. One's inclination is to make a stand against certain areas of the bill while voting in favour of others. The process becomes a mockery. 1 know that governments have used this technique for years and years but some day, Mr. Speaker, this will stop. I hope that tonight we shall stop it with a vote.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief because the hour is late. Besides, my colleagues insist on it. Nevertheless, 1 should like to say something about this legislation. I am of the opinion that the bill is not nearly as bad as it was when introduced in the last session of parliament. But it has been improved only in degree. It is true there is no need for us to get our neighbours to certify we are capable of owning or buying a gun. But it is a fact that when someone buys a gun from a neighbour they both have to be licensed. It is not only when it is bought downtown from one of the stores. It means that in any of the trading done between neighbours, if they pick up a shotgun or a .22 rifle, both those guns would end up registered.
The government is so hard up that it sets out to collect money on the basis of legislation meant to apply, largely, to the law-abiding, a bill that satisfies all the rednecks. Surely we ought not to be getting money out of this. If the minister is sincere in wanting to get guns registered, then why does he charge a fee for doing so? If a fee is insisted upon, why does the bill not say that the fee might be paid at the same time as the gun is bought in the store? There is really no point in making it necessary to renew the permit every year. The gun is registered and its location is known. Why does the minister want to collect a buck a year for five years? I predict this clause will be as difficult to operate as the attempt to secure $2 for licensing every radio in the country, which meant keeping track of all the radios. We found after a while we did not need it.
If the minister really wants to know where guns and rifles are, then why not encourage voluntary registration except in
(Mr. McClcave-1
the case of new guns? I am sure many people, if asked, would voluntarily register their guns. But it would be absurd to expect them to register voluntarily if they had to pay a tax. Therefore they keep the guns at home and do not tell anybody. They are not obliged to tell anybody.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I am never sure whether the people who are talking about this gun legislation are policemen, or just fools, or hunters. The hunters, as a group, do not want any kind of control because they do not need any. The fools don't know. They are the civil servants who have never been off their fat derrieres. They will rewrite a piece of legislation any way you want it. There may be exceptions, of course, and I hope that will cover the situation.
One of my hon. friends mentioned the number of guns which are stolen. It is true there are quite a number. Maybe that is why they should be registered. But there are 10 million guns in Canada, and it is my guess that if a fee were not involved and the minister asked for voluntary registration he would get 50 per cent of those guns registered. I do not know what the RCMP were able to find out when guns were registered years ago. At one time all guns in this country were registered. At the beginning of the war everybody was asked to register their guns. It was not so much the guns they were interested in. You went down to the police station and said, "I have a 44-40 Winchester, or a .309 Remington, or a .303 Enfield." Whatever you might have, shotguns included, you registered them. In this way a lot of guns were registered, including handguns. In my area a local gun shop is selling a handgun almost every day. These are not Saturday night .38 specials-they are conventional handguns. And they are not all going to gun clubs.


An hon. Member:: Ontario separatists!


William Arnold Peters: We may need these guns some time, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening to my colleagues who come from other parts of the country, and we may need them to protect ourselves from the rape of our resources in Northern Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: But seriously, Mr. Speaker, I am shocked by the figures. The dealer was not the least bit shy. All the guns are registered. The police inspect them all. And the dealer does not see anything wrong with registering new guns. What he thinks is wrong is all the hardware stores being allowed to sell guns. He does not think the Canadian Tire stores and other stores where there is absolutely no protection should be allowed to sell guns. This dealer has police dogs and all kinds of alarms set up to protect the stock. His premises are not in town; they are located off by themselves and he needs a lot of protection because at times he has a large number of guns in stock there. He is a gunsmith as well.
Mr. Speaker, 1 don't go hunting any longer and I therefore do not need to buy guns any more. I have two or three and they are in a drawer, probably, and I handle them very carelessly because I do not use them. Most of the people in my
May 12, 1977

area handle their guns carefully because they use them. It is not unusual to go into a house in many small communities and see four or five guns hanging on the livingroom wall. The people think they are very nice.
Guns are very elaborate pieces of machinery. A number of people who were watching the news the other night saw that the mayor of one city has gathered up all the guns. They put them in a bucket and grind them up. That shocks me, actually, because some guns are beautiful pieces of workmanship. Many of them are as difficult to repair as a watch, and not many of us are competent to do that. But that is not to say that they are not dangerous. I am sometimes shocked at the insensitivity of my colleagues who like to see the destruction of guns which to many people are very valuable.
I do not want to speak for very long, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to say I am surprised at my colleagues who have not been vocal in their defence of the differences that exist in this country between various regions. We talk today about Quebec and its language being different from the rest of Canada. We talk about western Canada being different from the rest of the country because it grows grain. There is also a big difference between major urban centres and rural areas in the matter of guns.
I agree with people in the city of Toronto who say that a gun in the average apartment is purchased only for shooting people. Many of these people never get the opportunity to do anything else with a gun. The keep it for what they call defence, and that is defence against people. In my area it is used as a defence against the elements. Some members say they use a gun to shoot bears and wolves, but that does not often happen. But we who live in rural areas train our young people to use a gun for that purpose; we do not keep them for shooting people. So there again there is a difference. I am surprised at the insensitivity of many members of this House who support law and order but who are not willing to reflect the opinion expressed by many of those who live beyond the urban fringe and the "Golden Horseshoe."
I hope that when the bill goes to committee we will have an opportunity to state our position on wiretapping and on other parts of the bill, but I would not like it to pass second reading without having had an opportunity to put forward my northern views on this important subject.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am only going to speak for a few moments this evening, and it is very painful for me to have to admit that. However, we do want to have a vote tonight so I am going to take just five minutes to put on the record for the first time my views about wiretapping, which is all I shall address myself to now.
I am surprised and amazed that a government which is supposed to be headed by a great libertarian, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), would bring in a bill like this which would allow wiretapping with no notice being given the person being wiretapped for three years if a judge sees fit so to
Criminal Code
approve. Well, there are judges and judges. There are judges who are great upholders of the prosecutorial process. As one hon. member said this evening, there has not been one instance of a wiretapping application being turned down, according to the records filed for last year.
I am certainly against any widening of the law applying to wiretapping, any extension of the 90 period to three years, or even to 91 days or 100 days. The Prime Minister made his reputation on stating that the state should not intrude in the bedrooms of the nation; this was in 1968, or whenever it was he was justice minister. His government is now bringing in a bill like this, a Liberal bill, extending the powers of the police and the government to wiretap private citizens. I am unalterably opposed to that. If the state should not be in the bedrooms of the nation, I see no reason why the state should be able to wiretap the bedsprings of the nation, because that is what they can do, Mr. Speaker, under this piece of legislation. I do not believe in wiretapping.
When the justice minister spoke the other day he gave the usual false reason. He gave the usual reassurance to the ordinary citizen which is always dragged up. Whether it is Senator Foghorn in the United States or the Minister of Justice of Canada, the same old excuse is always given-I refer to Hansard for May 11-namely, that the activities of the bosses of organized crime can be more effectively investigated by wiretapping than is possible at present. I say piffle! That has nothing to do with it. At least, wiretapping has only slightly to do with the bosses of organized crime. It is the ordinary people of this country who can be wiretapped, yet we always hear this talk about the bosses of organized crime. When we hear about wiretapping we all get this vision about the Mafia, that only the Mafia is being wiretapped, and therefore it is all right for us to approve anything that the Crown wants to introduce in order to catch the Mafia or the people who were on television in Montreal a few months ago. Well, Mr. Speaker, that does not wash.
The two or three hundred wiretaps which went on last year were not all of people involved in organized crime. I am irretrievably opposed to the use of evidence obtained through illegal wiretaps. We should follow the United States precedent, not the English. I do not care whether the evidence is relevant or irrelevant; if it is obtained by illegal means it should be blocked from the courts. If we do not block it from the courts we are only giving the police and RCMP the incentive to obtain evidence by illegal means. If they know it can be used in court in any event they are not going to worry too much about the means. That is an inconsistency, and I hope to have a chance to vote against it.
I am also completely opposed to wiretapping of solicitors. I do not care if somebody persuades a judge that a solicitor or a lawyer may be involved in a crime. It is an absolute infringement upon our system of civil liberty to place a wiretap on a lawyer, or in his office, or anywhere near his place of business. You can do the same in his home as you can do in other people's homes if the law so permits, but to wiretap conversations between solicitor and client is absolutely abhorrent and
5590

May 12, 1977
Criminal Code
should not be permitted. Unfortunately this legislation does permit wiretapping of a solicitor if he is himself suspected of being involved in a crime. If it turns out that he has not been involved in a crime, Mr. Speaker, we are still wiretapping all his conversations which he is having with his clients most of whom have nothing to do with the alleged crime about which he is being wiretapped.
I do not have the time tonight, Mr. Speaker, to expand on these matters, but we did learn years ago that the Prime Minister is no great libertarian. In fact he is quite the opposite, as we learned under the War Measures Act implemented in Quebec a few years ago. This bill is another instance. Once it has served his purposes, the Prime Minister no longer cares what goes on in the bedrooms of the nation, and the police and RCMP can do what they like if this House will give them the power. Well, Mr. Speaker, I say count me out. I am going to vote against the wiretapping provisions of this bill if I get a chance to do so.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that in my initial remarks it is almost needless to say that the portion of Bill C-51 which concerns amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to firearms is far more acceptable than last year's effort, this of course being the result of very substantial changes to the content of that area of the previous omnibus bill.
Nobody can argue with the government's intent to protect more readily the lives and safety of citizens of this country. However, I think that legislation of this nature can be measured by degree. The previous gun control legislation, for example, was not acceptable because it went too far. I do not feel that such a severe proposal would have been very widely accepted. So far as I am concerned, though, the principle and content of the latest firearms legislation will not elicit the same degree of adverse reaction.
I will reserve comment on the other areas of the bill in favour of confining my remarks to the portion strictly related to firearms legislation. I am pleased to see that this latest proposition does not appear to have attached to it an inherent need for a large administrative structure. That was a very negative factor in last year's bill. I see that much of the actual administrative aspects, if you want to call them that, are left to the jurisdiction of police officers. I am thinking specifically of the areas that mention the fact that the new proposals build on existing systems such as the courts' powers and police record checks, and the fact that firearms officers will usually be police officers.
When I think of my own riding in particular, the allowance of certain concessions for exemptions to people who are dependent upon the use of firearms for their livelihoods is quite acceptable. I have no argument against the exception to the requirements for firearms acquisition certificates which allows persons dependent on trapping or hunting to lend firearms to each other without a certificate being produced. Second, I have no protest over the exemptions from certificate

fees for those who hunt or trap for their living. This would go over well in the Churchill constituency, as it would in all northern areas where people depend on trapping and hunting for a living. The bill also honours current provincial safety programs that have traditionally been of provincial jurisdiction. I am in agreement with that portion of the bill.
There are still many areas of the new gun control proposal which are open to speculation however. For example, it is going to be difficult to determine accurately, and possibly legally, whether an individual can be considered potentially dangerous. Such a determination would make him subject to a court order prohibition that would prevent him from owning or using a firearm. This system would surely be abused.
The bill might also be labelled discriminatory in terms of the provision which stipulates that anyone with a history of mental disorder associated with violence is immediately prohibited from owning or using a firearm. This clause would also be open to abuse as it could possibly promulgate a steriotypic view of former mental patients in the eyes of law enforcement officials. I am talking about, a patient who has been released from a mental institution and who is now deemed to be of sound mind. What I mean is that an ordinary citizen could be discriminated against because of his past. This would surely be a difficult law to enact fairly. I know the intent behind this provision is well meaning, but it appears to me that the ethics of fair, just treatment and jurisprudence would be disregarded. It is also going to be hard to judge cases in which police can issue prohibitions where reasonable grounds can be shown that a certain person is likely to harm someone if he or she has access to a firearm.
The question of why the government still chooses to present firearms proposals in an omnibus form arises. The Progressive Conservative party has held firm to the belief that this sort of legislation should be introduced separately or severed from the rest of the bill altogether. However, the government has again given us an everything-in-one bill.
Although there are some weak areas of Bill C-51 in the portion dealing with firearms, I am sure that many of the bugs will be ironed out in committee stage. With those remarks I would like to conclude. I hope this bill will be cleared up and a lot of amendments made and accepted by the government at committee stage.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment (Mr. Woolliams) to the main 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:: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Criminal Code


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed 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:: Shall we agree to dispense with calling in the members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 therefore declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

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

Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, 1 am rising tonight to speak about the port of Churchill which, in light of recent events about which I will tell the House, does not have a very bright future.
Churchill has long been of priority concern to me. I have spoken in this House time and time again about how the port of Churchill must be developed if it is to remain operative and keep up with advancements in the grain handling system. 1 have told hon. members about the efficiency of the port. Churchill has been highlighted as one of the most productive and capable ports, for its size, in Canada. 1 have tried to convince the government that it must promote exports through Churchill and that the port has a capacity which far outweighs its current use. Churchill is capable of handling between 30 million and 40 million bushels of grain per season without difficulty, and the test year of 1976 proved that the port could easily handle a record shipment of 28.4 million bushels of grain.
The federal government has committed a great deal of money to the town of Churchill and to the port. The government funded an $11 million complex for the town, and a total federal budget of about $10 million has been committed for the restructuring and upgrading of the port. This estimate, however, has increased as the result of inflationary factors.
When broken into its elements the budget reveals that $200,000 will be expended to automate the scales and convert them to metric readings; $70,000 will be spent to improve loading chutes; $1.1 million is the anticipated cost of facilities for controlling grain dust; $500,000 will be spent on new staff quarters; $400,000 will be set aside for modifications to the tugboat there; $5.9 million will be expended over the next two years for dredging the port; and $800,000 was planned for

changing the elevators to accommodate new aluminium hopper cars which will eventually replace Canadian National's fleet of grain handling boxcars.
It is with the last two items in mind that I am greatly concerned over a recent announcement by CNR that upgrading of the track to Churchill, which is necessary if the port is to keep up with CN's new grain hauling innovations, will not be completed as expected. Since there are moneys in the estimates for altering the car dumping mechanism to handle the new hopper cars, and since tenders have been called for the dredging of the turning basin at the port, it is my fear that these programs will have to be suspended as the result of CN's decision to discontinue upgrading of the track in question.
The Canadian National decision to halt work on the Herch-mer subdivision could prevent Churchill from participating in long-term grain exports because the grain handling system in Canada is rapidly moving toward exclusive covered aluminum hopper car utilization. 1 have been led to understand that by 1986 the heavier aluminum hopper cars will have replaced the box cars that are currently in use on the Churchill line. If Canadian National Railways does not complete upgrading of the remaining 180 miles between Gillam and Churchill, the Churchill line will be obsolete in the realm of grain transport. Churchill could lose from 25 to 30 million bushels of northern Saskatchewan grain throughput if the line is not upgraded to accommodate the new cars.
The CN announcement which, incidentally, was brought to the attention of delegates to the 34th Annual Convention of the Hudson Bay Route Association in April of this year, came as a complete and utter shock to everyone. The Snavely Commission Report on Grain Handling Costs had recommended to the government that the 180 miles of track constituting the Herchmer subdivision north of Gillam be designated a "development" rather than a "grain dependent" line. CN, which had originally assumed that the line would be eligible for federal subsidy, had already invested $6 million in upgrading part of the line. Eighty-five per cent of the traffic on the Churchill line is grain. CN, however, cannot now justify a further expenditure of $15 million which is necessary for the completion of the line.
This entire situation has left me with the feeling that the government and CNR are in a flux. Although the government has injected a great deal of money into Churchill, it refuses to promote the port facilities. And until the Hall Report on grain handling and transportation is made available, the federal government will take no action itself in upgrading the Herchmer subdivision.
Then there is CN, which refuses to commit further expenditure on a line that, at this moment, appears as if it will never be profitable. The Snavely Report has reduced CN's confidence that money would be forthcoming for expenditures on the line. It, too, wants to hear the recommendations of the Hall Commission which, so far as 1 know, will be tabled Monday.
The people of Churchill, Mr. Speaker, do not know what is going on. They just do not understand why it is that their
May 12, 1977

future is so precariously unstable. CN's decision, compounded by the government's refusal at least to reassure these people, has left eveyone with the impression that their livelihood and future are in jeopardy. The people of my riding are furious about the announcement. Feelings of exasperation are outweighed only by feelings of helplessness.
It can be argued that upgrading of a rail line that is so important to many people must be in the national interest, so it is incumbent upon the government to see that money is made available should the recommendations of the Hall Report not favour Churchill. In any event, I believe the government should promote exports through Churchill. If the port was promoted, then the rail line to Churchill could be very profitable to CN, for example, if commodities other than grain were moved.
The government must also promote greater co-operation between Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway in transporting commodities to the port. The government must also encourage the Canadian Wheat Board to make greater use of the port. But the single, most important matter with which the government should deal expeditiously is the upgrading of the rail bed between Gillam and Churchill so that it can handle the new hopper cars. As I pointed out earlier, Churchill has a lot to lose if that project is not completed. The whole future of the port depends upon its ability to handle the hopper cars.
I urge the government to take my comments into serious consideration, for the future of the port of Churchill rests in its hands. I would like to say in closing that the people-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member has raised this matter this evening. At the outset I want to assure him that the government does not share his pessimism regarding the future of the port of Churchill. About four years ago Canadian National Railways announced a program to upgrade its rail line to Churchill. This program would enable grain in the new style hopper cars to be handled all the way through to the northern port. Work has proceeded from the south and upgrading has generally been completed as far as Gillam. This leaves the northern section, known as the Herchmer subdivision, still to be upgraded.
Canadian National has applied, under the provisions of the Railway Act, to receive subsidy on the Herchmer subdivision. The Canadian Transport Commission has reviewed the case and subsidy payments were made for the years 1973, 1974, and 1976. No payments were made for the 1975 because of heavy sulphur shipments. The Canadian Transport Commission found that in that year no loss was in fact incurred on this line and no subsidy was therefore payable.
Earlier this year the Canadian National vice president for the western region announced at a Hudson Bay Route Asso-
Adjournment Debate
ciation meeting that the railway had decided to delay plans for completing the upgrading work. The reason given was that the Commission with respect to the costs of transporting grain by rail, the Snavely Commission, which reported last December, found that the line was not a "grain dependent line." The interpretation by the railway seems to have been that because of the Snavely finding, the railway would not be eligible to receive reimbursement for capital investments made in the line. Quite frankly, it is hard to understand this reasoning because there is provision in the branch line subsidy program of the Railway Act to make such payments. The findings of the Snavely Commission really are not relevant in this context.
Canadian National has requested that its upgrading projects be treated as operating expenses so that they can be recovered through the subsidy process in the year in which the expense is incurred, rather than over the long-term life of the asset through depreciation.
The whole question of railway upgrading on this and other lines is one which will be taken up with the railways in the very near future. The Hall Commission on the prairie grain handling and transportation system has addressed itself to the over-all question of railway rehabilitation and upgrading and it is, of course, advisable to wait for this important report rather than to adopt an ad hoc approach to the prairie rail line problem. The Hall report is expected to be published at the beginning of next week.
In the meantime my hon. friend from Churchill can be assured that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is in contact with Canadian National, specifically in connection with the Herchmer subdivision. The importance of that rail line to the continuing viability of the port of Churchill is fully appreciated. Every effort is being made to ensure that the rail line does not restrict the port from playing its full role in future grain export programs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his allotted time has expired.


MULTICULTURALISM-PROVISION OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING IN VANCOUVER SCHOOLS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on May 3 I directed a question to the Minister of State responsible for Multiculturalism (Mr. Guay (St. Boniface)), and I asked of him information regarding the plans of his department to help the Vancouver School Board to provide a better standard of education for those students in the school system of Vancouver who need training in English as a second language. The minister's reply was confusing. It confused me, and also shows how confused the minister himself is. Even after several points of order had been raised he still could not get the matter straight. Eventually I dropped the subject and wrote him a letter. That I found it necessary to write a letter shows, I think that the minister does not know what is going on in the department. Finally, I sent the minister all the material

May 12, 1977
Adjournment Debate
which several members from British Columbia have received from the British Columbia school board.
The minister replied to my letter. Part of his letter reads:
Since this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the hon. John Roberts, Secretary of State, I have forwarded the above-mentioned to him.
I wish he had told me in the House that the matter is not within the purview of his department because I could have directed a supplementary question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). Be that as it may, I wish to point out to the parliamentary secretary some of the salient facts which face the Vancouver School Board as a result of the government's immigration policy. Again, the children are used as pawns. They are the innocent victims of the mismanagement of which the government is guilty.
The children have suffered ever since the former hon. member for Verdun, acting in his capacity as minister of manpower and immigration, introduced the new policy in 1968. The innocent children have been suffering because the support system which ought to have been in place for their benefit and that of their parents in Canada, was not in place. Without adequately investigating all that Canada can do for those new Canadians, or immigrants, the minister introduced a policy which has subjected those people to a lot of misery.
The brief that the Vancouver School Board sent to us points out, and I quote:
Since 1975, the situation has reached the point where, for example, 42 per cent of our grade four children are from English as a second language background and we estimate that at least 40 per cent of our total school population come from homes where English is spoken as a second language.
The Vancouver School Board is concerned that the federal government has ignored the special needs of this large segment of Vancouver's young society. We feel it incumbent on us to point out some of the problems encountered in the educational management of students who have English as a second language. Such students enter our educational system at various ages, from various cultures, particularly Asians in Vancouver, with varying educational standards, with the trauma described as cultural shock, with educational lag, and with a different native language.
It is not that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has not heard about this because the Vancouver school board submitted a brief to him. I again quote from the brief:
The Vancouver School Board has, as stated earlier, made presentations to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration without success. We find the negative responses from the federal government difficult to understand when we consider that:
a)	the Joint Parliamentary Committee has recommended to the government that direct funding be made available to school boards to assist in the education of immigrant youngsters;
b)	the problems regarding ESL students are a direct result of federal government immigration policies;
c)	although we have been told that constitutionally the responsibility for education lies with the provincial government, the federal government provides substantial grants for French language instruction and in the past has entered into agreements with provinces to upgrade vocational-technical facilities in secondary schools throughout the country and to provide funds for post secondary education;
d)	both the former and present B.C. ministers of education have assured us that there would be no problem in accepting federal funds for distribution to school districts for the education of ESL students.
Both ministers of education in the past two administrations said they would welcome this support. I would like an answer from the government. Is it going to implement a policy that works hardship on people and simply forget them? Is it going to neglect them? Is it going to provide the $2.9 million that is necessary for just the Vancouver School Board let alone the outlying regions of Vancouver, to provide the kind of education that is necessary if these youngsters in school and their parents at home are to become properly adjusted in our way of life and be able to make it on their own once they have been invited here? The people in Vancouver deserve an answer. We await that answer from the government.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that major metropolitan school boards in all the principal immigrant reception areas of Canada, including Vancouver, have expressed increasing concern in recent years over their need to cope with effective teaching of immigrant children whose mother tongue is neither French nor English. Several such school boards, including the Greater Toronto, Scarborough and Vancouver school boards, have written to various of my colleagues setting out in detail the difficulties in which they find themselves.
As hon. members are no doubt aware, there have been for more than 20 years agreements between the federal government and the provincial governments under which the two levels of government share equally the cost of providing citizenship training, including language training, for adult immigrants. There are also agreements, with every province except British Columbia, under which the cost of language textbooks for such instruction is borne entirely by the federal government, subject to certain provisions on the rate of yearly increase.
In recent discussions on these agreements, officials of the various provincial governments have expressed their concern that the agreements are not applicable to children of school age, and have cited the various extra costs and expenses and difficulties that school systems encounter when there are very large numbers of immigrant children in the schools whose grasp of one or other of the official languages is not such as to allow them to progress at what is considered to be the usual rate. The concern of these provincial governments has been recognized and they have undertaken to provide further detailed information to the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) whose department administers these agreements. Under our constitutional system education is, of course, exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
I am informed that the Secretary of State is considering raising this matter with the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada; and no doubt, the school boards in the major immigrant reception areas-Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg-will wish to convey their views on this to their respective departments of education.
[Mr. Friesen.l
May 12, 1977

I should also like to point out that legislation is currently before the House concerning immigration, and that one of the provisions of this legislation is for consultation with provincial governments on immigration demographics. As soon as the legislation is passed, and detailed consultations with the provincial governments can begin, some more systematic planning in this area will be possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-SOUTHWEST AFRICA-ALTERNATIVES TO TOURNHALLE CONFERENCE OFFERED BY DELEGATION
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, on April 25 1 directed a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to Canadian participation in a delegation to South Africa, and received no answer to my question. Subsequently 1 directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the same topic and received no answer.
I am curious as to the progress of this conference. We are told through newspaper accounts that Canada has sent senior diplomats to join those of Britain, the United States, France, and West Germany in talks with the Prime Minister of South Africa regarding the future of the territory known as Southwest Africa. I realize it is rather heady stuff for Canada to be part of a five-power conference when the other four participants have been traditionally regarded as great powers in the world. But I wonder whether the government realizes what it is getting into.
Southwest Africa is a quarter of a million square miles in extent. It is larger than the combined areas of England, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Portugal and Hungary. It is two thirds the area of South Africa itself. I have a feeling that the delegation which has officially gone out, and about which so little has appeared in the newspapers, is probably less informed on conditions in South Africa than were the volunteers who sailed to take part in the Boer War almost 80 years ago.
I am amazed that the government should send any representatives, whether we have a seat on the Security Council or not, to talk to the prime minister of South Africa about the future independence of Southwest Africa. I wonder what commitments we have made in terms of the policing of that land in the future. Our experience in becoming involved in United Nations peacekeeping is one of perpetual involvement. I doubt whether the impoverished United Nations organization is in any shape to finance the policing of that vast territory. And, somehow, I doubt that we are either.
I wonder if there was a commitment there to become part of the occupational force which would supervise the proposed elections in the regions. I wonder whether we have undertaken any commitment to the various native groups of that land and whether we have any real regard for the future of the kind of state which would be formed if it followed the pattern of so many other states in Africa-I think of Uganda as an example to chill the mind-as we consider turning over Southwest Africa to that possibility.
Adjournment Debate
It is very strange indeed to find the government involved in all this at a time when we have just received a report on affairs in northern Canada, a report which discusses the homeland and spells out in chilling words a policy of apartheid for Canada and one which will certainly influence the discussion of native claims in this country for a long time to come. We have in the past rejected outright the policies of the South African government. We have refused, for example, to recognize the existence of the State of Transkei. Yet we are part of a representational group of five nations who are off to Johannesburg to talk seriously to the Prime Minister of South Africa about the future of Southwest Africa, when our own native policies in this country are a record of failure from start to finish. It seems to me absolutely presumptuous that we should form part of any delegation going that far to instruct South Africa as to what it should do, either in South Africa itself or in any neighbouring territory.
We have heard little about this matter, Mr. Speaker. We have had no progress report. The minister is not here tonight. I hope we will be given some reassurance that we have not started down the road to an endless commitment in another peacekeeping operation, because I suspect that once the South African government has withdrawn, if it does withdraw, from Southwest Africa there will be a bloodbath there unless the United Nations is prepared to supervise that territory for a very long time.
Have we had any assurance from the Soviet government that they will help to pay the cost? Although they have demanded removal of South Africa from the United Nations, they have refused to make any commitment to pay the cost of what is to come if the United Nations take over the territory. Have we had any regard for the people of Namaland, Okavan-goland, Boesmanland, Hereroland, or Damaraland? What commitment have we given to them or to the people of Ovamboland, the most populous of all of the proposed homelands in the area?
What has this delegation gone to South Africa to talk about? It seems to me that if we have some good minds on how to handle native relations they should be transferred from external affairs to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that they can begin to tell the government what to do about our own problems in this country.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the persistent illegal occupation of the international territory of Namibia by the South African government has been of concern to the international community since way before 1966, at which time its responsibility was entrusted to the United Nations. Canada voted for the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in that regard, and the decision was later reaffirmed repeatedly by the Security Council, and also in 1971 by the International Court of Justice.
Despite that clear manifestation of the international will on the matter, South Africa has refused to recognize the responsi-

May 12, 1977
Adjournment Debate
bility of the United Nations towards that territory and, in recent years, took unilateral steps finally to grant Namibia some form of independence. In fact, in 1975, South Africa organized at Windhoek, capital of the territory, constitutional talks based on ethnic representation, but excluding some interested Namibian political groups. Those discussions continued in spite of Security Council resolution 385 passed on January 30, 1976, that provided among other things for the holding of a free election in the territory organized under the supervision and control of the United Nations, to lead to the total independence of the United Nations and the total independence of a united Namibia.
The government of Canada and the governments of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany support the Security Council petitions without reservation and feel that only a settlement in accordance with the provisions of resolution 385 will be considered acceptable by the international community. That is the message which our representatives conveyed to the South African government in Capetown.
The discussions between South Africa and the five governments are only preliminary and are mainly aimed at determining whether it is possible to arrive at a settlement of the Namibian problem in accordance with resolution 385. Any major aspect of a settlement of the conflict should be secured between the UN and South Africa. It follows from the foregoing that the terms of reference presiding over the ongoing discussions do not cover issues like upholding the peace or sharing expenditures, which come under the United Nations.
The first phase of the discussions that ended Friday April 29 was characterized by open and useful exchanges between the representatives of the five governments and that of South Africa. The five governments are now examining the results of those discussions and are considering further talks to take place soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.43 p.m.

Friday, May 13, 1977