1977-06-30

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Goodale:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions with regard to the hours the House should follow today, and I believe there is agreement to alter those hours. All members have, I think, been informed. I should like, therefore, to ask the Minister of Justice to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Basford:: As the parliamentary secretary has said, this motion arises from the usual discussions. I, therefore, move:
That on Thursday, June 30, 1977, the House shall take up private members' business between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., and shall adjourn at 5:00 p.m.; and
That on Tuesday, July 5, 1977, and Thursday, July 7, 1977 the House shall sit from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. to consider government bills.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: As the parliamentary secretary has said quite correctly, there have been discussions through the usual channels and we in the official opposition are agreeable to this proposal. I hope that some time later today an announcement can be made with respect to the business which is to be carried on. I understand that the New Democratic Party are anxious that Bill C-51 should not be considered during the extended hours next Tuesday.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and we are prepared to agree with this change of hours, or this trade-off, in order that members can get to their constituencies tonight in time for the celebrations tomorrow. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is quite correct: we have requested that during the extra sitting on Tuesday, between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., Bill C-51 not be called, since one of our members is committed to attend the law of the sea conference. We will be satisfied with any other item of government business being called that morning. I believe it is already understood that we will be on Bill C-27 on Monday. Perhaps I can assume that we will continue with Bill C-27 on Tuesday morning.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada, we accept the decision of the leaders. Despite the fact that we were unable to take part in the discussion yesterday, for very important reasons, I am pleased to tell the House that we agree with the decision.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on the same point of order to ask the Minister of Justice about Bill C-51, whether it is coming up on Monday or not.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am really uninstructed on that matter. Personally, I thought it was coming up on Monday, but I understand the House leader made some announcement and we are taking Bill C-27 on Monday. With regard to the business of the House both on Monday and for the extended hours on Tuesday, I presume that the House leader will be having discussions and making an announcement in the course of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps that can be confirmed this afternoon when the House is here for the question period and the usual announcement is made. The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, may I make one further brief point. I should like to make a correction to yesterday's Votes and Proceedings respecting the business for private members' hour today. It had been recorded in Votes and Proceedings that after we had dealt with the constituency change of names bill, and after we had dealt with Bill C-256, we would then use the balance of the hour to deal with motions for production of papers. I think there is agreement that we not do that, but that we simply deal with the first two items of business in the course of that hour. There has been an undertaking that we will move to motions for production of papers, particularly motion No. 15 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), at the earliest opportunity next week.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the parliamentary secretary a question? Certainly, I agree with the procedure being followed, but may I ask the parliamentary secretary whether consideration was given to my private member's bill, which is the next one to be called and which has been postponed by agreement on two occasions. If it is not called today, of course, it will very likely die with the session.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I will take up that point specifically. It would be our hope to call it before the session adjourns, but I will try and be more specific for the hon. member later in the day.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, since the bill deals with an amendment to the Broadcasting Act, and it is now very
7206

June 30, 1977
Criminal Code
relevant and appropriate in light of the findings of the LaMarsh commission on violence on television, would the parliamentary secretary undertake to take this matter up with the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), with whom I have also had consultations?


Ralph Goodale: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, The Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has had an opportunity to examine in a cursory way all 39 motions standing on the order paper, and at this time is prepared to indicate that I do not see procedural difficulty in respect at least to the first 16 motions. In order to be sure that the House has ample business to occupy it for today, 1 would propose, as an initial recommendation, to group those first 16 motions for discussion, during which time 1 will have an opportunity to examine the remaining motions.
Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), is acceptable for debate and, if required, will be voted on separately. Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 could be grouped for debate and, if required, a vote on motion No. 3 would also dispose of motions No. 4, 5 and 6. Motions Nos. 7 and 10 can be grouped for debate, with a vote on motion No. 7 disposing of motion No. 10. Motions Nos. 8 and 9 should be grouped for debate, with a vote on motion No. 8 disposing of motion No. 9. Motion No. 11 would be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 12, 13 and 14 could be grouped for debate, with a vote taken on motion No. 12 disposing of motions Nos. 13 and 14. Motions Nos. 15 and 16 would be grouped for debate, but voted on separately if required.
If there is any comment, I would be glad to hear it now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I find nothing wrong with the grouping, but I should like to make one suggestion respecting my own amendments. I have four amendments relating to that part of the bill dealing with guns. Motions Nos. 6, 11 and 13 deal with onus and put the onus on the accused rather than on the Crown. If they were grouped, I would say it would be a

proper package. I have discussed the matter with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and he has agreed with it. So dealing with my own amendments, Nos. 6, 11 and 13 can be grouped; and my motion No. 25, which deals with orders in council, can be debated separate and apart from the others.
May I also make this suggestion. The hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) is not here. I tried to contact him in his constituency this morning but was unable to reach him. Most of the amendments were moved at committee stage, and some were lost by eight to nine. I believe one may have been accepted by the minister if it had been phrased a little differently. Therefore, I ask that all the motions moved by the hon. member for Palliser stand for today. My motions and those of the hon. member for New Westminster are ready to proceed, as is that moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). They would pretty well take most of the day. It may be that after some discussion the hon. member for Palliser may feel he extended himself a little in the number of amendments he is moving, and perhaps some will be withdrawn. I see the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) is here. If we run out of work, we could debate his amendments. But I ask that motions Nos. 6, 11 and 13 be called together.
In light of the fact that these are being grouped together, I would ask the House to give me a little longer than the usual 20 minutes, if necessary. I shall be making only one speech, but I will, of course, be dealing with three different parts of the bill. So far as the gun control provisions are concerned, I have really only two amendments; I am grouping three, and the other stands alone. I can deal with the wiretapping part of the bill later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think we know what the hon. member wants, but he has been looking at Monday's order paper, and today is Thursday, so he has the wrong numbers. Instead of motion No. 6, I think the hon. member means motion No. 7. I believe his three motions are Nos. 7, 11 and 13.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was reading Monday's order paper, which is when I did my homework, and I see the numbers are different on today's order paper. I believe the hon. member is right in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are the numbers the hon. member wants?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In any case, if I understood the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), he included in his grouping motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). If my understanding is not correct, would that be dealt with separately?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, separately, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, the proposal is that motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw would be dealt
June 30, 1977

with separately, and when we come to motion No. 7, if that is the case, motions Nos. 7, 11 and 13 will be grouped.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Motions Nos. 7, 12 and 14.


Mr. Speaker:: We will deal with that in a moment once the hon. member for Calgary North has had an opportunity to sort it out.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it will be motions Nos. 7, 12 and 14, because the hon. member for Moose Jaw filed his motion a little later than we did, which moved ours down. If the hon. member for Moose Jaw wants to include No. 1 in his, that is fine with me. Otherwise, it remains the same as I have suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: That being the case, we would begin with motion No. 1. Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted separately; then the grouping of motions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 will be discussed. When we reach motion No. 7, it will include motions Nos. 12 and 14.
There is an application that motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) be stood over until the hon. member can be here, which is reasonable under the circumstances. Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are in the name of the hon. member Palliser. Therefore, the proposal would be to deal with motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) and then to move directly to motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate, from my side, that that is agreeable-that the motions in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) be stood for the rest of the day until we next deal with this bill. Therefore, I agree with calling motion No. 1 and then proceeding with motion No. 7.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if photostatic copies of your notes could be distributed in order for us to do our own checking.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, that would be helpful and I would be happy to do so. We will arrange for that forthwith.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw) moved:: Motion No. 1.
June 28, 1977,-That Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 47 to 49 at page 3 and lines 1 to 8 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) any firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a
length of less than twenty six inches by folding, telescoping or otherwise,".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in connection with this amendment. Effectively, what it provides for is to remove subsection (b)(i) and renumber (b)(n) as (b). Subsection (b)(i) reads as follows:
(b) any firearm that
Criminal Code
(i) is not a prohibited weapon, has barrel that is less than 18'/2 inches in length and is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semiautomatic manner, or-
The reason for this amendment was set forth very well in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, which can be found in issue No. 18 dated June 2, 1977. I should like to refer to what Mr. L. H. Nicholson, the chairman of the firearms legislation committee, said at page 18:8, which reads as follows:
The next item is the definition of "restricted weapon". This is a new definition of a restricted weapon. It would include one that is semi-automatic or self-loading, discharges centre-five ammunition and has a barrel under 18.5 inches in length. It is understood that the purpose here is to provide some control over the M-l carbine, an arm now favoured by criminals, but unfortunately it also covers other makes and other models in significant numbers now used by good citizens in hunting. The change proposed will prevent the further use of these firearms and it will cause a substantial loss to the present owners because they can no longer use them for hunting. The provision is therefore strongly opposed. As to the makes and models to which I refer and their numbers, I have some further information if it is of interest to the committee.
At page 18:16 the committee report indicates Mr. Nicholson referring to various rifles. Ele spoke about the Armalite AR180, sporter carbine, 1814-inch barrel; the Rouger Mini 14, .223 calibre, 18-3/8-inch barrel; the Universal 1,000 autoloading carbine, 18-inch barrel; the Plainfield carbine, .223 calibre, 18-inch barrel; the Hand R ultra-carbine, various calibres, 18-inch barrel; and the Savage auto-loading carbine, .22 rimfire, 16.5-inch barrel. He continued by saying, "I could go on; I have another half dozen."
There are numerous guns with barrel lengths that are under the 18'/2-inches referred to in this subsection. If this subsection is passed, it will mean that many people throughout Canada will have rifles which will immediately become restricted weapons. These people have had these guns in their possession for many years and have used them when partaking in sports and hunting. To bring in this particular clause would have the effect of putting all these people in a position where they are breaking the law, which is not the intention of the legislation. 1 am advised by the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation that in many instances people have rifles with barrel lengths slightly over 18'/2 inches. If they damage the muzzles of those guns, they have to be taken to a gunsmith to be worked on, and they end up with barrels of less than 18'A inches and therefore would fall within this particular section.
The attempts to restrict the use of the M1 carbine can certainly be carried out by subsection (d) on page 4 of Bill C-51, which reads as follows:
-a weapon of any kind, not being a prohibited weapon or a shotgun or rifle of a kind that, in the opinion of the governor in council, is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes, that is declared by order of the governor in council to be a restricted weapon.
It seems to me that under subsection (d) the governor in council could make the necessary order restricting the weapons it desires to restrict, thus leaving the hunter and the sportsman free to own, possess and use the guns to which I have referred. I am not happy with any legislation, particularly in the Criminal Code, which gives the governor in council the right to pass legislation which is never debated in this House. In this instance, subsection (d) is in the Criminal Code at the present

June 30, 1977
Criminal Code
time and it is adequate for our purposes. Therefore, I would ask that this House support my amendment.
I hope that the governor in council, in making use of subclause (d), will make the necessary arrangements, prior to enacting regulations, to have consultations with the various wildlife organizations and sporting groups so that they are aware of the weapons that are being restricted. I ask that hon. members support my amendment.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 support the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). I know a considerable number of people who own carbines. In fact, I have one myself which I received many years ago. I have not measured the barrel, but I suspect it is somewhat less and would probably fall into this category. It is hard to imagine it being more dangerous than any other weapon. In fact, if a weapon is longer than ISV2 inches, it could be sawed-off by anyone who wished to use it as a criminal weapon.
As I understand the legislation, the government wants control over the M1 carbine. However, I believe that any weapon should be put into the pre-emptive weapon code by order in council. It should be placed there as a restricted weapon, rather than a blanket provision cutting out all guns that fall under this classification. To outlaw all of these guns is not the best way to approach this problem, particularly when vast numbers are already in the hands of people. This is a popular sporting weapon. Presumably, if you have a gun 19 inches in length, it would fall within the legal category. The carbine is an easy gun for a sportsman to carry. I have found it extremely easy to carry. It is a very popular gun. It is light, and it is good in dense bush.
If a particular weapon is being used extensively by criminals, the best way to deal with that problem would be through subclause (d). I strongly suspect there would then be more co-operation from the sporting groups. This could be publicized through wildlife groups which encompass almost everyone in the sporting field. It would be given wide publicity that it is a prohibited weapon. By taking the public more into its confidence, there would be a better law.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to go on record as supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). I have received many representations from constituents regarding the length of the gun barrel. I strongly support the hon. member's argument that in many instances, due to lack of accuracy of guns, one-quarter to one half-inch is taken off at the muzzle. This usually causes some damage at the muzzle. The best way for a gunsmith to repair the damage and the accuracy is to shorten the barrel, probably by less than one inch. That makes it an illegal weapon under this act. In most cases, these guns have been in the hands of the family for years. Immediately placing them on the restricted list will prove a hardship.

This points out the whole scope of this type of regulation or law which the government of Canada tries to bring in that deal with gun control. It is very easy to bring forward such laws, but very difficult to make them do what they are supposed to do. Any law to control guns in Canada must be aimed at the criminal element. This is where the problem usually begins. The Liberal government is trying to bring in some kind of gun control that will control guns in the hands of people whom they believe should not have them. I do not know how they will be able to do that in a responsible manner. Those they are aiming at, people who use guns as weapons for their defence, in anger or other uses, will get these guns, at any rate, in one way or another. I agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw that trying to control the Ml carbine should be done under subclause (d). It should not be done by taking away from responsible people in Canada something that they have not used in a criminal or irresponsible manner but have kept in good working condition.
When you look at the bill, you see that all the gun control is being done by regulation. It is all done by order in council. That is one reason so many people in Canada are up-tight about this bill. Nothing is really spelled out other than a few areas such as regulating the length of the barrel. I do not think we want to pass laws in this House that will make criminals out of people. It is very honourable to pass laws which attempt to control the criminal element-an element in Canada that needs a lot of control. It is unfortunate that we have them and that they have to be controlled. I do not really believe that we should be making laws that make criminals out of innocent people. I am referring to people who have cut down the length of the barrel of their guns to improve the accuracy of their shooting or to repair a damaged muzzle.
I know that it does not destroy a gun to shorten the length of the barrel but, rather, makes for more accurate shooting. We are talking here about changing a section so as to allow people to make changes to their Ml carbines, and I hope we will not pass this section as it stands, which would make criminals out of innocent people. Some people might not even know that such a law has been passed by the House of Commons in Ottawa and that their rifles are illegal under the new regulations. The barrel of the rifle could have been shortened years ago by someone in the family, and the gun handed down in the family. Suddenly, a regulation is passed in Ottawa and the fact that the gun had been shortened by a quarter of an inch, half an inch, or even one inch, makes the owner a criminal. We know what happens to people who are in trouble with the law.
The people we want to control are those who are deliberately out to break the law, who do not respect the law. There can be a larger number of rifles in the possession of innocent people who will find themselves in contravention of the law as a result of this section of the act. That is the reason I strongly support the amendment of the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment or two on this clause. I certainly
June 30, 1977	____________COMMONS
support the amendment which has been proposed by my colleague. An amazing feature of this legislation is that while the government is generally moving towards a softer attitude with regard to the laws and lesser penalties for illegal activities, we now come face to face with a clause in the bill which, as my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), has said, makes criminals out of honest citizens and then subjects them to penalties that are in many instances very severe.
So 1 have a great deal of difficulty in reconciling the various positions taken by this government. I have almost given up trying to reconcile the government's policies because they are so contradictory, so unreasonable, that in many respects one reaches the point of throwing up one's hands and saying, "What is the use? They do not know what they are doing. They do not know how to handle the situation. They let on they have all the answers, and then they turn around and tell us they do not have the answers and ask us for suggestions". Then, when the opposition makes proposals, they reject them out of hand.
The whole thing is a horrible mess so far as this government is concerned. We know that the legislation which was introduced initially stirred up a great deal of resentment across the country, so much so in fact that the government had to bend and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) had to pull in his horns and take another look at the situation. Whoever drafted the legislation did not seem to have any sense or reason. It was so trivial in many respects that it was just a joke. So the government felt it had to remove some of these inconsistencies and absurdities. But we still have this bill before us which will make criminals out of honest, law-abiding citizens who for many years have had certain weapons in their possession and, having found themselves in circumstances where they were out of line a little bit, have been convicted and have had a penalty imposed upon them as a result of these new laws.
It seems to me that the proposition which has been advanced by my colleague is reasonable. He proposes that this matter be dealt with under another section of the act. 1 think that is perfectly reasonable. Surely, in considering a bill that has stirred up such a great deal of animosity, bitterness and resentment across the country, reason will prevail and the minister will agree to accede to the proposal of my colleague and will accept it.
No matter what amendments we make to the bill, it is a stupid bill-there is no question about that. The problem could be dealt with in other ways. On the basis of reason alone, I believe that an accommodation should be made by the minister and that this amendment should be accepted. Again I say that many aspects of the bill are repugnant because they encroach upon the freedoms and rights which people have enjoyed down through the years. The minister has acknowledged that this will have no effect on the criminal element in the country. 1 suppose he is looking for more scapegoats and he will turn against the law-abiding citizens of this country. I suggest that he should accept the amendment.
DEBATES	_________7209
Criminal Code


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to say a few words on this amendment to a clause which has been considered very thoroughly and carefully ever since the introduction of Bill C-83, over a year ago. The question is the limiting in the statute of high-powered, rapid-fire weapons with a barrel length of less than 18'/2 inches. I think that when we are looking at matters of gun control we have to weigh and to balance the public interest against private interests. As I have said, we considered this matter very carefully with firearm experts in the RCMP and others.
Recently, even subsequent to the bill being reported from committee, I met with Colonel Nicholson of the Canadian Wildlife Federation. He came to me on this issue and pressed his case and the case of those who wanted this amendment. As a result of Colonel Nicholson's further visit, I re-examined the whole situation as late as last Thursday and Friday, and in my view the legislation as proposed should stand.
The purpose of this provision is to restrict rapid-fire, con-cealable weapons. Obviously, a weapon with a short barrel length is easily concealable under a raincoat or a trench coat if the stock has been sawed off. Police records indicate that a large number of short-barrelled guns are being used for criminal purposes. The Ml was developed during the Second World War as a personnel stopper. The AR-15 was designed and produced for use in the Vietnam war and these guns are now being used widely by criminal elements in the United States and in this country. Therefore, as a matter of public policy it seems to me that we should endeavour to restrict their availability and use in Canada as much as possible.
It would be contrary to the rules, but I wish 1 could bring into the House the kinds of guns we are talking about. I did show those guns to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and 1 think the committee was impressed by what we were talking about.
I met very recently with the Kelowna District Fish and Game Club. 1 showed its members the kinds of guns we are talking about. Once they knew the kinds of guns involved, they supported this bill and this proposal to restrict semi-automatic, centre-fire rifles of barrel lengths of less than 18I/2 inches. I have examined gun catalogues. 1 examined the list Colonel Nicholson produced to the committee. The list submitted included short-barrelled .22s which are not restricted under this provision. It included a number of weapons that by no conceivable definition could be considered hunting weapons. The Plainfield Machine Company carbine has a collapsible stock. It was designed as a military weapon and it is ideal for criminal purposes, but quite unsuitable for sporting purposes. If hon. members were able to see pictures of such weapons, let alone the guns themselves, I think they would readily agree that these really have no proper public use in this country.
With regard to the aspect of hunting, I point out to hon. members that last month in Saskatoon there was a meeting of the association of provincial hunter-safety training co-ordinators. This association is composed of provincial officers who

June 30, 1977
Criminal Code
operate within the ministries of natural resources and tourism or their counterparts in each of the provinces, and those officers are responsible for the development of gun safety programs and their operations in the provinces.
It was the unanimous view of the provincial administrators of gun safety programs that this type of provision should be in the law and that it should be supported. I refer to the restriction of less than 18'A-inch, rapid-fire or semi-automatic centre-fire weapons. I suggest that there is no proper hunting use for these guns. That was the view of the provincial administrators. Many of these guns are of low calibre and would wound more deer than they would ever kill. Some of them are quite inaccurate in terms of target. They are not good shooting weapons. I could bring before the House a stack of textbooks on rifles and guns indicating that these particular weapons serve no useful hunting purpose.
I want to make it clear that for sporting purposes the present owners of these guns will be able to register them and use them for sporting purposes, that is, for target purposes as part of the regular activities of game clubs. However, when we consider the fact that these weapons are not suitable hunting weapons, and when we consider that they are widely used for criminal purposes and are ideal for criminal purposes, I think we should resist this amendment and implement this provision in the bill.
Hon. members have suggested that we should do this by regulation, but I resist that. Some have criticized this bill by saying it has too many regulations, but in the committee I think we were able to show that the regulatory power under this bill is much more restricted than it was in Bill C-83. The problem with accepting the suggestion of the hon. member from the Okanagan would be that the governor in council would be restricting specific types and names of rifles, and in a very short time neither gun dealers, gun owners, nor the police would know which guns are restricted and which are not.
The demand over the last year has been that there be as great a degree of certainty as possible so that gun owners, gun dealers and the police will know what is legal and what is not, what is restricted and what is not, and what is prohibited and what is not. If we were to accept the suggestions of the hon. member and deal with short-barrelled guns by way of regulation, I submit that in a very short time there would be very great confusion as to which guns were restricted and which guns were not. I do not think gun owners or the police want that result, and I submit that on reflection hon. members would not want it either.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would accept a question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Charles Neil: The minister is probably aware that the Canadian Wildlife Federation and the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation are opposed to this amendment because it would result in many thousands of people having in their possession restricted weapons after this bill is passed. Does the minister have any

statistics to indicate how many of these weapons have been used in the commission of crimes? I am not talking about professional criminals.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that statistic here in the House. I am advised that they are widely used by criminals in this country and in the United States, but 1 do not have the statistics to cover that point. One need only recall the picture which appeared in the international press of Patty Hearst robbing the bank-it was probably the most photographed robbery in the world-and she was using a weapon of this type.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would admit that regardless of any regulation or prohibition, the professional criminal will always be able to get handguns, rifles and weapons of any kind?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, to a certain extent I have always conceded that, but I have also said that the more a law is certain, and the more the police can be certain what is restricted and what is not, then if they come across a criminal who is not committing a crime but is in possession of a weapon, they are better able to deal with the situation on the spot. It is also easier for customs officials to deal with shipments, and it is easier for gun dealers to know what they can import and sell than when there is a lack of certainty. If this amendment were accepted and the weapons were restricted by powers of regulation, there would be uncertainty for customs officers, dealers and gun owners.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister. In his response to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), the minister referred to semi-automatic weapons. When he referred to the statistics available regarding the number of sawed-off weapons, I wonder if he was talking about such weapons as the AR-15, a type of semi-automatic weapon, or whether he was putting the emphasis on sawed-off hunting rifles and sawed-off shotguns of the Lupara variety. Is he putting emphasis on the sawed-off shotgun, rifle or semiautomatic weapon?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is clear: it is aimed at short-barrelled, semi-automatic, centre-fire rifles.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed please say nay.
June 30, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. It is my understanding that motions Nos. 7, 12 and 14 were to be debated, but that this has been changed and motions Nos. 7 and 28 will be debated now and that a vote on motion No. 7 will dispose of motion No. 28. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed, and so ordered. Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North) moved:
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 41 to 44 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) a peace officer or public officer"-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be amended in clause 3 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 43 the following:
"(2) Every order in council, regulation or form made under this act shall be laid before parliament within fifteen days after the order in council, regulation or form, as the case may be, is made or, if parliament is not then in session, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof and every order in council, regulation, or form shall be subject to affirmative resolution of parliament and shall not come into force until published in the Canada Gazette."
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that motions Nos. 7 and 28 will be discussed together. These deal with the question of legislating criminal law by order in council. In reply to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) claimed that Bill C-51 is better than three bills because there are fewer orders in council. His argument, apparently, is that if Bill C-83 proposes 1,000 new laws by order in council, and Bill C-51 proposes only about 100, it is therefore better. When dealing with criminal law, Mr. Speaker, I say it is wrong to legislate by order in council. I know that in most legislation it is necessary to provide for orders in council in relation to administrative matters, but criminal law should be precise and concise so that people know what it is. This government has exhibited a growing tendency to extend the power of the executive over parliament.
On May 11 this year I pointed out that in 1976, 3,326 orders in council were passed, but only 653 were published in the Canada Gazette. How can we possibly know we are breaking the law if we do not know what it is-if it never gets published? Clause 3 of the bill provides for the appointment of peace officers and public officers to perform certain duties by order in council. That is the casual group. I suggest that is
Criminal Code
wrong, and motion No. 7 would amend clause 3 by striking out lines 42 to 44. The relevant part of motion No. 28 reads:
-order in council, regulation or form, as the case may be, is made or, if parliament is not then in session, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof and every order in council, regulation or form shall be subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament and shall not come into force until published in the Canada Gazette.
After days and days of debate on Bill C-83, I asked the minister and the former solicitor general if they would agree to a similar amendment. They agreed to the amendment in substance, but it died on the order paper. There is a tendency in this government today, which makes people uneasy, to do everything in cabinet and bypass parliament. When dealing with the Criminal Code, surely the law should be legislated in a precise and concise manner.
Mr. Speaker, 1 want to put something on the record that has always impressed me. 1 have not been a great student of political science, but I should like to refer to a quotation of the late William Lyon Mackenzie King when he sat in opposition to the Conservative government led by the late R. B. Bennett. On one occasion he said:
Now let us come to another point which I wish particularly to stress. I refer to the right set out in Magna Carta that no man shall be disposed of his rights without the lawful judgment of his peers under the law of the land; not the law as made by the governor in council, not the law as made by some unnamed and as yet unexisting body, but the law of the land as known to everyone. It is an essential principle of liberty and freedom that the law of the land should be known, that it should be so known that every man as he runs may read. The law should not be something which is to make its appearance in the Canada Gazette after some board or governor in council, not parliament, has passed a regulation; it is something that should appear in the statutes of the country.
It is too bad Mackenzie King is not here, and too bad his ghost does not walk Parliament Hill.


An hon. Member:: How do you know it doesn't?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have heard his ghost walks somewhere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where have you been? Haven't you seen it?


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: We already have too many ghosts around here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My hon. friends opposite are excited. They wouldn't like to meet Mackenzie King.


Mr. Stanfield:: Or his ghost.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They know what they are doing, giving power to the executive to bypass parliament. People talk of Trudeaumania. They should call it Trudeauphobia, because power is the name of the game. The party opposite is power hungry. As Mackenzie King said, all should know the law of the land. It should not be made by some unnamed or nonexistent body. Mr. Speaker, since the Trudeau government took office we have had several solicitors general. They change, and as new men take on the job they change the law secretly, at night, while Canadians sleep.

June 30, 1977
Criminal Code


Mr. Paproski:: They change it from crisis to crisis.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is correct. As Mackenzie King said, it is an essential principle of liberty and freedom that the law of the land should be known. We are entitled to know the law. The minister said the police must know what weapons are prohibited. I would be far happier if ordinary people knew what weapons are prohibited or restricted. On Monday, I am perfectly entitled to go hunting with my gun. Its possession and use is legal. On Tuesday, its possession and use is illegal. Why? Some unknown body has passed a law in the middle of the night, as it were-and the government would allow this. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has established his image across the country as a crusader for freedom of information. We are proud of his image and hope his crusade succeeds. I hope the government was making sincere proposals in the Speech from the Throne and will introduce legislation along the lines suggested by that crusader from Peace River.


Robert Hylton Brisco: More than likely it was a put-on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope it was more than that. If ever an amendment to a bill deserves the support of parliament, it is this one-because the government has a majority: it thinks it can do as it wants. Mr. Speaker, all governments come and go, but the principle of the rule of law remains. I say, inasmuch as 3,300 orders in council were passed, but only 600 published, Canada is in a sorry state. My remarks apply not only to this bill; they apply also to the human rights bill, the immigration bill, and others. This House grinds out bills like a legislative mill. In this case, parliament is erecting the frame of the House, but the executive will put on the siding and roof.
Parliament will legislate power for the executive to make laws while Canadians sleep. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a serious subject, the criminal law affecting the rights and liberties of the individual. I never thought I would see the day when a provincial legislator would be jailed for his refusal to divulge information. That was shocking. You cannot do your job without information. Sometimes you must get it surreptitiously because you cannot pry it out of this government. What happened to that legislation could happen to any Canadian on the strength of an order in council passed in secret.
I expect the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) remembers the time when this House debated a spy inquiry which involved certain civil servants. It was alleged that there was no law to cover the matter, and the minister of justice of the day passed an order in council whereby people were incarcerated. Lights in their cells were left burning. That minister said it was an emergency and passed the order in council. Surely there is no emergency so great that we can put in jeopardy the rights and freedom of the individual, as certain dictators in Europe did. You cannot put them in jeopardy by passing an order in council. Therein lies the great danger of this bill.
I want parliament to debate such orders in council; to examine them. That is why I propose my amendments. The

first of them concerns the appointment of peace officers by order in council. Perhaps the point is not too serious, although the Casal group appearing before the committee wanted that provision changed. I ask hon. members to support motion No. 28 which will provide for orders in council relating to the criminal law to be brought before parliament.
Before I sit down, let me make one more point. Many people wrote to the chairman of our committee and to me asking for the opportunity to testify on this bill. I do not know why there was such a great rush in pushing this bill through committee. Sometimes we sat from early morning to late at night, but most people were denied the opportunity to testify. The Committee heard several small groups. The Advocate Society of Upper Canada, including benchers of Ontario, appeared before the committee. We listened to Messrs. Chappell, Cartwright and Cooper, distinguished scholars all from Toronto. They warned the government of the consequences of amending the criminal law as the bill proposes. I shall have more to say later about the invasion of privacy provisions, which are a disgrace. I am asking parliament, in a non-partisan way, to examine seriously how the government intends to enact criminal law by order in council passed by some unnamed body or unnamed person perhaps some time in future. It may be my lot to be that person, but I do not want that responsibility. 1 want Canadians to know where they stand. I want our law-abiding citizens to be protected by the law and to know the law. Because if they do not know the law, how do they know they are breaking it?
I will say no more lest I should undo my own case-which has happened in the past. I think my case is strong; I have tried to make it sincerely and intelligently. As a practising member of the Saskatchewan and the Alberta bars of 30 years standing, and as a trial lawyer, I know how these things work. I have defended people charged with contravening the wartime prices and trade regulations at a time when orders in council were ground out by the thousand and nobody could be certain of the law. People were brought before the bar of justice and tried for offences that nobody knew existed. That is why the learned judges saw fit to require that before a conviction was possible, the order in council concerned must be filed as part of the evidence. I ask the minister to reconsider and repent in reference to this matter.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Perhaps I might take a few moments in which to deal with both these proposed amendments. The first is motion No. 7 which would change the meaning of "peace officer". The definition in the bill was put there at the expressed request of a number of provincial attorneys general who wished to restrict the general Criminal Code meaning of "peace officer" which includes deputy sheriffs, justices of the peace and others. Under the Criminal Code as it currently reads, provincial attorneys general have no authority to limit the ability of these people to carry side-arms. I am responding to the expressed request of a number of attorneys general in the amendment I am proposing. After all, they are the chief law enforcement officers in
June 30, 1977

their provinces, and I believe it is incumbent upon this House to take their representations into account. The amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) would go contrary to the expressed request of the provincial attorneys general.
With regard to motion No. 28, the one which I believe the hon. member regards as being more important, I would say, first of all, that is was moved in committee and debated there and that the hon. member for Calgary North could not carry even his own members on that one. For example, there was disagreement on the part of the distinguished co-chairman of the standing committee on statutory instruments. As hon. members know, all regulations passed by the governor in council stands permanently referred to the committee on statutory instruments for examination. That committee published an excellent report some time ago calling attention to improvements which should be made in the process of delegating legislation, its examination, and so on. Some of those recommendations have been accepted and the government is working on others. However, the responsibility for dealing with this matter lies, surely, with the statutory instruments committee, and our attention should be directed toward improving the processes followed in the examination and supervision of statutory instruments.
I must resist this amendment as a matter of principle. It was on this ground that it was not supported in the committee by the co-chairman of the statutory instruments committee. It would require that every order in council not only be laid before the House-I do not think there would be any great objection to that-but that it should be the subject of an affirmative resolution. I take this to mean that every order in council passed under the Criminal Code would have to be debated in the House. I see an hon. member shaking his head. He had better read the amendment carefully, because that is what it provides. This is a process of supervising regulations which has not even been suggested by the statutory instruments committee, a body which has a very deep and conscientious interest in this matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I rise on a question of privilege? 1 know the Minister of Justice has not done this deliberately, but he has misquoted me. I said, "Every order in council made under this act", meaning Bill C-51, the amendments to the Criminal Code. I was not dealing with the regulations made under all statutes. I would ask the minister to make that point clear.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am sorry. 1 was not trying to mislead the House. I meant to say, "under the Criminal Code", and I thought 1 had done so. In drawing up Bill C-51 we were conscious of the criticism which had been raised to the effect that there were too many areas covered by regulation. I believe that any impartial examiner of Bill C-51 would agree with me now that we have markedly reduced the areas of regulation and that the bulk of the regulations to be passed will relate to dealers and manufacturers. As I explained in committee, it is proposed to appoint chief provincial fire-arms officers who
Criminal Code
would become part of a national advisory committee to which would be attached representatives of the dealers and the gun sports. I have undertaken expressly to consult with this committee on the drawing up and making of the regulations. This, in my view, is an effective way of dealing with the matter. It would seem to me that these arrangements, together with the safeguards provided by the normal processes of the statutory instruments committee, are sufficient to meet the hon. member's objections. Provision is made for input into regulationmaking by those interested in gun sports and in the sale of guns, while the work of the statutory instruments committee ensures that the Bill of Rights applies to all these regulations, together with some 18 other considerations which the committee takes into account.
I indicated last week that most of the regulatory power relates to dealers. We have already consulted the Retail Merchants Association, the Transport Association, the Association of Hardware Merchants, and others concerned with those parts of the bill which will be affected by regulation. They have indicated no objection to the provisions of this bill and appear to be satisfied with my undertaking as to the nature of the consultative process to be engaged in. If there is concern about regulatory powers generally, it should be expressed in the debate on the report which the statutory instruments committee published some time ago, and efforts should be made to ensure that the processes followed by that committee are as satisfactory as possible.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) says he resists these amendments. Well, he resists all amendments or requirements of a nature calculated to restrict the severity of legislation. I do not say this of him personally. It is an attitude he takes in his official capacity. He tells us that the provincial attorneys general have been consulted and have made suggestions. I agree there should be consultation with the attorneys general and that consideration should be given to their points of view. But in some ways they are interested parties, and in the final analysis what has to be taken into account are the views of members of this House. Theoretically, we should be involved. As I recall it, the opening words of the statute are, "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons"-not, "Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the attorneys general of the provinces of Canada".
The minister made a very reasonable attempt to rebut the proposition advanced by my eloquent and learned friend from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). He said that this is just a little entry that we are making, through the use of orders in council, regulations and delegated authority, to the criminal law. But it is from these little things, Mr. Speaker, that great ones grow. My reading of history tells me that during the First World War an act was brought in known as the Temporary War Income Tax Act. That has grown into one of the greatest monsters with the capacity to eat up so much of the economy of this country. The Temporary War Income Tax Act of 1914

June 30, 1977
Criminal Code
or 1915 has become something which today probably not more than a dozen people in Canada readily understand.
This small beginning, this small entry to the Criminal Code through the use of orders in council and regulations which the Minister of Justice talks about, would, I suggest, if allowed to go unchecked, ten years from now amount to something which, as my hon. friend from Calgary North said, would mean we are legislating by order in council and by delegated authority a large part of our criminal law. As a matter of fact, with the powers the government now has in using governor general's warrants, orders in council, the War Measures Act if necessary, the Anti-Inflation Board, this parliament would not need to meet at all were it not for the fact that the constitution says parliament has to meet. So I am concerned about this trend.
Having said that, 1 suggest to the Minister of Justice that he examine the recent testimony which was given in the last two or three days by Sir Robert Speed, the very learned, eloquent and able member of what 1 might call the establishment of the House of Commons at Westminster, who has had great experience of this whole question of orders in council. The Minister of Justice will be derelict in his duty if he does not read that evidence in the very near future. I see the minister is not listening to me, so I will just continue my remarks and put them on record.
I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Robert Speed some ten years ago when this whole process of statutory instruments was being initiated here. I met him following discussions with the then Prime Minister, the late Mr. Pearson, having had an indication that Mr. Pearson was at least willing to consider some amendments to the statute law of this land to permit the House to take cognizance of the serious problem created by the undue use of orders in council. I was present at two or three meetings of the scrutiny committee in the United Kingdom and observed the very reasonable way in which they dealt with this whole question.
There had developed in the bureaucracy in the United Kingdom an equally reasonable response; in a great many instances all that was necessary was for Sir Robert Speed, who was counsel to the scrutiny committee, to pick up the telephone and to say, "Look, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, I have just seen a number of orders in council that you are proposing to pass, and I want to point out some mistakes in them." For example, they had an unusual or unexpected impact, or were contrary to natural justice, or they had a retroactive effect, or they were not consistent with the enabling powers in the statute. In 90 per cent of the cases, after reasonable discussion those orders in council were brought into conformity with the enabling statute. When the scrutiny committee of the House of Commons-which is now a joint committee, by the way-was advised of the real facts, an arrangement was made.
I was also very fascinated by what Sir Robert Speed told us just two days ago, namely, that in most instances the right to enact orders in council for subordinate legislative purposes is usually accompanied by the introduction into the bill of the negative or affirmative resolution principle. The Minister of Justice knows that this proposal is contained in the second

report of the statutory instruments committee, and I think it would have a very salutary effect. Indeed, the House is indebted to the hon. member for Calgary North for putting forward this idea at the present time.
Our distinguished visitor from Britain also mentioned that in the majority of cases, I think he said, statutory instruments are subject either to an affirmative or a negative resolution. Consequently, a great deal more care is taken by those who draft orders in council to ensure that they meet the purposes which the act designated for them, that they are consistent with the principles of natural justice, and that they do not give greater authority to the executive and the bureaucrats than they should.
After all, Mr. Speaker, if a bureaucrat who is designated to draft an order in council under a statute is aware that within two or three months the order in council would be subject to very searching scrutiny by men and women of the House of Commons and House of Lords who have been engaged upon the task for some time, he will attempt to see to it that the order in council meets the proper criteria. Because of this, counsel for Mr. Speaker in the United Kingdom told us there are fewer and fewer cases of statutory instruments being made subject to motions to set them aside or change them-what they call in England "prayers".
This is all my hon. friend from Calgary North is asking. Since the government is determined to incorporate into the criminal law the right to change, alter or add criminal law by means of order in council, then for heaven's sake this essential safeguard must be included in the law so that a committee of the House of Commons and the Senate have the right to scrutinize the order in council before it becomes law by way of an affirmative resolution of the House.
There are a number of cases where it would be exceedingly dangerous to change the criminal law before a committee of the House, and then finally parliament itself, had been given the chance to express approval or disapproval. This parliament has never shown itself to be unnecessarily vigilant in this regard, but as a member of parliament and as a member of the bar for many years I would be most unhappy about giving public servants of any government the right to make substantive law or to vary law having to do with criminal proceedings by order in council unless that process were first checked either by committee or by the House.
The minister should take the time to read the evidence which was presented before the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments last week. He should examine also what Sir Robert Speed said as to the practice, situation and circumstances in England. Surely we would be foolish not to follow the course adopted there, particularly when one considers the number of years this subject has been dealt with in England.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment before us. I have a couple of
June 30, 1977

questions which perhaps could be answered by the mover. The proposed amendment makes a great deal of sense, particularly in terms of using orders in council in the criminal law. One of my reservations is that under the question of declaring a weapon prohibited there may be some emergency if there is a sudden proliferation of that particular weapon in the country. That may be something of an ongoing danger. But that problem can be cured by the passage of the order in council, publication in the Canada Gazette, which would make it law at that point, and then the submission of the order in council to parliament. My only reservation with regard to the proposal of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is with respect to an emergency situation. But that is curable under the terms of the wording itself. The principle he and other hon. members have put forward, of not allowing the government to change the law without parliamentary review, is fundamental to the system under which we live. This amendment is so important to that particular system that I can speak on behalf of my entire party by saying that we wholeheartedly support the change proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North.
Operating in a majority position, the government feels it can do anything with regard to the law. The more order in council provisions we put into the law, the less democracy there will be in this country. We represent ordinary people and not people who have access to the law, and we should have the opportunity of reviewing these orders in council and regulations in this place in order to provide a check on that matter.
As I have said, 1 have a minor reservation about the problem of an emergency situation with a dangerous weapon proliferating in the country. But within the reading of motion No. 28, the hon. member for Calgary North has answered that reservation. The order in council could pass and still be placed before this House in order for us to solve the problem and to have the kind of review which is necessary. I am happy to rise in support of this most excellent amendment.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, there have been occasions in the past when I have reflected on why we as a family have had occasion to retain the services of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in his private capacity.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: How much did he charge?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Having listened to the hon. member today, I am thoroughly convinced that I made the right decision. Fortunately, it has never been a case of criminal law. However, there are some areas in this debate upon which I should like to comment. As a backbencher, I am concerned that a senior statesman of this parliament, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), would stand and speak on a matter which has given him a great deal of agony and concern. Above all others, he has become an expert in this field. Hon. members of this House who paid close attention to his remarks were backbenchers. It is unfortunate the minister is so occupied with this bill. He may speak next week after having read Hansard, particularly the comments of the hon. member for Peace River. In any event, it is disturbing that the minister did not
Criminal Code
concentrate on the statements made by the hon. member for Peace River.
There is provision in this bill to determine a class of peace officer or public officer prescribed by the regulations. I am not concerned only with the fact that it is by regulation; I am concerned with one person's, department's or province's interpretation of a public officer as opposed to another. The criteria may not be the same as far as the standard and quality required, the intelligence, balance and reason needed by someone who is given the responsibility of that role. Added to that is the opportunity to carry a sidearm which may not be uniform across this country.
When I was a student working my way through college, 1 had an opportunity to be employed by a detective agency, the name of which I will leave unmentioned. I was given a job at a meat-packing plant in Toronto where there had been a continuing series of thefts. I was provided with a .38 revolver. I never went down to the RCMP; I never filled out any application form, other than the one presented to me by the manager of the detective agency. I was handed a .38 revolver, with ammunition, and I was supposed to use it if the situation arose. Frankly, the situation did arise, but fortunately not on my shift. Some other fellow, who had been similarly provided with a .38 revolver, was faced with the confrontation of a thief crawling through a window of this meat-packing plant. Fortunately, he pointed the gun and scared the thief and that was the end of that particular sojourn. I wonder what would have happened if I had been the one who had to assume that role, not even knowing how to aim or fire at that stage in my life.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: If he had been a Liberal, you would have shot him.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Probably.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Either that or you would have turned and ran away.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I am not indicating my favour of this entire bill-but it was very easy for me, as a university student, during the course of my employment to acquire the right to have a .38 revolver in my possession.
The purpose of this bill is to tighten up gun control in order to remove those particular loose areas. Two years ago I had the opportunity to urge two of my constituents to lay charges against a big-game hunter or outfitter in northern British Columbia who had harassed them. He had pointed a pistol at them and intimidated them. The minister has made much to do about his concern for gun control. That was two years ago. Two months ago they finally appeared in court for the last time. These two, hard-pressed constituents were flown repeatedly from Castlegar to Fort Nelson to appear in court, denied the opportunity of their own employment, losing money. They were making no money from the Crown in this little escapade; they were simply fulfilling their responsibility as they saw it.

June 30, 1977
Criminal Code
The charges were read out in court. The man was charged with two things in this instance, possession of an unlicensed pistol in his possession in other than his dwelling place. He pleaded guilty on the first count. On the second count he said, "My hunting territory is my dwelling place."
The judge did not accept that and charged him with being guilty on both counts. That is a pretty fair assumption. He then proceeded to lecture and admonish the person appearing before him, and concluded by dismissing the case. There was not one dime in terms of a fine. If that is the kind of control we are going to have with the implementation of this bill, it is going to fall flat on its can.
I have asked the minister to indicate to this House how many times there have been prosecutions on the basis of charges of carrying unlicensed weapons, revolvers, or what have you, in the commission of a crime. I asked that question months ago. The minister has not yet responded. Provision is there not only in this bill but in previous ones. However, the provisions have not been carried out as the Canadian people, who want a little order and justice in this country, perceive them to be.
Coming to government secrecy and the eloquent arguments of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I am reminded of a statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) and the document that he tabled in the House. All it says is that we are going to have to slacken off a little bit on government secrecy. It indicates that that little bit is damn little.
The minister is concerned about the standing committee on statutory instruments. He feels that the hon. member for Calgary North is going to create some problems. Having listened to the minister, I feel that if we follow the minister's suggestion it will obfuscate that particular committee. The hon. member for Calgary North indicated that while Canadians sleep, this all-powerful government which seeks to be more powerful drafts orders in council that in a majority of cases never appear in the Canada Gazette. For that matter, who reads the Canada Gazette? Once it is there it is supposed to be engraved in stone, and everybody knows about it.
I recall, in a different context, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talking about trade and international dealings with the United States. He remarked that the United States was like an elephant and that Canada was like a mouse; that we were subject to the rumblings and twitchings of that, I will not say monster, but mighty beast. I would like to put that analogy in a different context. The Canadian people may well be the mighty beast. If we continue down the trail that this government is leading this country, that mighty beast is going to twitch once more. Indeed, it may well roll over and crush this government by regulation. That would be the best thing that could ever happen to this government.


Douglas Charles Neil: In view of the time, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the CN ferry William Carson sank during the first week of June off Labrador and that the government still has not purchased or chartered a replacement and the fact that a vessel has been moved from the Argentia-North Sydney run to replace the Carson, interfering with the movement of thousands of tourists and passengers and seriously affecting the already weak local economy in the Placentia area as well as the shipment of cargoes of fish from Newfoundland by reefer truck to the mainland, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House censure the cabinet minister representing Newfoundland, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for permitting interference with the Argentia-North Sydney ferry system and the weakening of the economy of the depressed Placentia area and directs the minister to cease discriminating against areas of Newfoundland outside his own district and the Minister of Transport to act immediately to return the vessel purloined from the Argentia-North Sydney run to that service.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, does such a motion have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a. motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the statement of the press spokesman for the Secretary of State that a "nice" telex was drafted to the President of the CTV network asking that they join the national grid for the CBC TV's July 1
June 30, 1977

variety show, and in view of the statement by the president of CTV that he regularly gets calls from the Prime Minister's office "requesting us to carry the Prime Minister's speeches", and having regard to the fact that television is highly regulated by the federal government, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House deplores the continuing tendency of the government to influence broadcasting programming in Canada and promote the Prime Minister as the head of state.
Mir. Speaker: Such a motion can be debated only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that existing contracts with postal unions expire today and negotiations are proceeding positively with all unions except the CUPW, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the growing impasse between the CUPW and the Post Office management be resolved by referring the matter to a parliamentary committee with power to travel and hear representations for the purpose of bringing in a report with recommendations that will assure the Canadian people of the quality of postal service essential to the wellbeing of the Canadian economy and community.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of the motion which I wish to present grows greater month by month. I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House urges the government to bring in legislation that will establish pension rights for all homemaker spouses equivalent to the rights of those employed outside the home, and that the government commit itself to the taking of this action before the end of 1977.
Anti-Inflation Board


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED INVESTIGATION OF USE OF DRUGS BY ATHLETES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of a growing number of allegations that drug use in sports ranging from junior hockey to professional football is rampant and worsening, thereby not only affecting the long range health of individuals but, more importantly, influencing adversely the youth of our nation, and because Mr. Andre McNicoll, a former director of the Canadian Foundation of Alcohol and Drug Dependencies, funded by the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, was fired from his job for warning the management of two CFL teams, namely the Ottawa Rough Riders and the Toronto Argonauts, against allowing and, indeed, encouraging their players to use excessively such stimulants as speed and other drugs causing potential serious health implications, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House direct the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) along with the Minister of National Health and Welfare to investigate the extensive use of drugs in sports in order that appropriate and effective steps may be taken to rectify this serious, damaging and influential practice within the sports world in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTION BOARD CEASE PUBLISHING NAMES OF OFFENDERS UNLESS CAREFULLY CHECKED-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the damage done to the good name of Dr. Helmut G. Koch, Director of the Abelard Chiropractic Clinic in Edmonton, by the published announcement of the Anti-Inflation Board that Dr. Koch had not complied with certain instructions and in view of the later admission by the AntiInflation Board that the error was found inside its own office, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):

June 30, 1977
Dominion Day
That the government issue a public apology for the injury done to Dr. Koch and instruct the Anti-Inflation Board to stop publishing the names of so-called offenders without the most rigorous checking of all internal systems.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity relating to the press conference statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday that Senator Davey has no special responsibility beyond the ordinary to avoid conflict of interest. I move, seconded by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek):
That in the opinion of this House Liberal Party campaign director Senator Keith Davey carries, by virtue of his position as Senator and chairman of the Liberal campaign committee, considerable obvious influence; further, that this House considers his status to be that of an official as the term applies in section 110 of the Criminal Code of Canada; and finally, that this House condemns his admitted approaches to the Department of Agriculture for appointments for his questionable Blue Water Racing Company cronies.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


DOMINION DAY
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that tomorrow is the 110th birthday of Canada and in recognition of the fact that the true spirit of unity can only be demonstrated by the participation of all political leaders of Canada's national parties, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State take an immediate 11th hour decision to ensure that all party leaders be invited to participate in the Dominion Day celebrations on Parliament Hill and thus demonstrate their love and pride of our nation to all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only pursuant to Standing Order 43

with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General touching upon his answer in the House yesterday that no EPA list was ever drawn up and I should like to quote from that answer. Referring to the government the Solicitor General said:
As far as we are concerned on this side of the House there never has been drawn up the type of list the hon. member refers to,...
The minister may think he is playing some tricks with semantics but in fact he is misleading the House of Commons and the Canadian people with that answer. Yesterday I asked the minister a very serious question concerning a public servant by the name of Ian Keith Carruthers whose reputation was smeared five years ago by the former Solicitor General. I guess we have to go back in view of his answer. Was Mr. Carruthers' name or was it not mentioned in a letter sent by the former Solicitor General to various ministers regarding the security risk? Answer yes or no.


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to my reply of yesterday. Perhaps the Chair would permit me to refer to some comments made on the other side of the House in connection with this so-called list. I believe when the matter was brought up in the House hon. members opposite have talked about an enemies list or blacklist, but it has always been clearly stated from this side of the House that there was not a blacklist or enemies list of any kind drawn up. It was clearly indicated that the type of letter read into the record by a member of the opposition made certain recommendations in a highly confidential manner to a number of ministers requesting simply that some individuals be reinformed on the securities aspect of handling documents containing confidential information. That is the extent of the matter.
As to the rest of the question, I responded yesterday to the effect that if some people in this country have been slandered, libelled or handled badly because their names have been published in the press, they have recourse against the newspapers. I for one wish them well in such court action.
June 30, 1977


EXISTENCE OF EXTRAPARLIAMENTARY OPPOSITION LIST-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is interesting, particularly since the minister is a co-defendant in the court action. I suggest there is a lack of communication between the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General which would account for the misleading of the House yesterday and today, inadvertently or deliberately. Referring to this matter at his press conference yesterday the Prime Minister said:
All the Solicitor General did at that time was take a list given to him by the police and say, "I have these names. Some of them are working in your department. I feel it is my duty to pass on the information which the police gave me, that is, that these people might be a security risk."
The Prime Minister himself confirmed the existence of the list. Is the Solicitor General now saying that the Prime Minister was misleading the Canadian public when he said there was such a list? In view of what the Prime Minister said, can the hon. gentleman explain which words he would use to describe that letter? Is it a list, a missive, a communication, or an extraparliamentary blacklist? I don't care about the words. The Prime Minister indicated there is such a list. How can the Solicitor General now deny it?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, are not in the habit of misleading the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Zap! We will freeze your portfolio.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about wage and price controls?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House have never mentioned an enemy's list or blacklist. Those are words used exclusively by hon. members opposite. Interestingly, only after this documentation came to the attention of some hon. members opposite was the matter eventually published in the newspapers, and only then did this slanderous action take place. So far as we on this side are concerned, the letter to which the hon. member referred was handled with the utmost discretion, to make sure there would be no attack on the civil liberties of anyone concerned, especially since the only recommendation in my predecesssor's letter was to the effect that certain people ought to be briefed on security procedures within the government. That was the normal way of dealing with that type of problem, in the circumstances.


OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE ON EXTRAPARLIAMENTARY OPPOSITION LIST TO CLEAR NAMES
Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This government has been misleading this country since 1963-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: -and it is continuing to do so on June 30, 1977. If the Solicitor General had honestly tried to answer our questions in the question period to the best of his ability instead of evading them he would not have dodged behind words like blacklist, or any other name. The list is the extraparliamentary opposition list, and he knows full well to what I refer. Armed with that knowledge, will the Solicitor General tell the House if he is reconsidering the position he put before the House yesterday, a position which any person concerned about liberty, equity and justice in this country could not begin to comprehend, and allow those his predecessor accused, and he knows they have been accused, to clear their names and gain the restitution this government ought to hold out to any Canadian?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is repeating the question he asked me yesterday, and I believe I answered him fully yesterday. If any damage was done to the reputations of the people involved, it was done by the media when it decided to publish their names. We, on this side of the House, are not the source of information of that kind which got into the hands of the newspapers.


Walter David Baker: Who started it?


An hon. Member:: You did.


Walter David Baker: Who wrote the letter? Blackmail, apparently, is fine as long as it is secret.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question also relates to the Solicitor General's role in security matters. I refer the Solicitor General to the answer given by the Minister of Justice on Monday of this week. That minister said that after the second break-in of the APLQ premises which took place in October, 1973, the Solicitor General of the day, who is now the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, received a letter protesting against the raid. Is the Solicitor General now in a position to confirm the correctnesss of his colleague's answer and say what action the former Solicitor General took on receipt of that message?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am not clear what the hon. member means by his question. A letter was sent to the then Solicitor General, asking questions about the alleged second break-in. All I can say is that parliament passed an act in 1974 which laid down strict regulations and guidelines governing the use in court of electronic listening devices used in criminal matters. It gave the Solicitor General authority to issue warrants authorizing wiretaps in matters involving this country's national security. I remind the hon. member that before 1974 we had no law

June 30, 1977
Oral Questions
forbidding the use of electronic listening devices. This entire matter was constantly brought to the attention of the members of the justice and legal affairs committee.
This whole matter was brought to the attention of the justice and legal affairs committee. The commissioner of the RCMP appeared before that committee on June 12, 1973 and explained the position of the force in detail. He stated that the number of cases of electronic surveillance carried out by the force in the ten years preceding 1973 was something like 1,912. The situation was brought to the attention of the parliamentary committee of the day, which was chaired by Your Honour, and it was studied by that committee; other members of that committee included three former provincial attorneys general who are presently sitting in this House. They were completely informed of the practice of the RCMP in the period of time preceding the very strict regulation of wiretapping activities which was enacted by parliament in 1974.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Solicitor General has indicated that police forces of the country have the right to trespass on private property without the necessity of obtaining authorization.


An hon. Member:: Contrary to common law!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Can he tell us whether or not the RCMP were involved in this second eavesdropping incident and can he confirm that the police were doing so on the instructions of the then solicitor general?


Francis Fox: I have just explained the practice of the RCMP which was also the practice followed by other police forces in this country prior to the amendments brought in by parliament in 1974 with a view to exercising stricter control over that kind of activity. I have pointed out to the hon. member that there were 1,912 cases of electronic intrusions by the RCMP in that ten-year period and I do not propose to go through the 1,912 cases to indicate who was and who was not the object of electronic intrusions at that time.
The hon. member will surely understand that it has never been the practice of any previous Solicitor General or Minister of Justice to indicate who was or who was not the object of electronic surveillance in the period prior to 1974. After 1974, parliament enacted certain guidelines and imposed certain obligations under which notification has to be given, and those amendments have led to a vastly improved situation compared with that which existed prior to 1974. 1 believe they have met with the general approval of hon. members.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It would appear that the Solicitor General did not understand the question I put to him; it is a simple one and even the hon. gentleman should be able to comprehend it. In view of the fact that he has had adequate notice since last Monday, that the Minister of Justice acknowledged the receipt of a letter by the Solicitor General at the time from the APLQ, I am asking specifically what steps the solicitor general at that time took in connection with that inquiry-the hon.

gentleman need not tell me the object of the surveillance; we can surmise that ourselves. I want to know what was the role of the solicitor general with respect to matters of security which were brought to his attention, what direction he gave to the RCMP. That is a simple question. I do not want any of this statistical stuff. I am just asking what happened in this case.


Francis Fox: The hon. member has really asked two questions; first, what happened in this case and, second, what was the policy at that time. As to the policy at that time, I would refer him to the proceedings of the House of Commons committee on justice and legal affairs for June 12, 1973. He would see, in reading those proceedings, that the policy of the force was explained in detail. There is even additional information as to how many convictions resulted from those wiretaps.
As to the specific question of the action taken by my predecessor at that time, this matter was brought to his attention and he discussed it to his entire satisfaction with members of the RCMP.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-FUNDING OF ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSED TO PIPELINE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the decision we are expecting from the National Energy Board on Monday and has to do with the role played in those hearings by public interest groups such as the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Committee for an Independent Canada and Energy Probe. In the course of the Board's deliberations it was decided there would be no funding available for public interest groups, which, of course, limited their capacity to respond to the case in favour of a pipeline. Did the minister, or his government, receive any request from either the Canadian Wildlife Federation or the Committee for an Independent Canada, the Committee for Justice and Liberty or Energy Probe for funding to assist them in presenting information to the National Energy Board? If he did receive such a request, what was the response of the government?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was asked a similar question before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works and I made clear at the time that, from time to time, representations had been made to me seeking assistance of the kind to which the hon. member has just referred. I pointed out that there was no plan or provision made by my department for assisting such groups. Indeed, the public interest was the very interest behind the formation of the National Energy Board itself.
June 30, 1977


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS BY INTERESTED GROUPS FOLLOWING BOARD DECISION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the event that the position of the National Energy Board is contrary to the one espoused by the public interest groups I have referred to, does the minister have any plans to allow those particular groups, which have expressed such interest in this subject and represent such a broad cross section of Canadians, to have any further opportunity of presenting their views concerning the decision of the National Energy Board either to the minister himself or to cabinet?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that is a very "iffy", hypothetical kind of question. The National Energy Board has been holding hearings for a very long period of time. It has been holding them for one reason, namely to determine what was in the public or national interest. We expect their report on Monday; that is the information that I have received. At that time if these public interest groups want to make further representations to the government they are, of course, free to do so.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE TO CANADIAN ARCTIC GAS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should point out to the minister that the public interest groups are five in number whereas the Canadian Arctic Gas consortium had literally hundreds of experts presenting evidence to the board. My question to the minister is this. A key part of the Canadian Arctic Gas application has to do with government guarantees of completion in the event of cost overruns. Has the minister, any of his officials or any representative of the government given any indication to the National Energy Board that a guarantee, on which of course the application of Canadian Arctic Gas is contingent, will be forthcoming?


Alastair William Gillespie: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no such undertaking has been given, and for a number of very good reasons. First, no formal application has been made; second, the government is not making any input into the National Energy Board's decision.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. With reference to the agreements which were signed last week by the minister himself and Mr. Tremblay, his Quebec
Oral Questions
counterpart, agreements which provide for projects in the Montreal region and which recognize also that region as a designated area so that it may avail itself of these agreements, and considering that the south shore area is not included in one part of these agreements, could the minister advise the House whether this is due to the fact that the Quebec government submitted no proposition for this region of the province? If so, could the minister also advise the House whether he could come to an understanding with the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport, his colleagues in the ministry, to submit to the Quebec government a project for the development of the south shore area?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, indeed last week we concluded three amendments regarding agreements with the province of Quebec but I do not fully agree with the hon. member that his area will not get any benefits out of it. In fact, the agricultural development agreement provides for some benefits, as do those on forestry and sylviculture. However, there will not be as many benefits as for other areas, particularly the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula. I agree with the hon. member that we should consider now what must be done in other areas of the province of Quebec, particularly in those he referred to. However, I intend to continue negotiating with the government of Quebec to put forward other special assistance programs respecting certain areas which in recent years did not get as much assistance as they could have. The hon. member knows that the Lower St. Lawrence and the Quebec City areas can rely on my solicitude in this regard, as I proved it up to now.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. However, in the second part of my question I insisted on the fact that there is apparently more cooperation on the part of both governments. Considering that the Quebec government did not submit any specific project for the south shore and the eastern areas, my question is the following, and I repeat: Would it be natural for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to take the initiative to submit a project for study by the government of the province of Quebec and to sign an agreement if necessary?


Marcel Lessard: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I indicated to my colleague, Mr. Leonard, that I intended to submit to him in the near future some suggestions concerning the developments or initiatives which could be supported by my department. I intend to communicate this information to him as soon as possible, and we will see afterwards how the province will react. Then, I shall probably make public the developments I will be prepared to support.


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Until he returns to his seat, perhaps you could recognize one of my colleagues.

Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
June 30, 1977

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In light of the fact that the Calgary Stampede is known as the greatest show on earth and we have also the Klondike Days in Edmonton-


An hon. Member:: What about parliament?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I am coming to something pretty important.
In light of the fact that there was a seizure made against the Royal American Road Shows-that they took part for many years in the stampede and Klondike Days-and now are not permitted back into Canada, was there any part of that seizure which was illegal? Were documents taken, after they were seized by certain police officers, by another department? What has the minister to say about the decision now in the federal court?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the whole matter concerning the Royal American Road Shows is presently being investigated by a commission of inquiry set up by the attorney general of Alberta, I am sure all the facts which ought to be dealt with will be brought to light. I have full confidence in that commission which has been set up.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Seeing that this government, when it comes to the administration of justice, passes it off to the attorneys general of various provinces, I am asking the Solicitor General if the RCMP was involved in the seizure of those documents? Has he had any conversations with top officers of that force? Was there any illegality in reference to the same, as we have heard in questions put by members on this side of the House?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, there has been a judge appointed by the Attorney General of Alberta who thought the best way of getting to the bottom of the whole matter was to have a full-fledged investigation into the question of the Royal American Road Shows. Obviously, the hon. member for Calgary North does not agree with the position taken by the Attorney General of Alberta. Perhaps he would like to discuss it with him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence that I do not agree with the Attorney General of Alberta. Obviously, I do not agree with this government, the present Solicitor General or the previous solicitor general.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to put my question to him again. They are bypassing their responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All my hon. friends in the corner do is sit there. I do not know why their constituents return them to their various seats, because they never say anything.


Mrs. Holt:: They do it because we do not talk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Has the Solicitor General any evidence indicating that there was anything illegal or irregular in reference to the RCMP, which is his responsibility?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the clear answer to the hon. member's question is that I do not have any evidence of any illegal activity perpetrated by the RCMP in that regard. The Attorney General of Alberta feels that we have co-operated fully with him and with the inquiry he has launched, instead of just making vague allegations against the police forces of this country, be it the RCMP or any other police force. It is quite obvious that the Attorney General of Alberta has opted for a method of getting to the facts and getting away from vague, generalized allegations, which do no service to anyone in this country.


POST OFFICE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In presenting the question, may 1 congratulate him-


Steve Eugene Paproski: No congratulations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Congratulate him on nothing.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -on the quality of his hospitality at the reception during noon hour-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: You were busy all morning making sandwiches, J.-J.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -and for the new stamps, in the presence of Their Excellencies, Governor General and Madam Vanier-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Governor General and Madam Leger.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We tend to forget the Governor General's name because we never see him on Dominion Day.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, I should have said: "Governor General and Madam Leger". That was a Freudian slip, because we all respect the Vaniers as well.
Since the sixties various studies, commissioned by the Post Office at considerable expense to the public in attempts to resolve the growing labour-management impasse, have recom-
June 30, 1977

Oral Questions
mended that the Post Office become a Crown corporation, will the Postmaster General inform the House if his department has followed up some recommendations with feasibility studies to examine in detail the pros and cons of forming a Crown corporation, and if so, what conclusions has he reached on this matter?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, first of all I thank the hon. member for having given additional publicity to this very, very worth-while occasion. I thank him also for having partaken in the masterfully prepared sandwiches which we had to offer. As well, I wish to transmit to the hon. gentleman a good Canada Day because I will not see him until tomorrow. Also I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for his question.
Having said all those pleasant things, I might indicate that at this time the question of whether the Post Office should or should not be a Crown corporation tends to be a red herring. As the hon. member knows, I have indicated quite often that I am favourably inclined toward that particular solution. However, as he has indicated to me, even the United States experiment, which was attempted with reference to making their postal department similar to a Crown corporation as it would be in Canada, has not been successful. There always has been and will continue to be a great deal of public identification with the Post Office being a department of the Public Service. We are devoted to the Public Service. At this time I would prefer to hear the representations of the hon. member, as included in his motion under Standing Order 43 which he introduced earlier on today. I thought his suggestion was one we might consider very seriously, indeed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why did Goodale say: "No"? Why did Pierre say: "No"? Shame, shame!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Postmaster General is more positive than some of his colleagues. In answering my specific question, has he himself engaged in feasibility studies? In view of the fact that he mentioned the United States experiment, has the Postmaster General studied the documents which led the United States-and they are still proceeding on this course-and also the United Kingdom to convert their respective postal services into semi-private and Crown corporation entities respectively, in order to resolve similar labour-management stalemates in their post offices?


Mr. Blais:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in all aspects, and I repeat-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


PUBLIC WORKS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the statements of Hans Hegeraats of the minister's department, as reported in the Globe and Mail recently, that tendering arrangements will be changed in order to allow Hydroculture Luwasa "to bid on contracts", I am wondering if the minister will tell the House, in view of the problems that have been so evident in recent years concerning tendering procedures, how this will come about, and whether he has checked thoroughly to ascertain whether Mr. James Coutts, or Senator Davey, or their representatives have spoken to his officials to expedite this proposed departure from apparently well established tendering procedures? In other words, do we need Hydroponic plants this badly?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I believe both the gentlemen made it very clear in fact there were no representations made to officials in my office. As far as I am concerned, in spite of the reservations expressed by the hon. member, the open tendering system is alive and well and working very well within the Department of Public Works.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I appreciate the answer, Mr. Speaker, although I did not get an answer as to how these proposed changes will be expedited.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: My supplementary is to the Prime Minister or government House leader. In view of the reported blind trust arrangements involving the Prime Minister's principal secretary, vis-a-vis Hydroculture Luwasa, the interesting firm where one partner is not aware of the other partner's identity, according to newspaper reports, would the minister or the Prime Minister now or at some future date tell the House who is eligible, in the government's view, to be trustees for blind trusts. Are there any criteria or any rules of eligibility for trustees in such blind trusts arrangements in view of the rather bizarre circumstances, whereby Mr. Coutts' interest in Hydroculture Luwasa has been put into a so-called blind trust, one of the trustees of which, Stanley Goldfarb, is the brother of a director of Hydroculture Luwasa, in which, of course, Mr. Coutts has an interest? In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is the peripheral vision of the blind trust which concerns us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 30, 1977
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are certain rules as to what kind of trustees should be chosen. I will endeavour to transmit them to the hon. member.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday in directing questions to the Prime Minister with respect to the minister's speech on June 13 at the ILO regarding paid educational leave, I asked whether the comments contained in that speech were government policy. The Prime Minister responded and I quote from Hansard:
-I will check the speech to see exactly what the minister said and to see to what extent he was enunciating a generous idea or an idea which is part of government policy.
Do the ideas put forward in his speech at the International Labour Organization on paid educational leave amount to government policy? If so, is it the intention of the government to begin to initiate paid educational leave arrangements in the Crown corporations and in the Public Service unions?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member will be good enough to check Hansard and he will find that during the reply to the Speech from the Throne there were 14 points announced at this session. One of the 14 points was the fact that the government indicated at that time, and is still indicating, that we are prepared to set up a task force to study all the implications of paid educational leave. That study, as I indicated in my speech, is now underway.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, a number of the 14 points that the minister put forward have not been clarified in detail. In his speech in Geneva, the minister referred to paid educational leave in the unorganized non-trade union areas of workers in Canada. Will the minister advise whether it is the intention of the House to use public funds to cover the cost of such arrangements?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the terms of the concept being one that we foresee might be very helpful in diffusing labour management problems that have so plagued this country over the past few years, we would be talking in terms of setting up a task force that would bring together all those interested in this particular concept as a means for improving our industrial relations scene. That would include a study into the means of financing the whole arrangement. That has many serious implications that would only be revealed through a very serious study which we are recommending.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter. I do not think that I should be cut off.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have to object.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Allen Fraser: Question period is a waste of time if we are going to be cut off on a matter of this importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that sentiment is shared equally be several other members trying to get some time to ask their questions. I am perfectly prepared to see the time to dispute the matter. The answer has been clearly given by the Minister of Labour that the matter will take further study and review at this stage. With those kinds of answers, we ought to get some more immediate questions. The hon. member for Leeds.


CRIMINAL CODE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It arises out of statements at his press conference yesterday. Is it government policy to consider that members of the Senate, and for that matter members of the House of Commons as well, do not fall within the classification of the word "officials" as defined in Section 110 of the Criminal Code of Canada which makes it an offence for so-called officials to use influence for obtaining government business and, therefore, such persons as Liberal campaign director Senator Keith Davey are permitted to participate in contracts for the government? Is this the reason the government permits business to be done with such a person having an interest in Hydroculture Luwasa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will recognize that the hon. member is asking me to interpret for him a very contentious act, the Senate and House of Commons Act. It is because the wording of this has not been interpreted in an unequivocal fashion over the years that the government put forth conflict of interest guidelines. Perhaps eventually we will clarify the meaning of this act. However, until this is done, the House of Commons is bound by the rules which it sets for itself and so is the Senate within, of course, the framework of its interpretation of this law.
June 30, 1977



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Has the minister had an opportunity to examine whether Hydroculture Luwasa is about to receive contracts from his department or whether contracts are under negotiation with his department? Specifically, if this is so, what reasons justify this in view of the fact that one of the substantial shareholders is Senator Davey, the Liberal campaign chairman?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, four contracts amounting to $932 were awarded the firm in question, Hydroculture Luwasa of Canada Limited, following normal negotiations for which my department is responsible.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Grafftey:: Mr. Speaker, I contacted the Minister of Justice and the office of the Solicitor General today with regard to my question-

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a most unfortunate incident occurred on the island of Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry but I had given the floor to the hon. member for Northwest Territories; he now has the floor. I shall recognize the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi after.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Yesterday I asked the minister about the repeated requests by the commissioner of the Northwest Territories for authority to enforce the mining safety ordinance. At that time the minister informed me of his intention to raise this matter with the Minister of Labour. I have a copy of a letter from an assistant of the Minister of Labour which states that this matter does not come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. Will the minister please inform the House how he intends to act on this request and when we can expect a reply?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The hon. member himself said yester-
Oral Questions
day that it was under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. It was for that reason that I referred it to him. 1 will look into it once more. It is something that is under the Territorial government, but I will check into it once more and give the hon. member an answer. However, I was following his advice yesterday.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I was in touch today with the office of the Solicitor General with regard to my question.

Yesterday a most unfortunate incident occurred on the island of Montreal when William Robert Scully, 35, of Notre Dame de Grace blew himself up with a bomb and was killed instantly. Considering that anti-separatist literature was found in the late Mr. Scully's apartment, has the minister asked for a full investigation of the matter? Was this an isolated action of a disturbed man? Was he acting alone or in concert with others, and was there other ammunition on the premises?
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. It goes without saying that, like all hon. members in the House, I am aware of the incident which occurred yesterday in Montreal when an explosive device blew up in a private home. The only information I have, for the time being, Mr. Speaker, is that the Montreal police are making an inquiry. As for us, we have no further details on the incident at this time.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE GOVERNMENT INFORMED OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES

William Heward Grafftey: I ask this of the minister very calmly in view of some of the implications in this matter. Can he assure the House that the federal government is now and will in the future be fully informed on this and other possible related matters by the anti-terrorist squad on the island of Montreal? Is the federal government making sure that it has all the information on matters like this and possibly related matters because of the obvious implications of the matter?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that for the first time in a few months at least one hon. member of the opposition has recognized the need for an efficient security service by the RCMP not only in Montreal but across the country. I must remind the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying at the beginning of my answer, that I have no other information right now. However, I must

June 30, 1977
Oral Questions
also point out that, traditionally, the working conditions and the operational relationship between the RCMP and the Montreal Urban Community always were and remain excellent, and that we have every reason to believe that the inquiry launched by the Montreal Urban Community will bring out the necessary precisions.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and I have given him notice of the question because it involves a serious human rights issue similar to those Canada criticizes in other countries. It concerns James Kennedy, holder of a valid Irish passport who has been in Vancouver on a Canadian visa since 1974. The government now seeks to deport him because they say he is somebody else. Regardless of who he is, Mr. Kennedy was arrested on May 27, over a month ago, and is being held in maximum security in Oakalla prison, without bail, and, although no charges have been laid against him in Canada and proceedings for extradition have not been commenced by any other government and he has not been convicted of anything, he is treated like other convicts and is not allowed to phone his mother and father to prove his identity. What is the government's intention in connection with this matter?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I have been informed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person known as James Kennedy is actually James Joseph McCann who has an extensive criminal record in the United Kingdom. I have to be careful in commenting any further because his counsel at present has an application for a writ requiring this person to be brought before a judge to determine if he is being held in lawful custody, and I would be hesitant to comment any further than that.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Could the minister say why this man is being held in prison at the taxpayers' expense for a deportation hearing when he has already volunteered to leave Canada, and why he is being denied bail when such people as Huey Newton in Toronto have been released on $1,000 bond?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if the facts were that simple, it would be easy, but the individual has indicated that he wants to leave the country as Kennedy. He wants us to accept the fact that his passport is in fact a valid passport in the name of Kennedy. Those conditions are not acceptable.



INQUIRY WHETHER ANY GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO EXTRADITE JAMES KENNEDY

James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the
minister if the government of the United Kingdom or the

government of the Republic of Ireland have asked for the extradition of this man or have they been in touch with the department with regard to the charges pending against him in either the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: My information to date is that no application for extradition has been made, but this gentleman is being held under the Immigration Act. We believe he came into the country under a false passport and is holding himself out to be someone other than who he is.



POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING PLUTONIUM PROCESSING PLANT

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to earlier questions as to the government's intention regarding plutonium processing plants in Canada. Given the statements made last week by officials of the Geologic Survey of Canada that they were combing Ontario for sites suitable for a nuclear waste dump and further comments by Mr. S. A. Mayman, senior scientist with AECL, that any nuclear waste dump would be tied to a plutonium processing plant, has the Prime Minister consulted with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as he said he would on May 26, about this matter and could he inform the House now of the outcome of those discussions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Following the hon. lady's question I did consult with the minister and he confirmed what I had indicated to the House, that there has been no decision by the government to proceed with the plutonium processing plant.



SUGGESTED STUDY OF RISKS PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING PLUTONIUM PROCESSING FACILITIES

Flora Isabel MacDonald: May I
direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the report that was prepared by the federal Department of the Environment for the Ontario Royal Commission on Electricity and Nuclear Power which strongly warns that no production of plutonium should be allowed in Canada before a complete study of risks and safety requirements is carried out, would the minister, first of all, ask his colleague to table that report-


Alastair William Gillespie: Why don't you ask him yourself?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, I will put that question to the minister. I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as well if he would give the House the undertaking that the government will not proceed with any reprocessing facility until such a study as the Department of the
June 30,1977

Environment recommends is made and there is ample time to discuss the study and debate it in public.


Alastair William Gillespie: 1 think it should be made clear that the government will not make any decision with respect to reprocessing facilities without making a very careful assessment of all the factors involved. The report to which the hon. lady refers may be the kind of report which deals with some of these questions-I have not seen it so I cannot comment on it-but 1 do believe that they made a submission to the Porter Royal Commission which is considering some of these matters. At present my department has a task force which is considering the questions of the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste. 1 want to make it very clear that because we are looking at the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste we are not looking at the same time at putting in a reprocessing plant. The two could go together, but we have taken no decision that it should go that way.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO SITE FOR DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL AT MADOC

Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy for Ontario announced some two months ago that there would be no waste disposal site at Madoc. I have been saying that for some time. Mr. S. A. Mayman said it about two or three weeks ago. Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for Canada now indicate that there is not to be a waste disposal site in the Madoc area?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have had no reason to say that there would be a waste disposal site at Madoc. 1 have never said there would be one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will be aware that there are two private members' bills which have been printed with the same number. Bill C-427, one in the name of the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois) and one in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). Bill C-427 in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore was inadvertently printed on June 23, 1977, as I indicated to the House yesterday, while the notice for introduction of the bill remained on the order paper. This bill was introduced yesterday and will be reprinted as Bill C-430. Bill C-427 will stand in the name of the hon. member for Terrebonne.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago I directed a question to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). When he was in the middle of his reply, 1 had the impression-and I think the
News Agency Letter
correct one-that he was about to answer the important part of my question as to whether further contracts were about to be signed with Hydroculture Luwasa Limited. I am wondering if the unanimous consent of the House could be obtained to allow the minister to finish his answer. I am sure hon. members opposite would not deny one of their ministers the chance to finish telling the Canadian public the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister would need unanimous consent to continue his answer.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, first, the answer is no and, second, to complete my answer to the hon. member, I should like to say that I am aware of no influence that would have been used when the four contracts were awarded to that corporation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table references to the Administrator under the anti-inflation program with respect to the Village of Glenboro; Canadian Carborundum and United Steelworkers, Local 5953; Canadian Carborundum and United Steelworkers, Local 4151; City of Winnipeg and United Firefighters; and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and at the request of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), I would like to table a letter from which I quoted on June 21, 1977. This letter was addressed to me, dated October 9, 1972, received in my office on October 11, 1972 and signed by L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec, the Mouvement pour la defense des prisonniers politiques and the Cooperative des demenageurs du premier mai.


Mr. Speaker:: That is in response to the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and unless there is further comment, that seems to bring that matter to a conclusion.
80018 -SS

June 30, 1977
News Agency Letter


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this, but the matter was raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and I think the whole House should be grateful to him because if Your Honour had made a ruling it would have expanded the precedents of the House with respect to this matter. I wonder if Your Honour was prepared to make a ruling, and, if Your Honour was prepared to make a ruling with respect to this matter, I wonder what would Your Honour's ruling have been.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: 1 think this is very important from the point of view of the precedents of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I can indicate to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that I had, I suppose, several opportunities to change the course of the argument along the way. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) raised the matter initially as a point of order. If I had thought the point of order was entirely without merit, I would have said so at the time. Having acccepted the initial point of order, it has always been my practice to encourage argument on both sides of any question, because I think it would be foolish to attempt to make any decision without a contribution from both sides for fear that significant points may be missed in the argument. Therefore I encouraged a response from the side opposite the hon. member raising the point of order. That response might have been very illuminating. In fact the response is the tabling of the document, which seems to be a rather self-evident conclusion to the matter.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the document has just been handed to me. I was listening very carefully to the translation. There were two letters referred to in my point of order. One is the letter which has now been tabled. The other letter is a letter from an officer of the RCMP to the minister, who was then the solicitor general, advising him that there should be no acknowledgment of the letter I have in my hand. In my point of order I asked for the tabling of both letters, and I wonder if Your Honour would consider that.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps not at this particular moment because of the compression of time, but presumably there would be an argument from both sides with respect to the other letter, which I think was treated somewhat differently. On the face of it I would want to hear argument specifically about each letter. We have had one response with respect to this letter. If there was another which might be the subject matter of further argument, perhaps the two parties could agree that Monday at three o'clock might be a convenient time, and if not then Tuesday at three o'clock might be a convenient time to present arguments on both sides in terms of the precedents, and I would attempt to decide the question at that time.


INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RECOGNITION ACT
[Stage Direction]
MEASURE TO RECOGNIZE INDIANS, MfiTlS, AND INUIT AS FOUNDING PEOPLES
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-431, to recognize indigenous peoples among the founding peoples of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that the contribution of Canada's indigenous population to the social, cultural, and economic development of the country is duly acknowledged by the federal government.
Presently the term "founding peoples" is frequently construed to mean only the English and the French who colonized what is now Canada. This bill would explicitly affirm the historical commitment of Canada to include the indigenous peoples among the founders of our country.


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

Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-432, respecting confidential communications between elected representatives and their constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this bill would create a privilege in court so that elected representatives cannot be compelled to disclose the confidences of their constituents unless their constituents direct them to do so.


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

Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the consent of the House could be granted so that we could include a bill standing in my name under introduction of bills in today's notice paper. It is simply a change of constituency name, which would be joined with all the other bills which are going to be before the House later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of the bill to take place at this time so that it can be included with all the others which are to be dealt with at four o'clock this afternoon would
June 30, 1977

require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: for leave to introduce Bill C-433, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Cochrane).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: Later this day, by leave.


RE-DEDICATION OF PARLIAMENT TO NATIONAL UNITY
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions.
June 28, 1977-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion: That Members of this House dedicate themselves anew to the continuing unity of Canada as a free and independent country organized on the basis of a federal form of government with two official languages and a diversity of cultures.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting 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: 57, 642, 2,221, 2,268, 2,305, 2,347, 2,399, 2,408, 2,638 and 2,647.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total cost to the taxpayer of all aspects of the United Nations Habitat Conference held in Vancouver and, of this total, how much was spent for unused hotel rooms that had been booked for the Conference?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: The cost to the federal government as host for, and participant at, the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements: Habitat was $18.5 million. Of this amount $5.2 million was for the Canadian Participation/lnformation Programme, $11.3 million for hosting the U.N. Conference and $2.0 million in financial assistance to the non-governmental group which had
Order Paper Questions
responsibility for providing facilities and programme assistance for the Habitat Forum. Included in the host cost of $11.3 million is $400,000 which was required to settle claims for unused hotel rooms. For further details please refer to answer to Question 642 tabled this day on hotel costs.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	(a) How many hotel rooms were rented by the government for the Habitat Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, from May 31 to June 11, 1976 (b) how many were unused but will have to be paid for by the taxpayer?
2.	What was the cost to the taxpayer for unused hotel rooms?


André Ouellet: 1.	(a) 3,900 rooms (28,500 room nights) were reserved by the government for the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements: Habitat; (b) According to Vancouver hotels, 12,000 room nights were unused and claims totalling $570,000 were submitted to the government.
2.	Negotiated settlements amounting to $400,000 have been concluded with the hotels.
Note: It is normal practice when hosting international gatherings to advance book hotel rooms. Because nations were slow in providing firm information on the size of their delegations, the bookings had to be made on the basis of the best information available. There were sufficient delegates in Vancouver to occupy all the reserved rooms, but over thirty delegations moved from the conference hotels to cheaper suburban hotels, and some delegations never moved into the accommodation that had been booked for them.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76 (c) 1976-77, how many contracts for professional and special services were let by the Department of Supply and Services on behalf of government departments and agencies?
2.	For each of the same years, what was the total value of such contracts and, in each case, what was the total number of persons employed under its terms?
3.	For each of the same years, what was the number of man-years of employment produced as a result of such contracts?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1,	2 and 3.
Number of
Period	Documents	Value $000(a)	1974-75 (*)	2,621	71,206(b)	1975-76	4,997	110,640(c)	1976-77	5,207	122,973
(*) Excludes contracting by Regional Operations: data not available. Note: The information relating to the number of persons employed and the number of man-years of employment produced as a result of
80018-55%

June 30, 1977
Order Paper Questions
such contracts is unavailable since our information system does not record it. The standard object (04)-Professional and Special Services incorporates a very wide-ranging spectrum of services as partially explained on pages 1-58 and 1-60 of the Main Estimates 1977-78. A number of these services are not manpower based (i.e. rentals of space, machinery, equipment...).


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): Is the government considering negotiating an agreement with the Province of Quebec in view of anticipated movements to Quebec of employees of departments, Crown corporations and agencies in order that such employees' income tax deductions be dictated by the province of residence as opposed to the province of employment?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The federal and Quebec governments recently reached an agreement concerning the income tax deductions for federal public servants working in Hull and living in Ontario. Under the agreement, Quebec will reduce the provincial tax deductions for employees of federal departments so that the total amount of tax withheld will approximate the amount that would have been withheld had the person been working in Ontario. For other residents of Ontario working in Quebec, including those in the private sector and employees of federal boards, commissions, agencies and Crown corporations, Revenue Canada, taxation has indicated that it will reduce the amount of federal tax deductions to achieve this same result. It is expected that the necessary reduction in withholding will be implemented in July, 1977.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	What percentage of paper used by the Queen's Printer contains or consists of re-cycled material?
2.	Does the government have a policy of encouraging the use of re-cycled material in fulfdling its needs for stationery and, if so, on what date was this policy initiated?
3.	What (a) have been the total costs each year (i) 1972-73 (ii) 1973-74 (iii) 1974-75 (iv) 1975-76 (b) is the total estimated costs for (i) 1976-77 (ii) 1977-78 for the government's requirements for stationery?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of the Environment and Supply and Services as follows: 1. Specifications for paper used by the Department of Supply and Services permit recycled material. Most papers, from time to time, use some recycled material, but the actual percentage, however, is impossible to determine.
2.	A policy was adopted in November, 1976 that departmental stationery should contain recycled paper. Subsequently, the Department of Supply and Services in co-operation with the Department of Fisheries and the Environment has developed the concept of a procurement specification for "Environmental Bond" i.e. a fine paper containing a certain percentage of post-consumer waste and introduced this to the Canadian fine

paper industry. Discussions are continuing between the departments concerned and the fine paper industry.
3.	The total paper costs are as follows: (a) (i) $5,990,000*; (ii) 9,895,000*; (iii) 18,668,000; (iv) 24,027,000; (b) (i) $25,268,000 est.); (ii) 28,567,000 (est.)
*In 1972-73 and 1973-74, billing was just being centralized under the department of Supply and Services; some departments purchased their own paper supplies.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	How many of the KEY-EDIT 50, 60 and 1000 systems were delivered to Consolidated Computer Inc.'s (CCI), customers in 1975 and 1976 and the first quarter of 1977?
2.	What was the quantity of each model delivered to customers in each year and in the first quarter of 1977?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: 1 and 2. Government Key-edit purchases and leases contracted through the Department of Supply and Services: 1975 deliveries 4 Systems, Model 50; 4 Systems, Model 60; 2 Systems, Model 100; 3 Systems, Model 1000; 1976 deliveries 18 Systems, Model 60; 1 System, Model 100; 3 Systems, Model 1000; 1977 (1st Qtr.) 5 Systems, Model 60; 1 System, Model 1000; 1 System, Model 555.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1 and 2. Details concerning Consolidated Computer Inc.'s (CCI) sales to the private sector are considered to be commercially confidential. Disclosure of such information could place CCI at a disadvantage vis-a-vis competitors.
CN/CP TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICE IN SASKATOON


Mr. FInatyshyn: Is the CN-CP Telecommunications Office in Saskatoon opened on Saturdays and Sundays and, if not, will the government ensure that the Office will be open in future?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: The Canadian National Railways advises that the CN/CP Telecommunications office in Saskatoon is closed on Saturdays and Sundays. The low volume of business offering does not, at this time, warrant opening of the office on those days.


Mr. Patterson: Is the government through the (a) Canadian Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment (b) Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development testing new, more humane traps to replace the leg-hold traps and, if so, how much is being spent in each case?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of the Environment and Indian and Northern Development as follows: (a) Yes, indirectly. Trap testing is not being done
June 30, 1977

directly by the federal government. However, some work is being done in this area, which will help the Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping reach its objectives. The Canadian Wildlife Service has awarded contracts of $25,300 to the Canadian Standards Association, and $33,400 to the Ontario Veterinary College for mechanical and biological testing. The committee is now making arrangements for trap testing on its own behalf, (b) Yes, indirectly. The development and testing of more humane traps and trapping techniques is a joint federal-provincial undertaking, conducted and coordinated by the Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping (F.P.C.H.T.). The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development contributes financially to the committee's program and provides federal representation on the committee. Direct contributions to the F.P.C.H.T. from 1973-74 to 1976-77 (inch) totalled $57,967 and a further $42,035 has been committed for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79. Also, the following contributions were made to the Manitoba Wild Fur Development Program for Field testing and Development of humane traps and trapping techniques: 1975-76, $20,550; 1976-77, $20,000 (estimate). The Yukon government reports that its game branch is involved in the field testing of traps provided by the Co-ordinator of the Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping. No expenses are incurred by the Yukon Territorial Government in this program. The Northwest Territories has contributed a total of $10,412 to the F.P.C.H.T. for 1973-74 to 1976-77 (inch) and a further $4,000 is budgeted for 1977-78.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What was the total deficit of the Post Office Department in (a) 1966 (b) 1976?
2.	How many complaints of lost or delayed mail were received by the Postmaster General (a) in 1976 (b) between January 1 and April 30, 1977?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. (a) $30.7 million; (b) $546.2 million.
2. (a) Foss: 403; Delay: 2,330. (b) Foss: 141; Delay: 947.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What has been the total amount of money spent by the National Capital Commission in each of the past five years and what is the total figure combined?
2.	For each year what percentage was spent in (a) Ontario (b) Quebec and how is the total figure broken down?
3.	What is the breakdown of the estimated expenditures for the current fiscal year and will the amount spent in Quebec be approximately 60 per cent of the NCC's total budget?


André Ouellet: 1. In each of the past five years, the Commission's total net expenditures were as follows: 1972-73, $39,987,309; 1973-74, $33,715,756; 1974-75, $54,693,723; 1975-76, $67,181,195; 1976-77, $49,367,653; for a total of $244,945,636.
Business of the House
2. The breakdown for the net expenditures for each year is
as follows:								
Ontario	per cent	Quebec	per cent	1972-73	$ 23,355,000	58	per	cent	$ 16,632,000	42	per	cent1973-74	17,283,000	51	per	cent	16,432,000	49	per	cent1974-75	34,167,000	62	per	cent	20,527,000	38	per	cent1975-76	48,680,000	72	per	cent	18,501,000	28	per	cent1976-77	30,450,000	71	per	cent	18,918,000	29	per	cent$153,935,000	63	per	cent	$ 91,010,000	37	per	cent3.	A breakdown of the commission's estimated net expenditures in 1977-78 will be: Ontario, $28,234,000, 45 per cent; Quebec, $34,229,000, 55 per cent; Total, $62,463,000.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,288 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Rompkey: 1.	Which department of government has responsibility for environmental studies in that area of ocean off the Labrador Coast?
2.	How many environmental studies have been done in this area?
3.	What technology does Canada now have or will have in the near future for cleaning up a spill or handling oil below ice or in pack ice?
4.	(a) How long has the government been giving out permits to companies to drill off Labrador (b) what environmental protection restrictions have gone with these permits?
5.	What information does Canada have regarding the ocean area off the Labrador Coast including (a) detailed chartering of water depths (b) ocean current patterns (c) primary productivity (d) sea ice studies (e) remote sensoring (0 marine resources inventory and life histories (g) larval toxicity (h) oil spill containment to cleanup (i) oil degradation (j) baseline levels of pollutions (k) modelling oil spill dispersal (1) fate of oil in ice (m) coastal zone mapping (n) surface and subsurface geography?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council would feel hurt if I did not ask the usual question about the business of the House, so I shall do that. Can he tell us what

June 30, 1977
Criminal Code
we will be dealing with in the next week and if there is any change in the plans set forth yesterday by his leader?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, earlier today when we were dealing with the rest of business for today and next week a question was raised about the order of business for Monday and Tuesday. I am pleased to report that we will continue consideration of Bill C-27 dealing with unemployment insurance on Monday and on Tuesday morning, if it is not completed before one o'clock. If the bill were completed we would move to Bill C-49, Canada Pension Plan amendment, and if we are fortunate enough to complete that we will go to Bill C-17, the Air Canada legislation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is our special agreement with respect to Tuesday. Is it the order of business for Thursday and Friday as well, or will we have to consult further?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I think further consultation would be required. I think there is a disposition that instead of continuing with that order, if we have not completed it by one o'clock Tuesday, then instead of continuing with it on Thursday, we would probably return to consideration of Bill C-51.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motions Nos. 7 and 28 (Mr. Woolliams).
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments with respect to motion No. 28 which stands in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I endorse the remarks he made so eloquently before lunch, and also the learned and reasoned argument of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
Basically the Criminal Code of Canada provides for law and order in our country and sets the guidelines which affect every man, woman and child. I suggest that the citizens of Canada are entitled to know what the criminal law is, and for that reason the law should be contained within the sections of the Code, or alternatively in regulations that have been approved after debate in this House. I like to think that we live in a democratic country where we have respect for the freedom of the individual and where a person is considered innocent until

proven guilty, and also that there is freedom of information as was discussed this morning by the hon. member for Peace River.
What happens when we begin to be ruled by regulation- regulations which the hon. member for Calgary North said are quite often prepared in the dark of the night without anyone's knowledge? I am not saying that we do not require provisions that enable the Governor in Council to make regulations. Certainly it would be foolish in this day and age to have all the regulations that are promulgated brought before the House for debate. Regulations made under the Criminal Code, however, should by their nature be subject to the scrutiny of parliamentarians.
Having regulations presented in parliament, as is suggested in the motion, would give parliamentarians an opportunity to debate them. When a matter is debated in the House of Commons it becomes the subject of public knowledge through television, radio, and newspaper, and people then have an opportunity to let their members of parliament know their views on the matter. The amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North proposes that within 15 days after regulations have been promulgated they be presented to the House of Commons.
We are not asking for a parliamentary debate on all regulations passed under the various acts, but we are asking that the regulations promulgated under the provisions of the Criminal Code be brought to the House for debate.
I practised law for some 20 years before coming to this House and I know it is very difficult at times to find out exactly what regulations exist. I appreciate that they are printed from time to time in the Canada Gazette, or if they are provincial regulations they are printed in the provincial Gazette, but how many people have the opportunity or the time to read them and find out what regulations have been passed?
Let me give an example of what happened in the province of Saskatchewan with respect to the metric bill. Through the influence of federal civil servants from Ottawa, civil servants of the province of Saskatchewan were able to have promulgated in that province regulations which changed the method of measuring land within the province from acres to hectares. Almost one year after the regulations were passed someone asked a minister of the province and a legislative member a question pertaining to the regulations, and was surprised to discover they did not know those regulations had been passed.
Cabinet ministers are supposed to know what regulations the Governor in Council passes. Presumably they are discussed in cabinet, but in this day and age when we pass so many regulations, ministers understandably have no time to read all of them. Mr. Speaker, it could happen that a regulation is passed without the public's being aware of it until someone is in breach of that regulation, after which it becomes public knowledge.
June 30, 1977

The criminal law of Canada is basic law, and the Code is probably one of the most important statutes in our statute books. If the Governor in Council can pass regulations which amend that law, there is something wrong with our system of government. That is why I urge members of this House to read motion No. 28, for they will see that it asks that all regulations made under the Criminal Code be brought before this House for consideration. In that process parliamentarians could debate them, and members of the public concerned about our criminal law would have the opportunity to make their views known on the acceptability of the regulations.
The hon. member for Calgary North has proposed an excellent amendment. I ask all hon. members who are at all concerned for our democratic way of life to support it.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to speak in support of the amendment. Although not legally trained I can understand how difficult it is to obey a law of which the public is unaware. The previous speaker spoke of orders in council which have the force of law. It is true that cabinet ministers and members of parliament should be aware of changes in the law, yet all too often a minister signs a document placed before him and so gives legal sanction to an order in council without being fully aware of its contents.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) suggested it is not necessary to table orders in council changing the criminal law because the statutory instruments committee scrutinizes all such changes in legislation. He suggested, 1 think, that it is not advantageous to make all such changes public. But the amendment asks more than that. It says that not only should such changes in the law be made public but, since they concern the criminal law, parliament should be given a chance to scrutinize them within 15 days of enactment, or 15 days after a session of parliament begins. This will allow parliament to debate them and either accept them or reject them. 1 suggest the Minister of Justice forgets that many regulations have a greater effect than the original enabling legislation.
That we may wish to outlaw certain guns is not the important point of the amendment. When we debate such questions we are really debating how regulations will be interpreted and enforced. 1 have heard members argue about the length of guns, but that is not a legislative matter. We decide in principle if we are to allow people to possess rapid firing guns, hand guns, or guns easily concealed. In the final analysis, questions as to whether guns of a certain calibre or of a certain type come within the prohibited class are determined through an interpretation of the law. The courts interpret laws, orders in council and other regulations, and acts accordingly. Really, we are enacting a prohibition against handguns, but it has been in effect for some years. We are adding to the prohibited list certain weapons not previously included under the heading of prohibited weapons. We set down the principle and the court interprets the regulations, which stipulate if guns of a certain calibre or certain length are in the prohibited class. My point is this: I may own a B-B gun of a certain calibre and go hunting with it today, but tomorrow, because the regulations are changed without my knowing it, I could be arrested for
Criminal Code
possessing a prohibited weapon. The point is that I would not know the law had changed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right on.


William Arnold Peters: Surely it is unfair and stupid to amend regulations without letting the public know, and if the Minister of ^Justice cannot see the logic of making such changes in regulations public, his approach to our administration of justice is unrealistic.
In this country it is difficult to enforce justice. The average person thinks the police are picking on him. They pick on him when he drives, when he doesn't wear his seat belt, or when he commits a parking infraction, and the public views none of these infractions as serious. They are offences, true, but they are responsible for much of the public's animosity toward the police. These minor infractions create much friction.
What is the logic of passing regulations of which the public knows nothing? You can drive down the highway tonight, thinking you are within the speed limit, and be arrested because, without your knowing it, the province by secretly passed order in council reduced the speed limit ten miles an hour. Mr. Speaker, this is possible. You will be unhappy because you did not know the law had changed.
How would you feel if, through a sudden change in the regulations, 12-gauge shotguns or No. 5 shells were outlawed? If you are carrying that kind of gun to a duck hunt, you would be very surprised, very hurt, and very arrested just the same.
The Minister of Justice apparently believes in amending the Criminal Code by regulation, and asks us for authority to do so. Apparently he does not want these things made public, and in my view this is disgraceful and out of keeping with the principle of British justice. It may be he can go far in the direction he wishes, but it seems to me he is being unfair to the public, to the traditions of his office, and to the legislation which he wishes the public to support. British justice would call for him to go one step further.
Whenever the Criminal Code is amended by regulation or by order in council or any other of the statutory tools which the government uses, a reference should be made to parliament so that the representatives of the public might have their say. In my opinion the minister would have done the legislation a greater service if he had given an undertaking to proceed along these lines and to have allowed, say, for a day's debate on any changes in the Criminal Code. 1 do not believe he would find this proposition unworkable. It would have the additional advantage of helping to make the public aware of any changes which are being made.
I am always surprised to find that ordinary members of parliament, for whom I have a high regard, lose all sense of balance when they become cabinet ministers-all sense of responsibility to their colleagues and to the nation. The only people to whom they show any responsibility are their departmental officials. This is a great loss, because one would hope

June 30, 1977
Criminal Code
they would continue to exercise normal caution when asked to take measures which the general public will not accept. What seems to happen is that public servants put in place regulations which often take us far away from the legislation which was originally passed by parliament, making it difficult for the public or even for members of parliament to detect any continuity in the changes which take place. Governments would be well advised to make every effort to bring to the attention of the public changes which take place affecting their freedoms and rights. A government which does not make a constant effort to do this is, in my opinion, failing to serve the public well.
Some of us have had an opportunity of looking at the green paper put out by the government with regard to the right of the public to secure certain information. That document can be summed up in a very few words-if it is not likely to offend the civil servants or to cause the government any trouble, there is no great objection to information being published. But if there is any danger to civil servants or to the minister, the documents requested will remain secret. Any changes in the Criminal Code affect you and I from time to time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: "You and me".


William Arnold Peters: Very well, "You and me"-Stanley as well as the rest of us. They are quite likely to affect us as individuals. For this reason there should be as free and as open a flow of information as possible, not only because of the basic principle involved here but because it would help the general public to support the legislation we pass here and which must, of necessity, be changed from time to time. If the Criminal Code is to be amended by regulation, some way should be found to bring these changes to the attention of parliament, and the minister should be the first to accept the kind of amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be quite brief. I cannot let this opportunity go by without saying how much I support the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) which asks that when regulations are made they should be tabled in parliament within 15 days and then debated, especially under the section dealing with gun control.
This morning, when I was speaking, when the minister interjected to say I was in favour of regulation because 1 thought the length of gun barrels should be determined by regulation. If the minister wants to take a close look he will see I am certainly against regulating an important law such as this, though I realize the government likes to do most of its business by order in council and by regulation and incorporates this kind of situation in almost every law it brings forward. Anyway, member opposite are going to vote for this and have it included in the bill even though it is against the wishes of most of the people who are directly affected.
The people this gun law will directly affect are against this kind of thing, but knowing the bill is going to be put through

anyway I want to take this opportunity to say 1 am certainly against regulation by order in council. 1 am against regulations such as those proposed by the minister in connection with laws as important as the Criminal Code. Many of the other members of my party who have had legal training have been able to put this position much more eloquently than I am able to do.
In the over-all, Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that an order in council can change the law within a matter of days, and in such a way that many people are affected. As I have said, it could make criminals out of innocent people. They are the ones who usually get the most harassment. They will not know what is happening to them, but just because they do not know the law does not mean that they do not have to comply with the law. If such regulations were brought back to parliament within 15 days and debated, the people of Canada would have a better opportunity of knowing exactly what is going on. That is the way we should treat the people of this country. In closing, may I say I am strongly in favour of the amendment and I hope my hon. friends opposite will see the logic of it, though I am not too sure they will.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my support for this amendment. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has made a valid point, something worthy of considerable thought when we contemplate our parliamentary procedure. We seem to want to cure problems these days by centralization. Recently a report on broadcasting suggested that broadcasting be brought under one company or operated under one network, which may have a point but nevertheless shows the tendency today toward centralization. More and more we want government to intervene in our lives. We are presently studying a competition bill which, if it is passed, will enable government to intervene further in our private lives and in private business.
This brings me to the point that the bureaucrats, who must of necessity administer legislation, are being given a great deal of power, and I do not think we have properly addressed ourselves to the question of how to curtail some of the excesses which are bound to occur, since these bureaucrats are just as human as we are. Sometimes regulations are made without much thought being given to them; they are made on the spur of the moment, and sometimes the bureaucracy is not even aware of what is happening out in the hinterland. Perhaps they cannot be faulted for that. After all, a minister is probably far too busy to be aware of everything going on in his department, and one cannot expect otherwise. Nevertheless, we should try to do what we can to scrutinize orders in council before they are passed.
I understand that over 3,000 orders in council were passed last year by the federal government, and in addition many were passed in the provincial field. We have recently been discussing metrication, and the MLA's in my own province were unaware that the government of Manitoba had already introduced the metric system in the surveying field. I understand a similar situation exists in Saskatchewan.

June 30, 1977

This amendment provides a means whereby there would be a fairly routine laying on the table of regulations and orders in council in a specified form. I am sure that 99 per cent would go unchallenged, but at least they would be readily available so parliamentarians would observe them. No doubt some members of parliament would find something out of line in an order in council, and although this would not occur very often it would at least eliminate any untoward orders in council. I think this procedure would be a salutary one, those who draft these orders in council, who would have to be more sure of themselves, and in regard to making members of parliament take an interest in orders in council which affect their constituents.
I am not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that it is important that orders in council having to do with the Criminal Code be closely scrutinized. Although this can be said to be the case in all areas of government, it is particularly so in the case of the Criminal Code which needs to be clear and direct. I do not see how the adoption of this amendment would in any way change the Criminal Code as such. In this day and age when we are complaining about secrecy in government, when we are unfamiliar with the vast amounts of orders in council which are passed and with regulations which must necessarily issue from the various departments, this is a welcome departure and may well serve as a model upon which to base further legislative action.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 intend to enter this debate only briefly to deal with questions which have arisen on the motion of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). This amendment merely seeks to provide the vehicle by which parliament has some access to decisions regarding legislation which are taken behind the green, felt covered doors of government orders in council.
The interesting thing is that this debate has not been exclusively confined to lawyers, as is quite often the case when the Criminal Code is discussed. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) who last spoke is a medical doctor. The member who preceded him is a leader in what I guess 1 could call the tender fruit industry of British Columbia. Perhaps this is indicative of the fact that the concern which exists regarding the attitude of government generally respecting orders in council is now spreading beyond the legal profession to members of the Canadian public who have not been burdened with a legal education. I think that is very important.
There is no doubt that one of the things which concerns anyone living in a free society is the tendency today for government not to disclose information, or to be hesitant to do so, particularly government in the Canadian parliamentary system, hampered as we are in terms of information by the doctrine of ministerial responsibility which is only observed when it is convenient to do so. This is buttressed by the document released yesterday by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), the green paper on freedom of information, which has been condemned generally as not pointing the way to freedom of information at all, but contains much finer lan-
Criminal Code
guage than heretofore sustaining the rights of government not to disclose.
It becomes extremely important when the statute parliament is dealing with is an amendment to the Criminal Code. It is not an amendment to the Weights and Measures Act nor an amendment to the Small Loans Act. It is an amendment to the Criminal Code, the effect of which can deal with the lives of all subjects in one way or another. Protection has been given to everyone-the blackest and the whitest among us in terms of reputation-by the doctrine that one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The same buttress against authority, or the same kind of protection, is intended by the hon. member for Calgary North. He is not saying that governments cannot act by orders in council and that there is not a place for orders in council. There is a place for orders in council in a complex society. We have to change our procedures in terms of the House of Commons, and governments have a great myriad of problems to deal with as well.
The hon. member is saying in his amendment that when there are orders in council passed under this unusual statute, this parliament should be apprised of them; that they should be made known to parliament as the people's representatives; that they should be tabled in the House; and that parliament should have an opportunity to deal with them, just as it would deal with any amendment to the Criminal Code. We are now openly discussing an amendment to the Criminal Code in this House. If there is no reason on the face of orders in council as to why they ought not to be dealt with, then they would not be dealt with and would stand. If there is some reason on the face of orders in council for dealing with them, then they would be dealt with.
The hon. member for Calgary North has not made an unreasonable case. The amendment calls for the order in council to be laid before parliament within 15 days after it is made, and if parliament is not sitting, then 15 days after parliament begins to sit.
The amendment continues as follows:
... every order in council, regulation, or form shall be subject to affirmative resolution of parliament and shall not come into force until published in the Canada Gazette.
That does not say anything, except this: in a subject matter as important as criminal law, the Parliament of Canada ought to have the say and ought to be able to review what bureaucracies have done, even though orders in council can be signed by someone other than a bureaucrat, which is not an unusual or improper suggestion to make to the House. That is the purpose of it, and I hope the government will support it. If it does not support it, I have to ask myself why not?
Perhaps there are a number of members of this House who disagree with this, including members of my party; but I cannot understand why the very important procedure of an affirmative resolution is alien to the thinking of some members. I hope hon. members on the other side will not vote against the amendment because it happens to be an opposition
7236

June 30, 1977
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
amendment. Whether we support a government or whether we are members of an opposition, members ought to look at the rights of each of us as representatives of the people.
I am aware of the doctrine that everyone is deemed to know the law. That is great for lawyers, that is great if you happen to know the law, and it is necessary for the proper administration of justice. But it is a devil of a thing for the fellow who is innocently caught in a situation, which can happen quite often.
I shall conclude my remarks because I do not believe there is another speaker from this side of the House and I do not want to hold up consideration of this amendment. I hope hon. members on the other side of the House will consider the propriety of the amendment and the spirit in which it is moved. Even though there may be members on either side of the Chair who disagree with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North, I hope they reconsider their opposition to this important amendment.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there has been any agreement-


Walter David Baker: There has been no agreement.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Under those circumstances, I should wish to make some comments the next time the bill is before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being four o'clock p.m., pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, June 29, 1977, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Robert Phillip Kaplan: that Bill C-283, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Beauharnois-Salaberry); Bill C-392, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Brampton-Georgetown); Bill C-393, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe); Bill C-394, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Huron-Bruce); Bill C-405, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Lethbridge-Foothills); Bill C-406, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Kootenay East-Revelstoke); Bill C-418, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Laval); Bill C-422, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Lon-don-Middlesex); Bill C-427, respecting the Electoral Bound-

aries Readjustment Act (Blainville-Deux Montagnes); Bill C-428, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Saint-Jacques); Bill C-429, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Saint-Leonard-Anjou); and Bill C-433, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Cochrane North) be read the second time and, pursuant to the order made Wednesday, June 29, 1977, be referred to the committee of the whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bills Nos. C-283, C-392, C-393, C-394, C-405, C-406, C-418, C-422, C-427, C-428, C-429 and C-433 read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Turner in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clauses 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 1 agreed to.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall the titles of the bills carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Titles agreed to.
Charles Robert Turner: Shall the bills carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bills carried.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall I report the bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bills reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the said bills be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: that Bills Nos. C-283, C-392, C-393, C-394, C-405, C-406, C-418, C-422, C-427, C-428, C-429, and C-433 be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and Bills Nos. C-283, C-392, C-393, C-394, C-405, C-406, C-418, C-422, C-427, C-428, C-429, and C-433 read the third time and passed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it was also part of the unanimous agreement that we proceed to the report stage and hopefully third reading stage of Bill C-256 to amend the Criminal Code, which stands in my name.



HOBBY PROTECTION ACT (NUMISMATIC) EXTENSION OF CURRENCY COUNTERFEIT LAWS

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-256, to amend the Criminal Code (counterfeit of rare coins and
June 30, 1977
[Stage Direction]
notes), as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: That Bill C-256, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (counterfeit of rare coins and notes), be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 22 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"minimum of six millimetres (6.0 mm), and everyone who commits an
offence under this part with respect to counterfeit money as defined in this
paragraph (g) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think a word of explanation might be in order. At the committee hearings on this bill it was noted that the penalty provided in the Criminal Code was that in every case counterfeiting of rare coins pursuant to this amendment would have been an indictable offence. Members of the committee suggested to me that I make some effort to come up with an amendment which would have the effect of making the offence alternatively an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction. Accordingly, I prepared this amendment, consulted with some members of the committee, and tabled it to give effect to the undertaking that I gave at the committee that I would make an attempt to alter the penalties provided under this bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Numismatic Counterfeits
Robert Phillip Kaplan: that Bill C-256, to amend the Criminal Code (counterfeit of rare coins and notes), as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the speed with which we are passing bills this afternoon, why do we not sit for another half hour and finish the session?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, it being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, July 4, 1977, at 2 o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(3). Have a good weekend.
At 4.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, July 4, 1977