1977-07-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity and of some considerable significance relating to the threatened implication of new taxes on the owners of life insurance policies, changes which may affect the tax status of millions of Canadians and of billions of dollars in policy benefits. In view of the fact that the proposal to tax policy savings gains at death amounts to reaching into the grave to tax the results of Canadian productivity and foresight, and in view of the fact that the proposals relating to the tax treatment of policy loans will deprive many average Canadians of a source of accessible and inexpensive financing for family and business needs, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House urge the government not to proceed with those sections of Bill C-56 dealing with the taxation of the life insurance policy owner and the tax treatment of policy loans and loan interest payments.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which I am sure all hon. members of the House will find agreeable. In view of a recent study which showed that foundry workers at Dominion Foundries and Steel Company have four and a half times the risk of lung cancer as workers in other parts of the plant, and in view of the health hazards in other industries and the lack of progress that is being made in cleaning up the work environment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the federal government implement as soon as possible its long promised Canadian Centre for Occupational Safety and Health to help co-ordinate and implement measures to protect workers' health and safety.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) has announced the withdrawal of that legislative mess known as Bill C-I6, the borrowers and depositors protection act, which in fairness he inherited and could not correct even with some 75 proposed amendments, and since there therefore remains unsolved the serious loan sharking problem which continues to cause such concern to police and members of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House urge the Minister of Justice to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code which would be non-controversial and which would eliminate the practice of loan sharking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED PRIZE FOR MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion is prompted by the revelation of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) that the abortive foray of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) into July 2 broadcasting caused him to "be looked

July 18, 1977
Presence in Gallery
upon as a partisan, jaded politician", a very understandable and perceptive insight by the minister. In view of the minister's sentiments that it is unfortunate that politicians are held in such low esteem because it undermines their ability to provide leadership, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
[DOT] (MIO)
That this House recommends that the Minister of Supply and Services, in view of his outstanding achievements in the field of political buck passing, be awarded the J. Btlfzkf prize named after A1 Capp's cartoon character who lived under the cloud of his own ineptitude.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ELECTIONS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of concern for the integrity of the Order of Canada and more particularly for the tradition that it not be awarded to active politicians but be reserved in that field to honour those who, having made worthy contributions, have retired. In order that the House be reassured that the integrity of the order has not been breached, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the House call upon the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, newly appointed Companion of the Order to unequivocally state that he will not be a candidate for a Liberal nomination in any Ottawa constituency nor in any other federal constituency for the next federal election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who is politicking?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM MALAYSIA
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before commencing the oral question period, I know all hon. members will want to join me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished parliamentary delegation visiting us from Malaysia, particularly from the state of Sabah, headed by their very distinguished minister of communications and works, the Hon. Guan Sing Lim.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.J



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In his budget message the minister announced his intention of taxing what is called the savings portion of death benefits received from life insurance policies. In Bill C-56 which will implement these proposals the minister attempted to lessen their full impact by deeming that only the portion of a savings gain which exceeds $10,000 will be added to the income of certain beneficiaries. Considering that no modifications to tax thresholds can disguise the fact that this administration proposes to reverse the trend away from death duties and to reach into the grave to tax survivors at the worst possible time, will the minister tell the House whether he will now abandon this particularly repellent attempt to generate revenues through taxing the results of Canadians' productivity and foresight?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might correct the hon. gentleman. He would know if he examined the Income Tax Act that in cases where income has been deferred during the lifetime of a recipient where he has had the benefit of being exempt from income tax under those circumstances, the law provides that it shall be brought in and it shall be taxed upon the event of his death. This is the case with regard to the capital gains tax as well as a registered retirement savings plan which has not yet matured, and with regard to deferred income, for example, under Canada Savings Bonds.
Under those circumstances, it seemed to us fair that people who have chosen to save by way of life insurance policies, the savings portion, as opposed to other means of savings, should be treated in exactly the same way to the extent that the instrument is the same. On this basis it is fair to observe that this will bring the taxation of that benefit into roughly the same treatment as those of other kinds. I would remind the hon. gentleman that previously the tax had been imposed upon policyholders, but at the corporate level under part XII of the Income Tax Act. It is the replacement of that tax by another tax.


Walter David Baker: The changes at the corporate level will require insurance companies to raise premiums, and the taxation by this government will cause hardship to widows and other beneficiaries. It is in effect a taxation reaching into the grave. The minister cannot have it two ways. Is the government considering the briefs which have been sent to it as a result of the fury this has generated in the insurance industry and the concern it has generated among the Canadian population generally, and is the government intending to change Bill C-56 over the summer? There is still some time, since the bill has been deferred.
July 18, 1977


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this is to treat those who save by way of whole life policies in the same way as people who save by other instruments. It is to put all savers on the same basis. There will be a special benefit for policyholders who are entitled to modest amounts. I acknowledge that the life insurance industry has mounted a very extensive lobby. I think it is fair to point out to the House and to the country that it was the life insurance industry which asked to have part XII changed in order to put whole life policies on the same basis as other saving instruments.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, considering that very few countries in the world tax life insurance benefits, and considering that the Carter commission on taxation recommended against levying death duties-and that is all this is, another form of death duty-can the minister refer the House to any report or study which has recommended the imposition of such measures, and if he cannot, will the government reconsider the second question and consider abandoning what is a retrograde step in the field of death duty taxation, no matter what colour the minister tries to paint it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is wrong again. The measures do not tax the death benefits involved in a whole life policy. The death benefit is specifically exempt, and if the hon. member would examine the law, he would find that out. He would also find, however, that the savings that an individual has been able to enjoy tax free throughout his life are brought into taxation, just as all other kinds of savings are at the date of death. I again point out to the hon. gentleman that the part XII tax was brought in as a result of the Carter commission report which recommended that savings of this kind should be treated like savings of every other kind and that they should bear their portion of the taxation.


REASON FOR TREATING LOANS ON INSURANCE POLICIES AS DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME-POSSIBLE REFUNDING OF TAX WHEN LOAN REPAID
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I note that the minister proposes to treat the amount of a policy loan in excess of premiums paid as a distribution of income. In view of the fact that millions of Canadians borrow from policies for such purposes as sending children to college or meeting emergency expenditures, will the minister tell the House why he proposes to deprive Canadians of a source of inexpensive and easily accessible financing which is not subject to substantial tax penalties?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman might like to read the law or have someone interpret it for him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: Your arrogance is showing.
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I say that to the hon. gentleman because I recognize that he is not a member of the bar and because this is a very difficult and complex measure. I say that in no demeaning sense. To the extent that the amount of an advance under a policy exceeds the aggregate premiums and also to the extent that the 81,000 exemption is now available, it will be taxable. We anticipate that in most cases this will not result in a tax liability.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, since the minister fails to see the similarity between borrowing on the security of, for example, the family home and borrowing on the security of a life insurance policy, can he tell the House whether he will consider refunding the tax assessed on policy loans once they are repaid?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that there have been advances made on policies, any advances repaid on the policies will be added for the purpose of increasing the amount of aggregate premiums and therefore increasing the ultimate taxable exemption. The difference between an advance on a life insurance policy and any other kind of advance by way of loan is that there is an obligation to pay other kinds of loans back. That is not the case with respect to life insurance policies.


PROPOSAL TO TAX BENEFITS OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES- EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Considering that many small businessmen now borrow on their insurance policies and deduct interest payments on those loans as a legitimate business expense, does the minister not realize that the cumulative effect of the two tax proposals relating to policy loans will be to force small businesses to make an attempt-not necessarily successful-to get financing from other financial institutions at much higher rates of interest? Has he consulted with his colleague the Minister of State (Small Business), to ascertain whether these tax changes are in the interest of the small business sector?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman might want to think about the mathematics of that. The small businessman would go to a banker to borrow at 12 per cent but he can get an advance on his policy at 6 per cent. In other words, the advance on the policy is a substantial benefit now and it seems to us it should be treated as an advance, which it is, and not a loan, which it is not.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy,

July 18, 1977
Oral Questions
Mines and Resources. A few days ago I asked the minister when he first learned that AECL had suffered a loss of $130 million on the sale of a nuclear reactor to Argentina. The minister said he only learned of it a couple of weeks ago. In view of the fact that he has frequently told the House that he reorganized the board of directors last November and at that time there were appointed to the board the deputy minister of energy, mines and resources, the deputy minister of finance and the deputy minister of industry, trade and commerce may I ask if his deputy minister, Mr. Gordon MacNabb, reported to him more than a couple of weeks ago that there was a loss of more than $130 million and what was more, a spread between income and expenditures of $290 million and why that was not reported to him more than a few days before the report was tabled?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would check the record he would see I indicated I had received precise advice on losses or more accurately, the provision for future losses because they are not losses that have yet been incurred this year to the AECL contract with Argentina a couple of weeks ago. It had been brought to my attention that there might be substantial losses with respect to the AECL operation perhaps a couple of weeks before that. It may well have come from the source to which the hon. member has just alluded. As to the precise loss with respect to that contract, my answer stands as it is on the record.


DATE MINISTER OF FINANCE WAS ADVISED OF LOSS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. I take it the purpose of appointing the deputy minister of the Department of Finance to the board of directors of AECL was for the purpose of keeping the Department of Finance informed as to the financial position of that Crown corporation. Was the minister advised anytime prior to the tabling of this annual report and financial statement that AECL faced a deficit of $290 million, $130 million of which was due to the sale of the reactor to Argentina?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the House that I was advised there would be a substantial loss anticipated showing on the books of AECL for the period being covered.


An hon. Member:: When?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated, it was a matter of some weeks-I cannot be precise-before the tabling. That is the tabling now a week or ten days ago.


SUGGESTION DEPUTY MINISTERS NOT BE APPOINTED TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I put the final supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The purpose of

putting busy deputy ministers on the boards of directors of Crown corporations ought to be to keep the government informed on what is going on, yet we find from the answer given today that the ministers were not aware of this until after the annual report was in preparation. Would it not be advisable, instead of putting pro forma representatives on the board of directors, to find people who could give time to this matter and report regularly to the government how they find the state of finances of the various Crown corporations to which they are appointed? Instead of putting deputy ministers on, who are already so busy with the work of their departments that they are unable to discharge adequately the responsibilities for which they were appointed, is it not time to change the method of dealing with this situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the hon. member is confusing the role of a director with that of an auditor of a corporation. In this instance the auditor of the corporation is also the Auditor General of Canada. The hon. member should recognize that it is the responsibility of directors to apprise shareholders of the size of a potential loss only when they are sure precisely how large that loss will be, and that is the purpose of the auditor. The auditor signed the statement on June 22; I believe it was submitted to the directors some days after that. Clearly, the directors would be out of order if they were to prejudge the statement of the auditor of the corporation, particularly when he is the Auditor General of Canada.


INFORMATION SUPPLIED MINISTER BY PRESIDENT OF CORPORATION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? My question relates to the testimony the former president of AECL, Mr. Gray, gave before the public accounts committee on February 1, 1977. Telling the committee how well the government was kept informed, at luncheon meetings with deputies of the department or with the minister himself, he said:
I think that AECL and I, personally, did more to keep other government offices advised of what we were doing than any other government office.
When Mr. Gray left the office of president of the board, did that kind of transmittal of information cease and not continue with the new chairman, Mr. Ross Campbell, and the president, Dr. Foster? Is the minister saying he did not receive from the new officers the kind of ongoing information which had been supplied by the former president?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure luncheons are a useful vehicle for transmitting information, but as far as I am concerned luncheons are not enough.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure the minister, on occasion, has breakfast and dinner as well. Is the minister saying that the present officers of
July 18, 1977

AECL including the chairman, Ross Campbell, no longer informs him or his deputy on the continuing basis on which Mr. Gray had supplied this information formerly, whether at luncheon meetings or at any other kind of meetings?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker, 1 have had the odd lunch with the director. I have had the odd lunch with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Foster, but I can tell the hon. lady that I have had many, many more formal meetings than luncheon meetings to discuss the affairs of the corporation. 1 do not just wait for formal meetings. 1 use the telephone a great deal. There is a good deal of discussion back and forth.


SALE OF REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-PERSON INFORMING MINISTER OF LOSS LEADER POLICY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say who told him, and when, that it was the policy of AECL to sell a reactor as a loss leader to Argentina. Did Mr. Campbell convey that information to him?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. lady is referring to a comment made by the chairman of the corporation when he said the corporation had sharpened its pencils, taken a major effort to secure a contract in the face of competition from foreign corporations and, in sharpening its pencils in order to get the business, might well have acknowledged it would not make a normal rate of return and that, indeed, there could be a small loss.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Do you call a loss of $130 million small?


Alastair William Gillespie: That is the interpretation I placed on Mr. Campbell's comment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is $130 million one of your smaller losses?


LA PRADE HEAVY WATER PROJECT-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF TOTAL COST-AMOUNT OF DEBIT ON FOREIGN SALES OF HEAVY WATER
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources relating to AECL. I have given him written notice in the hope that I will get some specific answers from him. The AECL at the moment is building a heavy water plant known as La Prade, near Gentilly, Quebec. The annual report tabled by the minister a week ago last Thursday, which strangely enough had not been distributed to the public or the press, indicates that the 1974 total project authorization of $453 million is presently under review. Having had notice of my question, can the minister now tell me the current estimated total capital cost of the La Prade heavy water project in Quebec?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the corporation for the
Oral Questions
figures so that I might be able to provide an answer to the hon. member. It is quite true that he provided notice to my office with respect to this question. I think it important that he get a detailed answer. The corporation has indicated to me that they are not yet in a position to provide the kinds of figures he is seeking. I can give him an undertaking that as soon as they become available to me, I will transmit them to him.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, that is totally unacceptable to me and to every other member of this House. The question was asked not only to elicit information but also to get it on the record so that in case there is some type of coverup later in this House, the minister will be on the record. Certainly, information has reached some of us that the amount will be abhorrent. Can the minister tell us how much the Canadian debit is at the moment with respect to the sale of heavy water overseas? I understand that for this year alone there is a reserve amount of $30 million for a loss with regard to the overseas sale of heavy water. Having tabled the annual report, I am sure the minister will have these figures at his fingertips. Can the minister advise, and eventually I would like the answer in the House, the total loss on the overseas sale of heavy water?


Alastair William Gillespie: Going back to the first part of the first question, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must recognize there has been a very specific escalation in capital costs over the past three years in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member is familiar with the situation, he will know about the escalation in the costs of steel, refinery costs-


An hon. Member:: Syncrude.


Alastair William Gillespie: Even the Syncrude plant. It is for those reasons I want to get as accurate a figure as I can before providing the hon. member with that information.
As to the question about the obligations or the exposure of the corporation with respect of overseas sales of heavy water, if the hon. member will look at the annual report which has been tabled, he will see that $30 million has been provided for future losses of the corporation.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: This year.


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker. The important point is that these are not losses that are being incurred this year. It is provision for future losses, which might take place over a period of five or more years.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I wonder if we could have assurance from the minister on two grounds. First, will the loss on the La Prade project be greater or lesser than the Argentinian project? Second, if it is greater, who will he have left to fire in AECL for that?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence at the moment that there will be a loss with respect to the La Prade
7742

July 18, 1977
Oral Questions
heavy water plant. There is evidence that there has been an escalation in costs as there have been with respect to all major capital costs in this country over the past three years.


HOUSING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the July 31 deadline for CMHC approval of the St. Lawrence housing project in Toronto, if work is to commence on October 1, which will create 500 badly needed construction jobs, can the minister or his parliamentary secretary inform the House whether approval will be given before that date?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to advise the hon. member that last week the minister advised Mayor Crombie that he agreed in principle with the St. Lawrence project which, as the hon. member stated, will create many jobs.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This isn't the late show. Just answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POSSIBILITY OF GASOLINE RATIONING-GOVERNMENT POSITION-ALLEGED LACK OF EFFORT ON CONSERVATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister recently stated that gas rationing is a real possibility in the future and that his department has already prepared rationing legislation. Will the minister inform the House when he will be tabling that rationing legislation and can he give some indication as to when it will be necessary to begin rationing?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, very shortly after the embargo in 1973, work was started to provide a contingency plan for Canada in the event we would not have supplies as a result of the embargo or for other reasons. That work proceeded. When the Emergency Supplies Allocation Board completed its work a year ago, the work was set aside. It has been completed and it can be put into force. It requires an act of this House to do so. I do not intend to table the bill at the present time. Quite clearly, I think it is prudent that we have legislation ready to go and more particulary the system ready to go for the allocation of scarce resources in the event it is needed. However, I hope it never will be.


A. Daniel McKenzie: As the International Energy Agency cited Canada for below average conservation efforts last year and as the minister has frittered away four years of opportunities during which this country could have made a good start toward self sufficiency, not self reliance, in the late eighties, is the government prepared to admit its responsibility where rationing is imminent?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated to the hon. member, it is prudent to have a rationing system worked out which has been thoroughly discussed with the members of the industry so that if a rationing system becomes necessary, it can be implemented very quickly. It would be very helpful for the people of Canada and perhaps members on this side of the House if members opposite would take a more positive interest in some of these questions and put forward a few ideas. I cannot recall a time when the Conservative party has been as bankrupt of ideas in the energy field as it is right now.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I suggest that the minister read the committee meeting minutes as well as speeches made in this House by members of the opposition. We are not the government. They are the government. The IEA has stated that Canada ranks fifteenth out of the 18 member nations. How can the minister say he has an all-out effort with regard to exploration? When will he be giving us his new rules and regulations needed for frontier development?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is misleading the House, I assume inadvertently, when he says that Canadian efforts with regard to conservation and the development of an energy policy lag so far behind. If he were to read the transcript, he would find that in almost every area Canada has moved ahead very substantially. The one area where Canada was criticized, and this is the area where the hon. member's party has had so much trouble making up its mind, was that we had continued to keep our price significantly below the world price. I have not heard the hon. member or his colleagues arguing that Canada should raise the price of its oil. Indeed, they have been absolutely silent with regard to this fundamental question on energy policy in this country.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to at least two departments of government and I had intended, therefore, to put it to the Prime Minister. In his absence I will address it to the Acting Prime Minister, which will probably be appropriate since the Acting Prime Minister today is the Minister of Finance. Now that the President of the Treasury Board has been able to announce the lifting of the freeze on the salaries of senior civil servants, although he has promised us that in 1977-78 no public ser-
July 18, 1977

Oral Questions ENERGY
vants will earn more than $62,500, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government will consider the serious needs of senior citizens and of war veterans and give the green light to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Veterans Affairs to increase the basic amounts of the pensions which come under their jurisdictions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government has, of course, been continuing to give serious consideration to these matters but I regret I cannot give the green light to the hon. gentleman's request at this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I really have two supplementaries to ask, Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed, but in case I am permitted only one I will direct it to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Now that it is clear that money is available for some purposes, will the hon. gentleman go all out to win an increase in the basic disability pension and get rid of the wide gap which presently exists?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1 will do what I have done on previous occasions. 1 will put forward my best efforts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare do the same?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is the most depressing answer we have had yet.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Today's newspapers report that the minister is going to meet the representatives of the Confederation of National Trade Unions. Can the minister give us an indication of the purpose of those meetings?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a meeting planned for the next day or two with leaders of the CSN for discussions along the lines of those conducted with the CLC and the business community concerning the various options the government is considering with respect to a decontrol period. This is the meeting to which the hon. member may be referring.


DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN NEWFOUNDLAND AND QUEBEC ON DEVELOPMENT OF HYDRO PROJECTS IN LABRADOR-POSSIBLE FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it relates to the meeting held between the premiers of Quebec and Newfoundland with regard to the development of alternative sources of hydro energy in Labrador. Has the hon. gentleman's department taken any part in these discussions or, if not, has any approach been made by either provincial government for federal participation or financial help?


Alastair William Gillespie: There was no federal participation in these discussions nor did I receive a request from either of the provinces that there should be.


Jack Marshall: Since there is a source of hydro power available on the Lower Churchill and having regard to the energy shortage, would the minister take the initiative by approaching the two premiers to ensure that this development goes ahead in the best interests of the country? He has already offered $340 million to Newfoundland in connection with the development of the Lower Churchill.


Alastair William Gillespie: I took that initiative a long, long time ago. I am still waiting to receive from the government of Newfoundland updated information with respect to Gull Island. I am ready to sit down and discuss what I consider to be an asset of national importance, but I need that information, and it lies, right now, with the Newfoundland government.


IMMIGRATION
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: A question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. I recognize it is the minister's duty to carry out the provisions of the Immigration Act but I wish to raise with him today a matter which concerns human rights, one which I brought to his attention three weeks ago. The issue is not specifically James Peter Joseph Kennedy but the principle involved. This man has been held in maximum security in Vancouver, since May 27, nearly two months, now, on the suspicion that he is really someone else, an Irish terrorist, although no criminal charges have been laid in Canada and no public hearing has been held here, and no extradition proceedings have been commenced either against Kennedy or against the other man, McCann. I should like to ask for what reason the deportation order was issued and whether the appeal to the Federal Court, already lodged, will be heard before the order is executed?
80020-26V2

July 18, 1977
Oral Questions


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that a person known as James Kennedy was ordered deported on July 14, 1977 for being a person who had been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. Counsel for the person known as James Kennedy have commenced legal proceedings before the Federal Court. My officials are studying the implications of these proceedings as they relate to the execution of a deportation order.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: When will Mr. Kennedy be deported and to what country-or will he become another General Quang?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, I think one clunker is enough, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this gentleman would be deported to Northern Ireland and the time is to be determined following the investigations which our counsel are making into the implications of his filing an appeal notwithstanding that a deportation order is ready to be put into effect.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It concerns the discussions held, and agreement signed, with the Province of British Columbia recently. 1 should like to ask the minister whether there was any reference in these discussions or in the agreement to the very special socio-economic implications to Northeast British Columbia which would accompany the construction of a pipeline. I should like to ask the government, specifically, whether it is the intention to require from the pipeline companies some kind of guarantee with respect to socio-economic effects both while the line is being constructed and afterward.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, obviously during our negotiations and discussions the possibility of building a pipeline was also considered, but we really could not, at that stage, look into the details of its social and economic implications, so that, in fact the agreements signed at that time do not concern that project as such. Naturally, when a decision has been announced and construction starts, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, as well as the British Columbia department of economic development can pursue negotiations further with a view to seeing how those agreements can be of benefit to the regions concerned.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF GUARANTEE BY COMPANY TO BRITISH COLUMBIA WITH RESPECT TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
Frank Oberle: A supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the National Energy Board has recommended that up to $200 million should be deposited to deal with the socio-economic impact on the Yukon Territory, is it the intention of the minister to require that companies which would be involved should meet a similar requirement with respect to areas of northeast British Columbia through which the pipeline would be passing, since those areas are just as sensitive in economic and in environmental terms as is the Yukon?


Alastair William Gillespie: The whole question of the nature of the decision to be made will, of course, have to await the outcome of a debate in this House which I believe has been set for early in August. That is the time when all members can make their input. The government will then make its decision on the basis of that input and of other evidence before it, sometime in August. That is our plan. We shall also be ready to consider further representations if they are put forward on this question during that period.


POST OFFICE
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Postmaster General. Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether the review of the Post Office practice of selling household directories to commercial interests has been completed and, if so, what decision has been made in this regard?


HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS BOARD
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that millions of Canadians would like to see the government take appropriate action to honour a distinguished former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development prepared to reconsider his unwillingness to intervene with the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board concerning their refusal to designate the home in Neustadt, Ontario, which was the birthplace of the
July 18, 1977

right hon. gentleman, as a national historic site as long as the right hon. gentleman is still alive? I ask this question in view of the fact that the home is in private hands and both the local council and the county council are very anxious to see this action taken.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board is an independent commission which deals with these matters. It was set up in that way to make decisions in a non-partisan way. At the present time, its policy is not to recognize living politicians in that way; but I have asked them to review that policy, and 1 am awaiting that review.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I hear they are buying Mr. Pepin's house.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue in charge of customs. I wish to thank the hon. lady for sending me a report on the subject matter of my question, although regrettably it is not encouraging. Several international charter flights have been prevented from landing at the Sydney airport, supposedly because of inadequate customs clearance facilities, according to certain bureaucrats in her department. Indeed one flight was forced, after landing at Sydney, to then fly to Halifax for customs clearance before returning to Sydney. Because this new regulation is creating great hardship and cost, not only to those who wish to visit Cape Breton island as tourists, but is hindering our tourist industry, would the minister be good enough to have this situation investigated further in order to have this problem corrected? 1 am informed that there are adequate facilities and manpower to take care of these charter flights?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that since 1 am responsible for a department providing services, I shall look further into the situation. I ask him to provide me personally with the details on the incident to which he referred. 1 should, however, like to take this opportunity to correct the impression he gave about the bureaucrats and existing facilities and so on. He knows full well that Parliament and the Canadian people have to keep some control over expenditures; we made arrangements for Sydney to accommodate certain chartered flights, but the airport is not classified as an international airport.

I wish him an international airport at Sydney one day, but we have not reached that point yet.
Oral Questions


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. lady for her answer; but in view of the fact that customs have been clearing international flights at this airport for many, many years, the magic number of 42 passengers comes up. Where was this decided? How was it decided that 42 passengers is the limit which can be cleared? In fact, a Concorde landed at that airport and they cleared some people there. Therefore, it would be in the interests of creating more jobs, which are badly needed on Cape Breton Island, if we could hire some more customs officials to clear some people there as they land.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, 1 will transmit this request to the Treasury Board.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that a new extended CARE hospital has officially opened at the medical science centre at the University of British Columbia, but two-thirds of it must remain closed to a long waiting group of elderly sick while 200 nurses receive unemployment insurance benefits, and since the reasons given for their refusal to take work violates UIC regulations, will the minister consider moving to discontinue benefits of those who refuse to take the jobs available?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the situation is that some benefits have been disallowed as a result of some nurses refusing to take these particular jobs. It strikes me this is a situation, given a surplus of nurses, where we can use the immortal words of Horace Greely: "Go west, young woman", as well as some young men who have taken up this respected profession.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed the Minister of Labour. In view of the recent study which showed that foundry workers at Dominion Foundries and Steel Company have 41/2 times the risk of lung cancer as workers in other parts of the plant, and in view of the health hazards in other industries as well and the lack of progress that is being made in cleaning up the work environment, I wonder if the minister can tell us when we can expect the establishment of the long promised Canadian centre for occupational safety and health to help co-ordinate and implement measures to protect workers' health and safety?

July 18, 1977
Oral Questions


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would hope by the end of this year, or at the very latest, the early part of next year. I should add that the interest of the hon. member is appreciated. By and large, discussions with the provinces have gone very well. They are desirous of participating with this agency, as are many in the business and labour communities.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can inform the House as to whether he has agreement from all provinces to participate in this centre? Because a lot of provincial jurisdiction will be involved, what kind of muscle will this centre have? Will it merely be an advisory kind of body?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, it is not an invasion in any sense of the word on provincial jurisdiction. In a sense we have a responsibility to our own workers in federal jurisdiction. Because of substantial resources and expertise within the various government departments already devoted to this subject, we are proposing that they be brought together and co-ordinated through one institute which can marshall the resources, the research and the expertise necessary to stay on top of new and exotic noxious substances. They are always being introduced as new technology comes into place within the manufacturing industries and industry in general. In that sense, we are trying to stay contemporaneous with new developments in the work place and to protect the workers against harmful effects to which the hon. member has just referred.
To reiterate, there is no invasion on provincial jurisdiction. I have talked with ministers of some provinces and my officials have talked with them as well. The ministers to whom I have spoken have welcomed this initiative very much. If it has the participation of the provinces under the aegis of the federal government-business, labour and some type of tripartite apparatus-then their findings will have tremendous political momentum behind them for implementation and for acceptance within the general community.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am wondering if he can tell us what action the government is taking to ensure that the Skagit Valley in Canadian territory is not flooded, as a result of a decision by Seattle Light and Power to raise the Ross Dam in the State of Washington?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to make inquiries on this and communicate directly with the hon. gentleman.
[Mr. Symes.)


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the answer on the record. While the minister is inquiring, I wonder if he could inquire also as to whether the government can give the assurance that it supports the government of British Columbia in its efforts to have a second look at the International Joint Commission agreement under which the Ross Dam was to have been raised, as underlying this present dispute?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to make that inquiry as well.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM DATE OF STATEMENT ON DECONTROL
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the minister has indicated on several occasions that he will be making a statement before the end of July with respect to the decontrol phase the government might be considering, could he indicate today more definitively when that statement will be made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will go to see my counterparts in the Atlantic provinces to discuss their approach to decontrol. On Wednesday I will see the government of Quebec, which will mean by that time that we will have consulted with all ten of the provinces. I anticipate bringing this matter before my colleagues in cabinet toward the end of the month. Naturally it will depend on the outcome of the cabinet decision, but I hope to be able to make it not later than the departure of cabinet for the summer at the end of the first week of August.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. As prices are increasing at an annual rate of 10 per cent over the first six months of this year, can the minister tell the House what factors he expects will slow this very rapid inflation; and in general can he tell the House whether he still sees the "underlying trend to lower inflation" that he saw in his last budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In general, Mr. Speaker, yes. The fact is, of course, that in the first six months of this year food prices increased because of the increase in the cost of imported food. We feel that those costs by now have been absorbed into the system, indeed that Canadian foodstuffs will be coming into the consumer market within the next few weeks and that we should see a reduction on that side. I would have to recognize, on the other hand, that
July 18, 1977

the further increase in petroleum and natural gas prices later in the year will be a countervailing factor.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council the government's intentions regarding business for today?


Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to begin this afternoon, as the first order of business, third reading of Bill C-51. As for items of business to be proceeded with thereafter,
1 should like to reserve the opportunity to consult with hon. gentlemen across the way, and I will be more specific about that later in the day.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I presume there is no difficulty in the government ranks in terms of votes today if we finish proceedings?


Ralph Goodale: That is correct presumption, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my ever vigilant parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Game-lin, has pointed out to me that in answer to a question from the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra I inadvertently said that a person known as Kennedy would be deported to Northern Ireland. That should, of course, be the Republic of Ireland.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is rarely that I rise on a point of order arising out of the question period, but having given notice to the Postmaster General of my intention to ask a question, and knowing that on Friday afternoon things fell apart over there rather badly, but not realizing the decay had reached the point that it seems to have reached today-I am very happy to know that one parliamentary secretary is awake in the House-having checked the list, I see that there is a parliamentary secretary for the Postmaster General, the hon. member for Saint-Jean. My question was straightforward and simple. I understood that the Postmaster General, who I realize has to be away today, was prepared to answer it, and I cannot understand the complete and utter silence with which my question was met.


Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I understood the question to be addressed to the acting minister; therefore, I did not rise at once. However, I missed my chance. The information that I have is that a decision has been taken, although I do not have a breakdown. I will gladly try to get an answer tomorrow for the hon. member.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,404, 1,405, 1,645, 1,947 and 2,760.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Is (a) DREE (b) the Department of Finance (c) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware that APEC's Fifth Review (1971) states that the richer provinces "continue and expand their own industrial incentives programs that lessen the effectiveness of the programs pursued in the poorer provinces"?
2.	Do the Departments agree with this observation made by APEC and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Have any of the Departments taken any initiative in response to this situation and, if so, with what results?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: 1. Yes.
2.	DREE has no evidence that incentive programs pursued by the wealthier provinces have had detrimental effects on its own activities in support of industrial development in the poorer provinces under the Regional Development Incentives Act.
3.	See answer to part 2.
In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned: 1. Yes.
2.	The department could agree with APEC's observation as a reasonable hypothesis, though not as a statement of demonstrated fact. As the same APEC review noted, evidence is lacking on the true impact of provincial development programs and on the actual effect of individual provincial programs on each other. The review recognized specifically that "quantitative and qualitative comparisons are difficult because of varying emphasis of activity for industrial development in the provinces, frequent changes in individual development in the provinces, frequent changes in individual provincial development programs, and the lack of data".
3.	The department has not taken any initiative of the type mentioned.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Yes.
2. The department has no evidence that incentive programs pursued by the wealthier provinces have had detrimental effects on its own activities in support of industrial development in the poorer provinces. Because departmental programs are largely in the form of grants and provincial programs

July 18, 1977
Order Paper Questions
largely in the form of loans, assistance, in fact, is often complementary.
3. See answer to part 2.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Do (a) DREE (b) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce accept the viewpoint that in general the costs of production in the secondary sector are higher in the Atlantic Region than in Ontario?
2.	For the industries (a) food and beverages (b) wood products (c) paper and allied (d) primary metal (e) metal fabricating (f) machinery (g) chemical and allied (h) textiles and clothing (i) electrical products (j) transport equipment (k) furniture and fixtures (1) printing and publishing, which factors or costs of production (i) financing and financial services (ii) land (iii) buildings (iv) machinery and equipment (v) energy (vi) transport of inputs (vii) tariff on inputs (viii) material inputs (ix) wages to labour (x) management and other professional salaries and fees (xi) fringe benefits for employees (xii) profits (xiii) transport of product to market (xiv) marketing (xv) local taxes (xvi) provincial taxes (xvii) federal taxes, are significantly higher or lower than those in Ontario and by what percentage?
3.	As an average over the past five years for the secondary sector for (a) Atlantic (b) Quebec (c) Ontario (d) West, what percentage of (i) financing (ii) material inputs (iii) machinery and equipment came from within the region?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. (a) and (b) See answer to part 2.
2.	The answer to this question would vary from one firm to another depending on many factors, including type of product, specific location, markets, collective agreement provisions and corporate structure. To obtain the data requested would entail a detailed survey of all firms in the industries specified. The costs of such a survey, and the work that would have to be carried out by reporting firms, is considered to be prohibitive. Specific investigations are undertaken from time to time as may be necessary, particularly as part of the administration of the regional development incentives program.
3.	The departments do not have the data required to answer this question.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the Province of Newfoundland approached the government to assist in overcoming the problems in marketing being experienced by Labrador Liner-board Mill Limited in Stephenville, Newfoundland, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or the Department of External Affairs?
2.	Has any approach been made to the Export Development Corporation or to CIDA, to help explore markets for linerboard produced at the Labrador Linerboard Mill by the Province of Newfoundland?
3.	(a) What is the productive capacity of linerboard in Canada (b) what are the names of the mills producing linerboard (c) how much of it is sold to foreign and domestic markets and to which markets?
4.	Is Canada able to meet the demand of foreign and domestic markets for linerboard?
5.	Has there been any follow up by officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce after meeting with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, expressing concern over the deterioration of the Labrador Linerboard Mill?
(Mr. Goodale.)
6.	As a result of the tour of Trade Commissioners to Canada in December 1976 from seven European posts, what opportunities were elicited to and what information was given as to how Canadian businessmen could take advantage of opportunities in their countries?
7.	Did the series of seminars include Eastern Canada to provide the resources available in that part of the country and, if not, for what reason?
8.	(a) Who were the individual businessmen who met with the Trade Commissioners on December 7 and 8, 1976 (b) did any of them represent the fishing, mining or pulp and paper industry and, if not, for what reason?
9.	Were interest free loans or grants provided to foreign countries through the Export Development Corporation or CIDA or loan specialists for the establishment of pulp and paper mills or logging industries and, if so (a) in what amount (b) for what reason (c) did the government consider the effect on the Canadian market potential of such loans?
10.	What are the names of pulp and paper mills coming on stream in foreign countries on whom Canada now depends for pulp and paper markets?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs as follows: 1. The province of Newfoundland did approach the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to assist in overcoming the problems being experienced by Labrador Linerboard Limited in marketing kraft linerboard to world markets. Officials have supplied data on kraft linerboard exports, world trading patterns and pricing and current trade enquiries received through trade commissioners on a continuing basis.
2.	No.
3.	(a) The potential production capacity of kraft linerboard in Canada is some 1.3 million short tons, (b) The name of mills producing kraft linerboard in Canada are: Labrador Linerboard Limited (Stephenville, Newfoundland); Minas Basis Pulp and Power Limited (Hansport, Nova Scotia); Consolidated Bathurst Limited (New Richmond, Quebec); Canadian International Paper Company (La Tuque, Quebec); Domtar Limited (Red Rock, Ontario); Crown Zellerbach (Elk Falls, British Columbia); MacMillan Bloedel Limited (Port Alberni, British Columbia); Eurocan Pulp and Paper Company Limited (Kitimat, British Columbia), (c) About 65 percent of Canadian kraft linerboard shipments (excluding recycled liner) is sold in the domestic market. During 1976 domestic shipments of kraft linerboard were some 70 percent of total mill shipments; the balance was exported. The approximate percentage distribution of domestic kraft linerboard shipments to the various regions of Canada is as follows: Atlantic provinces (5 percent; Quebec (25 percent); Ontario (50 percent); prairies/British Columbia (20 percent).
The major export market for Canadian kraft linerboard is western Europe which, during the 1973-75 period, accounted for 70-76 percent of total export shipments; this percentage increased to 83 percent in 1976. Central American/Caribbean area accounts for some 10 percent of total Canadian kraft linerboard export shipments. Exports to the United States, the world's largest exporter of linerboard, are minimal. The trading pattern of kraft linerboard exports from Canada to other world areas is inconsistent and fluctuates extensively between countries.
July 18, 1977

4.	Canada has the potential production capacity of kraft linerboard to meet the demand of the domestic market and to increase exports.
5.	In addition to the follow-up referred to in (1) above, a packaging paper and board mission from Italy (including a representative of Italian unbleached kraft linerboard converters) has been invited by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to visit Canada in April of this year. Arrangements are being made to meet Labrador Linerboard representatives in Newfoundland.
6.	The purpose of the seminars was to inform the Canadian business community of market opportunities in eastern Europe by drawing upon the experince gained by the trade commissioners at their posts abroad and the various five-year development plans published by the countries to which they are accredited. Opportunities were identified for the supply of machinery and equipment required for large scale development projects in the forestry, mining and oil and gas sectors as well as for agricultural machinery and grain handling equipment, engineering and design services, electronic equipment, and special vehicles. In their presentations, the trade commissioners discussed methods of doing business in eastern European countries, the role of the foreign trade organizations, and how they could be of assistance to Canadian businessmen by establishing and maintaining contact with officials in the state agencies responsible for decisions regarding the purchase of foreign goods and services.
7.	The seminars concentrated on areas of the country where manufacturing capabilities correspond to eastern European import requirements. The Atlantic provinces were not included owing to the limited number of firms located there whose products coincided with eastern European interests. Since the volume, value and composition of imports into eastern European countries are controlled by the state, import licenses are only authorized for goods and services which are not available from domestic or other eastern European sources and which have a direct relationship to the achievement of the goals established under the various economic development plans. However, trade commissioners are aware of those firms in the Atlantic provinces offering goods and services for which there is a demand in eastern Europe and will continue to keep in direct touch with these firms in order to assist them in their marketing efforts vis-a-vis eastern Europe. The department's regional offices in the Atlantic provinces are also on a constant lookout for additional firms manufacturing products which correspond to eastern European import requirements. Other seminars have recently been held in the Atlantic provinces from regions where the market potential is considered promising. On April 2, 1976, a group of trade commissioners from western Europe held a seminar in Halifax. Unfortunately a seminar scheduled for St. John's, Newfoundland had to be cancelled due to bad weather. Similarly, visiting trade commissioners from South East Asia held seminars in Saint John, Fredericton, and Halifax June 17 and 18, 1976.
8.	(a) A total fo 194 interviews with individual businessmen were conducted on December 7 and 8. Since firms approach-
Order Paper Questions
ing the department for assistance do so on the basis of confidentiality, it would be inappropriate to publish their names, (b) No. According to our records no representatives of these industries made application for interviews on these dates. A representative of these industries did however attend the seminar on December 6.
9.	(a) $3,449,000-loan (b) To establish a mechanized logging system in the Sinharaja Forest in Sri Lanka, (c) The Canadian export potential for wood products to Sri Lanka on commercial terms has been virtually non-existent, as Canada and Sri Lanka have had no significant trade relationship outside of the development assistance program. The objective of the mechanized logging project was to encourage substitution for imports of plywood for the manufacturing of tea chests which would increase the profits from sales of tea, Sri Lanka's most important export product.
10.	For 1977 there are no new pulp and paper mills coming on stream in the United States, western Europe and Japan, which are the major markets for Canadian pulp and paper products. There are a number of additions to existing pulp and paper mills that will be increasing production capacity for the 1977/1978 period. According to trade sources, new pulp and paper mill projects have been announced in the United States, western Europe and Japan by: 1. Alabama River Pulp Company (Parsons and Whittemore Inc.-U.S.) 2. North Pacific Paper Company (Weyerhauser Company-U.S.) 3. Feldmu-hle, Haindle and PWA (consortium between Feldmuhle AG, Haindl Papier GMBH and Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffen-burg AG-Federal Republic of Germany).


Mr. Roy (Laval): 1.	During the fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, were any projects undertaken in the City of Laval (sewers, aqueducts, rain-water drains) under the various financing and subsidization programmes of CMHC and, if so (i) what was the nature of these projects (ii) who obtained the funds or subsidies, and in what amount?
2.	What programmes are planned for 1977-78?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 1. The following loans were approved to the city of Laval under section 51 of the National Housing Act, in the period 1974-76, to assist in financing the construction of trunk sewers and sewage treatment plant:
1974	1975	1976Loans	$000	Loans $000	Loans $000Sewer and pumping stations	2	909	- -	- -Trunk sewers	3	170	- -	2 8,210Combined sewers	2	282	- -	- -Storm sewers	-	-	- -	1 154Sewage treatment	-	-	- -	1 94
2. CMHC has been advised that the city of Laval is planning the following works with the related estimated costs, for 1977-78: 1977, water supply project, $2,250,000; combined

July 18, 1977
Order Paper Questions
sewers, $9,035,000; storm sewers, $2,264,000. 1978, water supply project, $549,000; combined sewers, $6,035,000; storm sewers, $250,000.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What industries are being subsidized by the government as a result of economic failure and, in each case (a) what type of subsidy is being provided and for what reason was it granted (b) what is the annual amount?
2.	What industries have been provided with support facilities, due to their lack of financing to provide the facilities themselves and, in each case, what are the actual facilities that were provided?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion does not subsidize industries as a result of economic failure. It does, however, provide incentives under the Regional Development Incentives program for the establishment, expansion or modernization of facilities which will make a significant contribution to economic expansion and social adjustment within designated regions. There are no industries being subsidized by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as a result of economic failure. The programs administered by the department are available only to companies with a financially viable prospect in order to strengthen the Canadian industrial base and to expand Canadian exports.
2. The following industries have been provided with financial assistance for support facilities which would not otherwise have been provided: (a) Book Publishing; In 1974, the department assisted the book publishing industry in creating an international annual trade fair in Montreal by providing display stands worth $500,000. (b) Textile, tanning, garment, footwear, and retail industries; The Canadian Colour and Fashion Trend Service was created in 1975 to gather information to enable Canadian manufacturers to anticipate consumers demand in both the domestic and international markets, (c) Footwear and Leather; In 1976, the Footwear and Leather Institute of Canada was created to assist the leather and footwear industries in acquiring highly specialized services in the areas of marketing, manufacturing, human resources and financial administration in order to improve the competitive capabilities of the manufacturers. The organizations listed in (b) and (c) above are administered by industry representatives. Since it is forecasted that these organizations will become self-sufficient, government involvement is temporary and limited to the formative years.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,208 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled

immediately. Once again, the reason for answering in this way is the lengthy and detailed nature of the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	For each year 1970 to date, how much (a) oil (b) natural gas was exported and, in each case (i) to which country (ii) at what price?
2.	For each year 1970 to date, how much (a) oil (b) natural gas was imported and, in each case (i) from which country (ii) at what price?
3.	Do the provinces export electricity and, if so (a) which provinces (b) what was their production in each case (c) how much was exported (i) by province (ii) totally?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had a long, detailed and definitive speech on the subject of this bill, but I think that it would be wise in the circumstances not to give it-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: the last couple of months have dealt with four bills put forward in my name in addition to their work on the penitentiary sub-committee of that committee. All the members of that committee, chaired by the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. MacGuigan), including the official critics, especially the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), have worked hard. I want to thank the members of the committee, and particularly those two spokesmen, for their work on the committee and for their constructive willingness to allow parliament in the best possible way to make progress, while objecting strenuously to features of the bill and points of policy.
I want to express my thanks to all those organizations which during the course of Bill C-83 and this bill took the time to make representations to the committee. Many representations were also made to me and to other members of the House, many of whom, at great effort and sometimes at great cost to themselves, volunteered their knowledge and expertise both to me and my advisers. I include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Mr. Byr-nart, Colonel Nicholson and other organizations who have taken an interest in this legislation.
Following upon comments in the media, while they are not generally the subject of plaudits from politicians in any quarter of this House, I should like to express my thanks to the many editorialists across the country who have taken a very deep interest in the matter of gun control and electronic surveillance, and who in that way made a contribution to this debate.
The sections of the bill relating to gun control deal with what I regard are the two essential purposes of the gun control legislation: to reduce the incidence of murders, accidents and suicides caused by guns, by a system of screening those purchasing guns and by a system of increasing the standard of care relating to the sale, disposition, storage and use of guns, without at the same time unduly interfering with what in this country is often the necessity of carrying a gun, for example, by the native people or the northern people who use guns as a way of life, and by people who use guns in a responsible and competent way as part of a sport or recreation. The two objectives must be to endeavour to reduce the number of incidents involving guns, without affecting the position of those in our society who require guns.
1 will mention one riding only because it is one in which I have done some hunting, namely, the riding of Comox-Alber-ni. The hon. member representing the riding has taken a deep interest in both Bill C-83 and this bill and recognized at an early date that the measures have to meet two criteria; first, that they be effective in reducing gun incidents and, second, that they do not interfere with responsible sporting and food gathering activities. That is a riding that I know well as having within it many fine sportsmen and people who come to the area from other parts of Canada or from the United States for
Criminal Code
purposes of hunting. The hon. member recognized those two fundamental principles of gun control and has been very helpful to me and to the government in advancing the proposals to this date.
There are a number of things that have to be done in the future. Obviously, one is that the bill must be dealt with in the other place. Secondly, as I undertook to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, we will establish the national advisory committee on firearms safety, made up of the chief provincial licensing officers, in order to provide consistency and co-ordination in the provincial application of the law, but also consisting of those interested in gun sports who have knowledge and expertise to contribute. I hope the committee will be established very quickly in order that the regulations which have to be dealt with under the legislation can be dealt with by the national advisory committee to ensure that they are sound. 1 would point to the provision of the bill which allows provincial attorneys general to either operate the acquisition certificate system themselves or to attach the requirements to their gun safety or hunting programs.
I hope that in future the wildlife groups and the gun clubs can be active, with the support of the government of Canada- both my department and that of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox)-in working with the provincial attorneys general to encourage the further development of competence programs so that competence may be attached as a precondition to the issuance of a federal acquisition certificate. That is an objective which the Canadian Wildlife Federation and many others have worked for very hard. I hope that with the passage of Bill C-51 we will have provided a statutory mechanism which will encourage the program in the provinces so that we will know at some time in the future that people with guns do not have criminal records involving violence, and that they are competent in the handling of guns and have passed a course in gun safety training.
We will be organizing at some time in the future an amnesty or recall program which is designed, not to take guns away from those who still want them but to recall unwanted guns. This has been tried on an experimental basis in a few communities in this and other countries, with some success.
With regard to proclamation, it would be my hope that, subject to the bill being dealt with by the Senate-I think I should make this clear to the House-the prohibition and the new offence sections, in which the committee took a great interest, could be proclaimed shortly after passage of the legislation. However, the acquisition certificate system obviously will take some time to establish. To do it too quickly would cause problems in administration, in public information, and confusion among hunters and dealers. Therefore, it is my objective to declare the prohibition and new offence sections as quickly as possible and to work toward the implementation of the acquisition certificate program in mid-1978 after extensive consultations are held with the provinces.
I could go on and give a long description of those sections of the bill relating to electronic surveillance, and to other aspects of the bill, but I think the House has debated this bill and its

July 18, 1977
Criminal Code
predecessor at great length. Extensive hearings have been held, both on this bill and its predecessor, by the committee on justice and legal affairs, and I think the issues are clearly understood. However, I say to the House, and to members of the media who have taken an active interest in those aspects relating to electronic surveillance, that extensive amendments to the bill were made in the committee on justice and legal affairs in seeking a proper balance which must exist between the civil rights of people and the right of society to protect itself. That was the objective of the committee, and 1 think, with respect, the committee has met those two objectives.
Because of the amendments made in committee, we have an improved law relating to electronic surveillance which has a number of safeguards built into it and which, at the same time, provides additional measures to law enforcement authorities to deal more effectively than in the past with organized crime. Electronic surveillance has been a controversial issue every time it has been dealt with by the House, and that is how it should be. When the legislation was first passed in 1974, the government undertook that upon passage they would monitor its operation for the next year to assess the implications of new legislation. I think I should reiterate the same pledge today. If this legislation is passed and these changes are made, there is need for me to establish a committee made up not only of provincial authorities, either police or Crown officers, but involving, also, eminent citizens from non-governmental sectors to assess and monitor the operation of the law and to make recommendations to the Solicitor General and to me on how the law operates and what, if any, changes should be made in the future. We want to monitor the operation of these changes from the point of view of their effectiveness in combating crime and their effectiveness in protecting the human rights and civil liberties of Canadian citizens.
I have cut down my remarks very measurably because I think there is a willingness in the House to deal with this issue this afternoon. This bill and this whole subject has been a matter of intense examination and discussion in this House, and I think there is a willingness, which 1 certainly share, to acknowledge that we have come to the end of this long debate and that we should deal with this question by way of a vote this afternoon.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of a very lengthy debate on these amendments to the Criminal Code. As I said with regard to Bill C-83, and as I said at second reading of Bill C-51, I cannot comprehend why the minister insists on linking together various distinct matters even though they fall under the Criminal Code.
Before referring to two or three particular matters, I would like to review what is in this bill. The bill deals with firearms control, commonly called gun control. It deals with electronic surveillance; in other words, wiretapping or, more clearly, invasion of privacy. Under this bill the authorities will be able to wiretap our telephones, bug our offices and bug our homes

and our cars. This legislation also deals with dangerous offenders and offenders formerly known as habitual offenders. It deals with people repeatedly convicted of such things as sex offences, which include rape or indecent assault of young girls. I discussed this at second reading and I also raised it several times when I was asking questions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). This legislation deals with custody and release of inmates under the Parole Act. With the exception of one amendment we have no difficulty accepting it. This legislation also deals with the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and after the report of the special subcommittee I am sure far more extensive changes will take place.
As I said at second reading, joining these parcels of legislation together is, in my opinion and in my party's opinion, totally irresponsible, reprehensible and devious. It is being done deliberately. This is an incompatible form of marginal, unrelated amendments designed not only to frustrate us at second reading but also at committee stage, report stage and third reading. Having dealt with the five matters which I say should have been severed, 1 would like to point out that at second reading we opposed this bill. We moved a motion to have the bill severed so that we could deal separately with those sections dealing with gun control, wiretapping and the other matters I have outlined. The most serious parts of the bill are those parts dealing with gun control and with privacy. The other matters are not so contentious.
A few days ago, after a tragic incident which took place in Ottawa, the Minister of Justice and other members of the government suggested that we in the opposition had delayed this bill. I think it is up to me to put on the record just what we have been doing since Bill C-51 was introduced. We spent two short days at second reading stage. We spent that little time on a bill dealing with five separate and distinct matters. We spent only eight days in committee. I stood against the group in committee which suggested we should hear two groups of witnesses, one group on gun control and the other on the invasion of privacy. To be fair to the minister, I should point out that actually there were three groups. There was one on gun control which was nicknamed CASAL because it was supposed to be a group embracing all the various organizations representing people interested in guns either as collectors or as sportsmen.
In spite of that, I have in my office, I would say without exaggerating, more than 5,000 letters complaining about this bill. We sat only eight days in the committee. All witnesses were shut off. Basically, closure took place in fact, if not in law. After hearing witnesses there was a clause by clause study. There were 73 amendments moved in the committee of which some 37 were either moved by myself, members of my party or by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).
Amendments with regard to wiretapping were moved by the hon. member for New Westminster and myself. The hon. member and I were in full accord; we worked out amendments together. However, with reference to gun control there was
July 18, 1977

some difference of opinion. There were 73 amendments moved, and of the 37 which were moved by myself or by other hon. members in the opposition, only four were accepted-and those were very innocuous amendments which really did very little.
The minister says that the gun control part of this bill is a panacea for crime. The minister says the murder of police officers which is taking place across the nation would not be happening if this legislation were in effect. That statement is false and misleading. 1 doubt whether anybody has an accurate figure as to the number of long guns there are in Canada. Someone in the committee estimated there are 11 million, someone else estimated there are 6 million. I am not here to say whether there are 11 million or 6 million, but I do say that there are millions of long guns owned by people in Canada and many of them have been owned for many years. Some people inherit long guns from their grandfathers. I have a shotgun which I inherited from my grandfather who settled in western Canada before the turn of the century.
I want to make it clear that whether there are 11 million or 6 million long guns in Canada, none of them is included in this bill in any way at the present time. Under Bill C-83 there would have to have been certain documentation in reference to owners of long guns, but that is not so under this bill. 1 emphasize this because with all those guns in our society "A" can sell "B" a gun-many guns have no serial numbers-and no one has any way of telling who is buying what or who is stealing what. When they say that this bill will stop murder, shootings, robbery with violence, they are misleading the people of Canada. Make no mistake about that.
I am now convinced-I was not so convinced when Bill C-83 came in-after reading a lot of mail and listening to the evidence, that murder committed by firearms will continue. I know long guns are not covered by this bill. I must say, however, that of the last three murders in Calgary at least one was committed by means of a restricted and prohibited weapon. We must recognize that gangsters who want to rob corner stores or hold-up banks will get firearms as long as they have criminal intentions. In the case of the Brink's truck robbery in Montreal, the parts for the machine-gun that was used were brought in from the United States and the gun was built by the robbers.
For the minister or other members of parliament to go across this nation in an election-and there may be one- telling the people that they gave them gun control, is not the answer, because there is nothing in this bill, except one thing which I will deal with in a moment, to stop murder, robbery with violence and the use of firearms. If a crackpot or an alcoholic suddenly decided he did not like his neighbour or a member of his family, and he went to the hardware store to get a gun, he would need a certificate. Once he got the certificate, however, for five years or more he could buy any number of guns-a whole arsenal.
Criminal Code
When it is claimed this bill would stop crime, I must say I have reservations about that. I hope the minister is as fair in future speeches on the hustings as he was this afternoon, rather than being unfair as he was the other night at the scene of probably the most tragic incident that has occurred in this city for many years. Let us be honest and let us be fair. Let us not play politics with murder and the killing of police officers. The House knows where I stand personally on such matters. Where it is premeditated murder, not only of police officers, and where there is a conviction on direct evidence, then I say some penalty other than the one we use today should be imposed. We had a free vote on that matter, however, and I will not get into it today.
I want to deal now with the method used by this government to produce legislation that is a matter of substance, not an administrative act. I realize we have orders in council to appoint George to this job and Nellie to that job, or to set up tribunals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: George and Nellie both being Grits.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When 1 talk about substantive law, and we are legislating amendments to the Criminal Code, that law should be brought before parliament for scrutiny. In committee, 73 amendments were offered to the bill during eight days of meetings when at times we sat ten hours or more. We sometimes hear that members of parliament are not working, but we know that if they are busy on committees, they are working. That goes for members from both sides of the House.
I moved an amendment which read in part as follows:
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-
I do not say it has to be debated then. Through their representatives, the Canadian people would be able to analyse what kind of law is being legislated by some body or some cabinet minister that may not exist at the present time. According to statements made by the Minister without Portfolio from Alberta (Mr. Horner) I understand there is going to be a cabinet shuffle. He leaves the impression that he is going to get a big job, and if that is so perhaps he will be making the regulations and not the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General. I put forward that amendment honestly, fairly and, I believe, concisely, believing as I do that that is no way to conduct the affairs of parliament and that it is against the democratic process.
Where offences are created in the bill by order in council or otherwise, the onus is placed upon the accused. Under our system of jurisprudence, which is the same in every Commonwealth nation that has adopted the system of the mother country, the onus is always on the Crown. The Crown must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In this legislation the reverse is the case. I have said it is more like the Napoleonic code than the system of criminal justice that has been the rule in Canada since confederation.
7754_________________ COMMONS DEBATES_________________ July 18, 1977
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, I should like to move on to something that excites me even more, in terms of misrepresentation. I presented three motions on electronic surveillance. In that regard I am talking about the invasion of privacy of the individual. I do not want to repeat what I said about the medical clinic or law firm, except to say that in order to catch one person by telephone, all the conversations of perhaps 35 doctors and their patients can be listened to for two or three months and everything can go in as evidence. That is total invasion of privacy. The same thing may take place in reference to lawyers. I should like to refer to a well-known authority in this connection, Mr. Speaker. In "Phipson on Evidence", ninth edition, at page 203, appears the following:
A client (whether party or stranger) cannot be compelled, and a legal adviser (whether barrister, solicitor, the clerk or intermediate agent of either, or an interpreter, Du Barre v. Livette, 1 Peake 108) will not be allowed without the express consent of his client, to disclose oral or documentary communications passing between them in professional confidence. This rule applies to the case where the legal adviser is provided under the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949-
The rule is established for the protection of the client, not of the lawyer; and is founded on the impossibility of conducting legal business without professional assistance, and on the necessity, in order to render that assistance effectual, of securing full and unreserved intercourse between the two-
Why is that rule there, Mr. Speaker? It must always be remembered that when the state lays a charge against an accused-whether it is murder, manslaughter or whatever- the state can gather evidence through its police officers who have the authority to do so and who have the technical know-how, the fingerprinting equipment, ballistic experts, and so on. Money is no object. The little fellow whose guilt has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, however, only has a lawyer interrogating police officers, trying to make sure that the facts going before the jury are the type that would permit the jury to find him not guilty. That is the purpose of that rule on privileged communications. It is for the protection of the people, not the lawyers and doctors. When they change the law and say it is not permissible unless a judge rules it within his discretion, that does away with that protection.
Under the common law we had far more protection than in the legislation that is suggested by the minister, which is supposed to change the common law to give more protection to the citizens of this country. Surely the minister could have accepted some of our amendments. Now he leaves it to the discretion of the judge.
With what kind of evidence will our judges deal? The judge will have discretion with respect to evidence which flows from the conversation itself and with respect to evidence not derived from the wiretap. But the entire question of the wiretap is to come under the discretion of the judge. The judge is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court of the land, which has said that if the matter is relevant to the issue, it is admissible. My amendment would have made not admissible evidence obtained from an illegal wiretap. Personally, I believe evidence derived from, or as a result of a wiretap, should not be admissible. Only in this way can we protect the due process of law. Now you know why we fought so strenuously against the changes the minister proposes.

I said the other day the rule of law is our only protection. There is no doubt that arbitrary power is today resented and feared to an even greater extent than in the late nineteenth century in the democratic states of the western world. The rule of law presupposes the absence of arbitrary power and so gives the assurance that the individual can ascertain with reasonable certainty what legal powers are available to government if there is a proposal to affect his private rights. A person who takes the trouble to consult his lawyer ought to be able to ascertain the legal consequences of his own acts and what are the powers of others to interfere with these acts.
The reason lawyers are apt to be critical of powers of delegated legislation and of the exercise by bodies other than the regular courts of judicial decision is in the uncertainty which these powers are alleged to produce. It is true enough that on many matters the law as administered in the ordinary courts is difficult to ascertain with any assurance. But in public law this uncertainty is accentuated by the bulk and detail of statutory instruments which are enacted by the departmental ministers as well as by the impossibility of predicting how, in the event of a dispute, discretion will be exercised, whether the last word rests with a tribunal or with a minister.
We heard today that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is to change retroactively the law applying to life insurance policies. Many of our little wage earners buy life insurance policies. Some of the money goes toward risk, the rest toward savings. If the policyholder needs a second or third mortgage for a house, because he may have one or two more children than he anticipated having, he borrows against the policy. Now the Liberal government has said that any money the policy earns becomes taxable immediately on the policyholder's getting a loan. We oppose that kind of law, just as we oppose the kind of law this bill will become, if passed in its present form. I was shocked at the Minister of Finance's arrogance in making his statement. He said, "We tax corporations. Now we shall tax the little people as well." The party opposite always tries to make out it is the friend of the little man. Look at what it has done.
The rule of law, Mr. Speaker, is based upon the liberty of the individual and has as its object the harmonizing of the opposite notions of individual liberty and public order. The notion of justice maintains a balance between these notions. There is an important difference between the rule of law as the supremacy of law over the government, and the concept of the rule of law as the supremacy of law in society generally. The first concept is the only feature common to the western nations, connoting as it does the protection of the individual against arbitrary government. But it is fundamental that there must exist some technique for forcing the government to submit to the law. If such a technique does not exist, the government itself becomes the means whereby the law is achieved.
If we allow evidence obtained from illegal wiretaps to be admissible in court, the entire administration of justice will fall into disrespect. We tried to make this point to the minister, but he refused to accept our views. He would not listen. As I say, it
July 18, 1977

is fundamental that there must exist some technique for forcing the government to submit to the law. If such a technique does not exist, the government itself becomes the means whereby the law is achieved. This is the antithesis of the rule of law. The government is, of course, a large bureaucratic organization, make no mistake; and the more it moves away from the pure doctrine of representative government into the murky area of the corporate state, the more bureaucratic it is likely to become. It is evident, if one views what has happened with respect to our large Crown Corporations, that parliament has lost control of those corporations which in themselves are large bureaucratic organizations.
Setting up a large bureaucratic organization to administer the Criminal Code by order in council is not good enough; and passing a law for allowing the police to wiretap illegally and bug people's homes and offices, and for allowing such illegally obtained evidence to be admissible, is also not good enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The mischief that has arisen to the public from inconsiderate alteration of our laws is too obvious to be called into question. The common law has fared like other venerable edifices of antiquity which rash and inexperienced workmen have ventured to new-dress and refine with all the rage of modern improvement. Hence, frequently its symmetry has been destroyed, its proportions distorted, and its majestic simplicity exchanged for specious embellishments and fantastic novelties such as wiretapping.
We intend to vote against this bill on third reading. We voted against it on second reading. The minister refused to accept our amendments, save two, innocuous in character. I proposed 73 amendments in committee, only to see the minister refuse all but two innocuous ones, as I have said. I shall move no more amendments, but leave it to the highest jury in the land, the Canadian people. They shall know the nature of this legislation which the minister clutches to his chest. They shall know the kinds of gun controls this government proposes and how the minister proposes to snoop, against all the dictates of conscience, into the lives of citizens. That is to be the law of this land, and the people shall know it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we should deal with a bill as important as Bill C-51 at the end of this session, for the bill will have far-reaching implications for the Canadian people. One wonders why we debate legislation of this sort on July 18. Two things always happen when the hot weather arrives. Something goes wrong with the air-conditioning, a coincidence which does not escape most people, and the government brings forward for consideration at the tail end of the session legislation it has found difficult to get through the House. We are told it intends to proceed with the immigration bill which the committee reported last Thursday evening, I believe. That the government should play games with the House of Commons and the people of Canada is bad. I point out that when the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) appeared on a CTV program last Saturday night, he said it is difficult to get legislation through
Criminal Code
the House of Commons at the moment. He wants an election to clear the air. With the stench that is around that department right now, a change of air would not hurt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: However, as far as getting legislation through, an election will not solve that problem. Whatever members are here from whatever party, they will want very closely to examine this piece of legislation. Two things concern us in the NDP about this legislation. The first is that we should be considering it in the dying days of the session, when the press and some members have gone home. Those who have not gone home are anxious to get home. They are quite justified in wanting to get home to see their wives and families. This is not the time to be dealing with legislation as important as this.
The second reason we are concerned about this legislation is that it has been framed in such a manner as to put the members of this House in an impossible position. This is a bill in which there are four or five distinct pieces of legislation. The only thing they have in common is that they deal with the Criminal Code. The bill deals with control over the kind of people who can purchase guns, obtain parole, who are classed as dangerous sexual offenders, and it also deals with electronic surveillance. There are members who will agree with some of the clauses in the bill, but not with others. That is why we have repeatedly asked that the bill be broken up.
We in this party have supported the minister in previous years and this year with respect to legislation which would restrict the kind of person who would be able to purchase a long gun. We think it is essential that people able to purchase deadly weapons should at least be able to convince the authorities that they do not have a criminal record, that they are not psychotic, that they are of an age and have had sufficient training to be able to handle dangerous weapons.
The Government has put before us this legislation with respect to gun control. It is a greatly watered-down version of what we had before. I do not think for a moment that it will prevent crimes being performed, or a lot of deaths resulting from the improper use of firearms. All this legislation will do is restrict the purchase of guns after it is passed. It will not do anything with regard to registering the millions of guns already around. However, half a loaf is better than none. I believe this legislation is a first step. It is a very cautious milk and water step. That is what we would expect from this government. They have never been noted for taking a strong stand and saying "Here we stand. We cannot do other". They take one step forward and two steps back. They have done that again with this legislation.
This is weak legislation in terms of gun control. However, it is better than nothing. It will give us a chance to ensure that guns sold in the future will not be sold to people who should not have them. We will develop techniques for registration in the years ahead, in the hope that this legislation will be strengthened even further. We are in favour of legislation controlling the sale of long guns. However, in order to express, in the third reading of this bill, our support for the bill, the

July 18, 1977
Criminal Code
minister puts us in the position that we have to vote for electronic surveillance-and that we are not prepared to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The whole question of wiretapping has been blown out of all proportions. We are told by some attorneys general and heads of police that electronic surveillance is absolutely necessary to deal with crime. I am sure many members saw a report by the New York Times service referring to a pamphlet put out by Herman Schwartz, the former New York State commissioner of corrections, entitled, "Taps, bugs and fooling the people". Mr. Schwartz says that electronics surveillance is a rending of the fabric of trust in a society without which free speech and association is not possible. He went on to state that since 1968, there have been 5,495 legal taps or bugs, and that they listened to 3.6 million conversations between 282,429 people. He points out that it cost in the neighbourhood of $11,000 per bug. He summed up by saying that the overwhelming majority of the targets were small-time gamblers and minor drug pushers. That was all they got for invading the privacy of 3.6 million homes or individuals in that area.
When legislation was introduced in 1974 to make it illegal for any citizen in Canada to indulge in wiretapping or electronic surveillance, we supported it. We did so because the government said at that time it would not allow the police to break the law. It said the police could not bug telephones, any more than any other citizen, unless they got authorization from the courts in the same way that they must get authorization for breaking and entering private property. The legislation before us gives the police the power to break the law. Under this legislation, an unlawful act is not illegal if it is committed by the police. The police cannot only bug an individual's home or place of business, but they can do it without authorization. They will not be punished in the same way as a private citizen.
The final iniquity is that they may use the fruits of their break-in as evidence in court. Does anyone think that a police officer will bother going to court to get authority to wiretap if he knows that he will not be punished for wiretapping illegally, and that if he gets anything worthwhile as a result of his fishing expedition, he can present it in court as evidence? In the television broadcast to which I referred a few moments ago, the Solicitor General, in one of his more unctuous moments, said the following:
-anyone who is a member of the national police force and who commits an illegal act can expect to be treated in the same way as an ordinary citizen-
That is absolute bunk.


Donald W. Munro: There is a stronger word.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know another word beginning with "b", but I do not want to use it. The fact is that the police will not be treated as ordinary citizens. How many policemen have been charged and convicted of eavesdropping or wiretapping without an authorization?


An hon. Member:: None.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Under this legislation they will further incentives to commit illegal acts because they will be told that the results of their electronic surveillance can be produced in court. We are being given a good example of this at the moment. The judicial inquiry which has been going on in Edmonton is a case in point. One member of the RCMP has appeared before the inquiry and said that another RCMP person told him they had bugged the rooms of three Edmonton policemen while they were in the city of Winnipeg. On June 9, my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) asked the Solicitor General about this incident, as reported at page 6465 of Hansard. What was the minister's reply? The minister said:
The deputy commissioner of the RCMP was delegated by the commissioner of the force to investigate the matter fully and as a result of his investigation it was found that no acts of bugging in connection with the investigation which the hon. member mentioned have occurred.
What did we find before the commission headed by Mr. Justice James Laycraft? Here is one paragraph:
The inquiry also heard assistant commissioner Peter Wright, head of the RCMP in Alberta, testify that Ross Paisley, Alberta's deputy attorney general, told him the bugging was a fact and not an allegation and that assistant commissioner George Paquette in charge of the RCMP in Manitoba at the time gave his approval at the time this incident occurred.
So the Solicitor General tells the House that the deputy commissioner had investigated the matter and found there was no wiretapping of these Edmonton policemen, yet here is the assistant commissioner in charge of the RCMP in Alberta saying he was told by the deputy attorney general of Alberta that assistant commissioner Paquette in Manitoba authorized the wiretapping of these three Edmonton men. Thus, it is clear that not only the bugging of the public by the police but the bugging of policemen by each other can go on under the existing legislation. I ask the House, then, to stop and think what will happen under this legislation now before us, under which the police, instead of being blamed and open to charges of having committed an illegal act, are allowed to use whatever evidence they collect in a court of law.
I say to the government that it is placing us in an impossible position. It is asking us to accept an erosion of civil liberties, an encroachment upon the rights of a free people, if we want to vote for the other clauses in Bill C-51. But this we do not intend to do. We intend to protest as strongly as we can against this invasion of the rights of Canadians. In the final analysis, we are talking about the whole question of the use of power. I think it was Lord Bryce who said that all power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.


An hon. Member:: Lord Atkin.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Lord
Atkin. That statement is true. The more power possessed by any individual or group of individuals, the greater is the danger that the power will be abused, the greater the danger that they will become so involved in the particular case they

July 18, 1977

are espousing, or a particular objective they are pursuing, that they will destroy the rights and privileges of others. One of the roles which parliament has performed for centuries at Westminster and for the last 110 years in this country is to see to it that too much power is never concentrated in the hands of any person or groups of persons and that no institution, even a police force, is allowed to become a state within a state, possessing powers which will allow it to sweep aside the rights of other people. That is what this battle is all about.
The government brings in a measure of this kind in the dying days of the session, though we ought to have an opportunity to debate it at much greater length. But there is no need to exhaust hon. members. The government is aware of the position we take. The country, too, knows our position. I want those interested to know that as far as the NDP is concerned we would vote for the other part of the legislation provided for in Bill C-51. But we shall not vote for a bill which contains provisions approving not only electronic surveillance but the right of the police to commit criminal acts and, going even further, allows them to use in court the evidence which they have secured by this method. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and by substituting the following words:
"Bill C-51 be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 thereof.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping this afternoon to speak on Bill C-51 generally, but as this amendment has just been moved, I merely wish to say a few words in its support since it is asking that the bill should not be read for the third time, but that it be referred to the committee for a more thorough consideration and I would add to elucidate its contents.
We are told in the House that since this government is in power, we only see those omnibus bills designed to make us take poison coated with chocolate. It is always the same thing with those omnibus bills and this is why we will never accept them, despite the fact that they have been introduced for many years. Afterwards, during the election campaign we are told that we have voted for or against it. There are fine provisions in an omnibus bill, but there are also some bad ones. There are some things that we cannot accept, but by refusing the omnibus bill to oppose the bad provisions, we oppose the good ones as well. The government knows that very well, rather, the officials know it very well, because they are the ones who prepare this kind of bills. Someone said a little while ago that after ten years in power any government is corrupt, I say that after ten years in the administration, an official is just as corrupt as the government. That is why bills like this one are prepared by only one official, and he is doing it for fifteen or twenty years, he is the only one able to put out such a sordid thing. Only officials can do a thing like that.
Criminal Code
It is not the minister who has been in charge of this portfolio for only one or two years who understands all these tricks, but his high ranking officials. We are being administered and directed by these technocrats, with the consequences that we know today. The government relies on these technocrats, because they are helping it gain power. A party should not seek and hold power with means such as these, with all sorts of hypocrisies; it should tell the truth to the public, because the public wants it.
The government would like us to swallow the wiretapping issue; as a matter of fact, it should have introduced not one, but four different bills, so we could deal with the gun issue separately from the wiretapping issue. By the way, I am always surprised to read subclauses such as this allowing the wiretapping procedure. Yet, the Prime Minister himself claimed during his first term in office that he was the champion of human rights. Incidentally, he said-when we were talking about homosexuals-that we had no business in the bedrooms of the nation. But what kind of authorization is he going to give to the police? That of searching everywhere, of wiretapping everywhere, to know what is going on, and not always in accordance with the law, Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in recent weeks. The RCMP admitted that it did not always have a legal warrant. We must not forget that wiretapping is a very delicate matter.
In the light of what we are being told these days I don't think I can trust anyone anymore. The RCMP has always been considered as one of the most honest police forces. But when we see what is going on these days, we cannot help wondering where Canada is heading, when a government such as this is giving all sorts of permission because it is in power. If such is the price of power, Mr. Speaker, I would rather not have it. Our laws should at least provide for more morality, integrity and sincerity:
I think this is a complete reshaping of justice, and not another intrusion in the life of honest people, on a plea of trying to denounce, to find a criminal. But there are other means to find criminals, Mr. Speaker, if the police really wants to do so. But on the pretext of finding a criminal, we search into the life of honest people, to know what happens in their homes, in the small community where they live.
This is what we have to prevent, this is what we think about when we see pieces of legislation as permissive as this one. I always see intrusions here in my province, in the province of Quebec, where the provincial government refuses authority; they do not want to pay for the federal police any more. However it goes there, it stays there and it is paid to go there. But do not forget that we should endeavour to prevent the police from playing politics, and we have virtually evidence it does so. We have been fighting for two years. We have reached the point where we can no longer call a taxation office or another agency without getting the federal police on the phone. If you ask who is speaking, the answer is: "The federal police". What are they doing there? We should wonder about this. Nowadays it has become impossible, even for a member of parliament, to have a discussion with any of the leaders of this country without him being attended by a federal police-

July 18, 1977
Criminal Code
man. I say "No!". Things have to be made clear, we will have to select our bills. When we are dealing with such a matter, a matter that has been dealt with in committee, this government should take the reports of this committee and study them.
We were talking a moment ago about these remarkable committees and the job they are doing. However, notwithstanding piles and piles of reports, not a word has been changed. In fact, 39 motions have been proposed in this House and all of them have been rejected. Government officials have told the minister: "That is what you should do. It is going to be this way, Okay!" So what is the use of working in a committee. I am not going to work there any more. It is hard and it is ridiculous. Look at what happened last week. If any average citizen had seen that, he would have thought that we are worse than children.
Mr. Speaker, I say that we should absolutely oblige this government to introduce real legislation instead of omnibus bills, legislation about precise matters we will be able to discuss thoroughly and especially, instead of listening to technocrats, they should read and consider the reports of the committees hearings. I think from there we will be able to work seriously, instead of referring the case from Caiaphas to Pilate, as it is the case now, so that we do not know who is responsible for whom and for what.
Mr. Speaker, I think that if we do not do that, if we go on proposing such mixture to the people, they are not going to consider us as serious legislators. As for me, I cannot vote for this bill in its present form. There are some good things in there, but, in its present form, I cannot swallow the whole thing. That is what I wanted to say to support the motion of the hon. member from the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I intend only to make a few brief remarks. I join with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) in expressing my protest at the way this bill has been introduced. To me it is an abuse of parliament to bring in a bill which has two parts, one having no connection with the other, and to ask the House to vote on them in a kind of package. What are we supposed to do? I had always understood that we voted according to our conscience, but in one part of this so-called package there is one measure we would like to vote for, however weak the gun control aspect of the bill may be. I should like to support it as a gesture, to indicate that there must be some stop put to the use of guns for violent purposes, that the picture must change.
I have tried to support the right to privacy of individuals in society, but I have no intention whatever of voting for a bill which includes these offensive provisions in regard to wiretapping. In the article quoted by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands which I think was printed in the Globe and Mail a few days ago, Tom Wicker quotes one of the greatest judges in the history of this continent, Mr. Justice Holmes. He described wiretapping and bugging as "a dirty

business". Mr. Wicker, who is a distinguished journalist, comments "and so it has proved".
I am not going into this aspect of the bill in detail. If it were effective, if the minister had brought in any evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of this method of apprehending criminals, we might have to take a different view. But no such evidence exists. In fact, nearly all the evidence is precisely to the contrary. Therefore, we are invading the right to privacy of individuals for no good purpose whatever. I suppose the reason for bringing forward this legislation is to please the police. I regard the police, as I imagine every member does, as being a very important element of our society, with a very important task to perform. But one task the police do not perform is the making of the laws of this country. I regard the subservience of the minister to the point of view of the police as something that is highly unsatisfactory and wrong.
I have had occasion in the last few weeks to wonder why the party opposite calls itself the Liberal party of Canada. I cannot think of anything less liberal than the way they have approached some of these matters. I was on the immigration committee where they put in a platoon system, and people who had not even heard the evidence voted down nearly all the constructive suggestions which were made. Personally, I would be ashamed if I were minister of justice in a so-called Liberal cabinet and I brought in this regressive, backward piece of legislation dealing with wiretapping which, as I say, infringes basic human rights.
I have said what I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker. I hope I have said it clearly and that at some stage or other the minister will start paying attention to the decencies of parliamentary life.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) to refer back to committee those clauses dealing with wiretapping. Every single day brings new insights into the whole question of wiretapping and the broadening of such powers which we are permitting in this bill. Personally, if I had my preference I would outlaw wiretapping and bugging by anyone, including the police and the law enforcement agencies.
I think the minister should be aware of the latest disturbing news, which is that Securicom of Canada Limited, a company which is an expert on debugging and specializes in locating bugs in rooms and on telephones, has been in communication with and offered a position to J. Gordon Liddy, a convicted criminal in the United States. I do not know how he will get by the Manpower department. The department will probably give this chap a work permit, with one million Canadians out of work, and he will be engaged in this very surreptitious business of working for Securicom detecting bugs and other listening devices.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There are a lot of bugs in the Prime Minister's office.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member says-
July 18, 1977

Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) to get back to the point under discussion, which is the amendment.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right, Mr. Speaker, and the amendment says that the particular sections of the bill dealing with wiretapping ought to be sent back to the committee. I point out to the Eiouse that this is a wise proposal because we ought to examine evidence which is coming in every day. The latest evidence is that a firm specializing in debugging telephones and rooms will be a magnet to some of the most unsavoury characters ever to come out of the sewers across the world, who will, in effect, be deployed on debugging each other. I just ask you to imagine, Mr. Speaker, this whole concept of counterbugging. In terms of trying to put the boots to organized crime in this country, this is a most stupid approach. Surely the criminal element will be the hiring companies like Securicom just as much as private citizens. For as many bugging devices that the law enforcement agencies come up with, there will be as many counter operations to circumvent the law and to defeat the whole purpose and thrust of this legislation.
In other words, it comes back to the question of who ends up being deprived of the right to privacy. It will be the private citizen in his communications with other private citizens, his lawyer, his doctor, his psychiatrist, his member of parliament, and so on. Therefore, I think the hon. member has made a wise proposal to refer these particular clauses back to the committee. If this were done, we could examine all of the latest evidence coming forward almost every day on the whole question of the use of bugging devices and wiretaps so that we can bust organized crime.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost.

July 18, 1977
Criminal Code



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)-Agriculture; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Transport; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)- Labour conditions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 now before us entitled Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1977, may not be the most intelligent one introduced by the government but it could go through history as the bill with the longest title and the most mixed provisions. As far as I am concerned it is a hotchpotch not to say a rotten bill. Here is its title: "An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act."
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with an omnibus bill, that is, a bill which includes amendments to a number of acts in various areas and which are connected only by the will of the minister who sponsored this bill. The minister could have included as well amendments on tomato growing, which the House would not have found particularly surprising. I have heard with interest the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) suggest that the bill introduced by the minister should be divided into several bills, so that following the debate on this bill, hon. members should not be called upon to vote at the same time on provisions of which they approve and on provisions of which they disapprove.
Yet, this is exactly what is going to happen following the decision the Chair has rendered on the basis of established precedents. I understand quite well why the government will not introduce distinct bills for each and every amendment it wishes to adopt in respect of existing legislation. It has chosen

this quite legitimate approach and refuses to introduce useless bills, because it wants to spare the House's time and resources.
Mr. Speaker, I feel, however, that the government should demonstrate judgment and good sense and avoid placing hon. members in a difficult situation. 1 know the Chair had no other choice but to accept the legislation as put forward by the minister since it is bound by precedents. However, I think the Minister of Justice could have remembered his experience with Bill C-83, when several members had protested against the fact that the bill included all kinds of things, and I think he has missed a good chance of showing members on both sides of the House his honesty and his willingness to co-operate with all the elected representatives of the people.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, this legislation the consideration of which we are about to conclude is nothing but the bastard offspring of Bill C-83 about which so much ink had been spilt and which had given rise to such an amount of criticism everywhere across the nation and especially with hunting and fishing organizations, and groups like the Wildlife Federation. Last year, I had the opportunity of working in close cooperation with those organizations. I was very proud when the government gave up trying to have the bill passed during the last session. For me, as well as for all those concerned by individual freedom, the death of Bill C-83 was a great victory. The hunters of northwestern Quebec who represent a major part of my constituents welcomed with relief the government's decision not to pass that bill, particularly not to force its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I probably have the greatest number of hunters among my constituents than any other member. I thus consider myself as the spokesman of all hunters and all nature lovers when I speak on this matter. My constituency, Mr. Speaker, is an immense territory full of game of all kinds and my fellow citizens take advantage of this unique chance to live close to nature. This exceptional geographical position is known by thousands of tourists who come to our area during the hunting season. So I know what I am talking about when I point out the concerns of hunters and nature lovers about Bill C-51. Obviously, the minister cannot say as much. He looked clearly astonished, during the sittings of the committee on Bill C-83, on hearing the specific and logical representations of the groups which appeared as witnesses against those elements of the bill that clearly interfere with the rights of the citizens. Mr. Speaker, I said at the time, and it still applies today, that the minister knows so little about the concerns of those who live in rural areas, close to the woods, that he probably would have a hard time telling the difference between a fir tree and a telephone pole.
Mr. Speaker, on this the last reading of Bill C-51, I shall dwell strictly on that part of it that deals with the control of firearms, as other hon. members have spoken and will speak about the other aspects of the bill. I shall use up my time to convey to the minister the concerns and worries of hunters and ordinary citizens in my riding as well as the rest of Canada. In his speech on May 11 last, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) averred as follows, and I quote:
July 18, 1977

As a result of the introduction of Bill C-83 and all the discussion which flowed from it we have been successful, in Bill C-51, in marrying the public objective with the need to protect the rights of certain people who, for responsible and legitimate purposes, use long guns in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to hurt his feelings and make him cry in the House of Commons, but I do believe it is my duty to tell the minister that once again he is completely mistaken if he imagines that Bill C-51, as it now stands, protects the public while also protecting the right of the individual to use guns for legitimate purposes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those who claim that the public will be better protected once this bill is passed are naive to a very considerable extent. Criminals will never be placed by this bill in a position which will prevent them from finding firearms. Criminals use the firearms they bought in the underworld and which cannot be traced nor identified by dealers. These firearms have been stolen and disguised especially for crime.
It is as ridiculous to claim that these criminals will be affected by this legislation as to believe that criminals are so stupid that they would have their firearms registered at the registration office and obtain a certificate before committing their crimes. In fact, we must recognize that criminals will not be affected by this piece of legislation. As in that past, they will obtain their firearms on the sly, that is on the black market which the government will never be in a position to control with the provisions of the bill which is now before us. So much for the protection of citizens!
As for the protection of the rights of individuals who possess and legitimately use firearms for serious purposes such as hunting or target shooting, the bill is not only useless and unefficient but plainly dangerous. Indeed, it will be left to officials to decide whether or not citizens will be allowed to possess or to use firearms. For instance, subclause 104(3) provides that decisions of the firearm officer are presumed to be valid, that they are supposed to represent the truth whether or not this officer has made an inquiry, that his conclusion be right or not, and that the citizen is presumed to be guilty. Mr. Speaker, that provision is completely contrary to what our judicial system stands for, namely that a citizen is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. In the case of Bill C-51, the firearm officer enjoys a presumption which compels ordinary citizen to bear the burden of the evidence, even if this decision is excessive and has been taken without prior inquiry or checking. That is a frightful aspect of the bill, Mr. Speaker. Canadians are not ready to accept this kind of dictatorship; they are used to be given the benefit of presumptive innocence and they are entitled to the extension of that presumption in all areas. Mr. Speaker, any legislative measure imposing the burden of the proof on the ordinary citizen is unacceptable. For that matter, if he wants to put Canadian citizens in the position of having to prove everything, the minister could just as well ask them to dip their hands in boiling oil to prove that they are innocent and protected by God. Was it not the way it was done in those days when people had to prove their innocence? This is a basic principle and the minister should amend the bill accordingly.
Criminal Code
I would like to give a few more examples of very questionable points. One reads in the following clauses, and 1 quote:
The accused, the citizen is presumed not to have had a permit, and it is up to him to prove it before the court, that is he is still presumed guilty.
It is forbidden to sell, exchange, give, lend, give up or deliver a firearm without the person receiving it showing his or her permit between individuals and the person selling, giving or lending has the onus of proving that the person to whom he gave, sold or lent had the permit.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, further cases where the onus is unfairly placed on the shoulders of the citizen. Here are, Mr. Speaker, a few more examples of clauses interfering with the rights of citizens.
Permits and registrations issued by bureaucrats may be withdrawn at any time.
The recognition of the validity of hunting permits (competency cards in the handling of firearms) under clause 105 (p. 130) is a purely discretionary prerogative of the governor in council.
Those are clauses, Mr. Speaker, and I will have an opportunity to quote others later, that take acquired rights away from Canadian citizens. Having a permit to own a firearm is no longer a right. It becomes a privilege. And that privilege will be administered by almighty public servants who will hide behind the authority of the cabinet to prevent law-abiding citizens from using their acquired rights.
Mr. Speaker, I have here an article by Jean Page, published in the Montreal-Matin of May 12 last. He writes the following about Bill C-51, and I quote:
Seizures without warrants, without crimes, without trials, and confiscation without compensation are the first legislative step toward dictatorship. Presuming decisions by bureaucrats imposing the onus on citizens to be right is the second step toward dictatorship.
And what benefits will Canadians get for the loss of their rights and freedoms?
Mr. Speaker, gun control is not an effective way to check crime. Take Switzerland for example. In that country, all adult citizens are required to own a gun under the law. Everybody must have one. Yet, the crime rate for aggravated theft and murder is quite low in that country. Far from controlling firearms, Switzerland requires its citizens to own guns and rifles.
On the other hand, in England where gun control laws have been very strict for more than 50 years, a study conducted by Inspector Colin Greenwood of the British police has shown that gun control had no effect at all in reducing the number of crimes committed with firearms. Indeed according to those figures, violent crime has greatly increased since 1963 in England in spite of gun control. There again, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that gun control will not reduce the number of violent crimes. We have proof of that. Some countries without gun control have very low crime rates, while others with controls are faced with soaring crime rates. If Canadians cannot even expect a decrease in the crime rate in exchange for this loss of freedom, what will they get? Nothing more, Mr. Speaker. The minister thinks that firearms are responsible for crimes and murders.

July 18, 1977
Criminal Code
Instead of controlling guns and their possession, he should be dealing with criminals through measures that would deter them from illegal actions. But the minister in his wisdom prefers to deal once again with firearms through Bill C-51, as he did with Bill C-83. Presumably, the Minister of Justice will some day introduce legislation putting guns in prison while criminals will go free. As far as I am concerned, the government is proposing to deal with material objects, putting the blame on them for inhuman acts by criminals and vile assassins.
Guns do not kill by themselves. Whoever saw revolvers walking down the street? They do not have the gift of motion. Punishing them for the acts committed by those who want to break the law is utterly ridiculous. But once more this year the Minister of Justice is proposing to do just that.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, gun control will victimize honest citizens, hunters and sportsmen that will have to submit to controls, while criminals will be able to do exactly as they wish, going on breaking the laws we pass in this House.
Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I had the opportunity to meet people who keep ammunition in their stores not for their own protection but for the use of hunter tourists, as I said the other week, to help them out. Of course, those hunters do not buy ammunition only, but a number of items they need for their survival in the bush.
And the minister or rather the government objected to an amendment to the bill put toward by a member of the Progressive Conservative party, asking for the withdrawal of the provision requiring the purchase of a permit to sell ammunition and even some items used for hunting purposes. The government, here again, has failed to listen to the legitimate requests of the small dealer and the small businessman who will have to pay even if it is not being done at the provincial level. A permit is sold under the provincial government authority.
I do not know whether the federal government is jealous of the revenue derived from this sale by the provincial government, but as I said, they feel obliged to interfere in an area which is not under their jurisdiction but which is specifically under the provincial jurisdiction, to sell another permit to the small businessman who to serve our tourists and hunters, will have to give up the sale of ammunition needed by some hunters, if they want to avoid paying more than they get from this sale. I think it would be appropriate for the government, even though the amendment is passed, to withdraw this bill immediately so that it can be considered even more carefully. Unfortunately, government members are looking forward to going home like many honourable members, and they introduced once more this legislation in a hurry, so that it can be passed as soon as possible.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have not participated to any extent in this debate up to this time. One of the reasons for my sitting back was the

fact that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) gave this party tremendous leadership in the area of Bill C-51.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member for Calgary North was very willing to co-operate with the government in every possible way to produce a more realistic proposal which, if he had been listened to, would have seen this House give unanimous consent to the passage of the legislation. As it is now, without the many amendments which were put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North, we find ourselves in a position where we have bad legislation which I cannot support. I am sure most members cannot support it if they take the time to think about it, both in regard to gun control and wiretapping.
Even at this late date the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) is not wise enough to accept the good advice which has been given both in committee and in this House by the hon. member for Calgary North, the effect of which would produce legislation that would be acceptable to all Canadian people. What we have is a bad bill that the government has been unwilling to move on. Unfortunately other things have come into this debate which are most unpalatable to me and to most of the members of this House.
The only other time I spoke in regard to this bill in the House was when I rose because of some reprehensible remarks made by the Minister of Justice outside this Chamber in relation to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), and the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). These remarks were completely unparliamentary, as far as I was concerned, and should have been removed from the record by the Minister of Justice. He still has an opportunity to do that at this late date. He reflected on the good reputations of those individual members of parliament.
The remarks of the Minister of Justice should not stand in relation to these particular members, as they were endeavouring to give the best wisdom they had in relation to this legislation. In regard to those five individual members of parliament the record will show, upon examination, that they voted for the retention of capital punishment, which is the greatest possible deterrent available to government to enforce law and order in this country. It should continue to be a deterrent for all time to come.
If the government is interested in trying to bring some sanity into an insane situation, as far as enforcing laws upon the people of this nation is concerned, it will have to bring in another amendment to the Criminal Code placing on the statute books the retention of capital punishment for capital murder. That would do more than all the regulations associated with gun control implemented at any time.
Legal wiretapping from this moment forward will become a total joke. With this legislation, police officers are told that they can illegally wiretap and then introduce the evidence they secure into a particular trial. Why would any police officer want to bother going through the formality of getting author-
July 18, 1977

ity to wiretap if he knows it can be done illegally and can be introduced in a trial for the purpose of producing a conviction?
My party is opposed to the wiretapping aspects of this legislation. The hon. member for Calgary North has put on the record how cosmetic wiretapping is. Out of 1,062 attempts, evidence which assisted in finding a person guilty of a specific crime was only secured on 13 occasions. When one considers that, he realizes just how little value wiretapping has in the first place. When you think of the encroachment on individual rights and liberties associated with this legislation in its present form, one can well understand why members of parliament have stood up and indicated their concern relating to those sections of this particular piece of legislation which are associated with wiretapping.
Apparently the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) has found time to go on television and tell the Canadian public that we should have an election. One has to remember that he is the man who is in charge of the police forces in this country. He sits as a member of a majority government which has been in office for only three years. Yet, he says the government cannot run the country, that the government cannot get legislation through the House of Commons. All I can say is that if the Solicitor General admits to the Canadian people that the Liberals cannot run the country with a majority government, then how many members do they need on the government side before they can run the country as efficiently as the Solicitor General would like?
The Solicitor General cannot run his own department. He cannot produce legislation associated with a report on penitentiaries produced by a sub-committee which was agreed on unanimously and which detailed how badly penitentiaries were being operated at the present time. Apparently the Solicitor General cannot control the RCM Police and has to have a special inquiry into their operations. Yet this same member goes on television and tells the people the government cannot run the country, after three years of majority government.
We have been saying that the Liberals cannot run the country for quite some time. 1 am very pleased that the Solicitor General has taken time out of his busy schedule, and away from all the inquiries revolving around him, to tell the Canadian public that the government of today cannot operate in a parliament where it has the majority of the seats. Apparently he is hoping by some magical formula that the Canadian people are going to eliminate the opposition altogether. 1 imagine that is the only way he feels the government can function properly. But the Canadian people are not going to provide the government with the power to eliminate opposition so that the government can operate by edict.
I feel very badly about the fact that a majority is giving the government the power it now has in Bill C-51. To a far greater degree than in the past the government is going to regulate the lives of Canadians by interfering more and more with their rights. A general election will solve nothing. The government already has a majority mandate from the Canadian people,
Criminal Code
and rather than running around, getting on television, and saying we should have a general election, hon. members opposite should go back to their offices and get their work done. If they did the people of this country would have some confidence in the way hon. members opposite operate the government.
I see the Minister of Justice in his seat. I ask him once again as a House of Commons man to eliminate once and for all any smear that he might have inadvertently left on the reputations of the hon. members for Red Deer, Palliser, Moose Jaw, Kootenay West, and Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) resulting from the injudicious remarks he made outside the House about the contributions of those members in the House. I think it is terribly unfair that a member of this House says outside the House anything about what another member said in the Chamber. As conscientious members of parliament they were speaking in a debate in the House and endeavouring to indicate what were their concerns about a piece of legislation that is troubling a great many Canadians both inside and outside this Chamber. I hope that when 1 sit down the minister will be willing to do what I suggest. His remarks were something injected into this debate which was not required and added nothing. All members of this party were terribly upset at his injudicious comments, and we hope that the minister will clear the record once and for all.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately time is moving on and for that reason I feel reluctant to say what I would normally say in a third reading speech. 1 think this legislation is very bad. That is pretty well the opinion of the chiefs of police as well; they indicated they were very sad that the minister has not done for them what they wanted him to do. They referred to the fact that the Carter administration in the United States is in favour of electronic surveillance and that the minister should do what they want. 1 presume that that means to allow unlimited surveillance. This is probably what the police will carry on anyway. They have never been too law-abiding in their enforcement of the law on others.
I am wondering whether they are really saying that they believe that the Carter administration in the United States is going to allow the police to use all kinds of wiretapping equipment without the benefit of court protection and then allow the use of that illegally obtained evidence to be used in court. I would doubt very much, knowing the reputations of the United States courts, that they would allow illegally obtained wiretap evidence to be used in them.
1 suppose it is like people eavesdropping on everybody else. With the old party line telephones, if there was nothing else to do the housewife could always take the receiver off the hook and entertain herself while doing the ironing, the darning, the cooking or whatever. That was a great way to understand what everybody else was doing, and there were no secrets. It was a very open form of communication and whoever wanted to listen could, and often did so. I think it would have been a very brave rural resident who would go to church on Sunday morning and say "Did you hear the gossip on the telephone the

July 18, 1977
Criminal Code
other day when I heard Mrs. Jones talking about Mr. Smith?" Perhaps that would not have been done because people did not want others to know they were listening in, even though almost everybody did it.
The only way bugging can be effective is if people are unaware their conversations are being overheard. The police are foolish if they think otherwise or that it will help them very much. It will help them catch the small penny criminals, but so far as organized crime is concerned the government is barking up the wrong tree if it thinks this kind of surveillance will stop organized crime. It will only catch the little old lady trying, as somebody said, to sneak some underwear across the border; it will not do much to prevent organized crime. That surely is not really the main purpose of the police.
Police would like the elimination of firearms in the hands of the public. One of the police chiefs speaking on a radio program last night said that he wished there were no guns in the hands of individual citizens in Canada. I think that if you controlled all guns, that would be effective, but this is Utopian and it will not happen. There would be not much point in trying to achieve it. Perhaps that would be suitable in Canada, but people in Canada treat guns differently than they do in the United States.
In the United States there has always been a great deal of confusion about the right to use guns to protect one's property, under their constitution. We never had such problems. Very early in our history we established military law. The militia controlled the laws in the early history of Canada, in both French and English Canada. The militia acted as policemen in the colonies until we developed a police force. Our police force was not the same as in England or in France. It was a relatively mobile police force and some of its aims, among others, were to put down revolutions and to protect the properties of merchants. The police took part in the war of the English and French fur traders. Later the mounted police was formed. That was its background, so we in Canada have not developed the same attitude toward guns as they have in the United States. It has usually been a necessity here to carry a gun. On many occasions Canadians have been called upon to pick up guns in the defence of their country. Canadians have used guns as tools of their trade.
Listening to the program "Cross Country Check-up" last night I heard some interesting comments. One was from the Northwest Territories. A caller said that guns there were not treated with particular respect and care, but at the same time they were not misused. He said that there was no difference between the way a gun and a butcher's knife were approached. Children are taught early on in their lives that they must not pick up a butcher's knife because they might cut themselves, or a gun because it is dangerous. No particular care is taken of either a butcher's knife or a gun, but neither are they misused. Many murders that were committed in that area did not involve the use of a gun, although a gun was easily accessible to those involved in the crimes.
The police want to outlaw guns. In the bill preceding this one the minister indicated that he wished to outlaw guns. "Get them all out of the way, and there will be no problem", he seemed to say. Many of those who called in on "Cross Country Check-up", said, "We do not have guns over theah and therefore we do not want guns over heah". My tendency would be to say, "If you want to go over there, we will help to get you over there, because we like it here and we want to stay here". Much of it is that British nonsense, and the kind of people who go with that.
They fight their social wars here because over there they were not allowed to join the hunt club. Over here you can join the hunt club and chase foxes if you want, or you can shoot foxes at your own leisure-you do not need to belong to a social club or come from the right side of the tracks. There was a caller from Manotick who said, "We don't like these guns around, they are dangerous". That is a lot of nonsense. If they do not like them, they can go home and take their arguments with them.
There are many people in this country who are prejudiced either for or against guns. We all agree that the use of guns should be controlled to some degree, and one of the ways to control them is to improve ways of storing them. The way in which guns are stored in many parts of the country is atrocious.
We are worried about the one extra gun which one fellow used in the incident which took place in Ottawa the other day and which, they say, he would not have bought when on parole had the legislation been in effect. But no one said how he used other guns before that incident. They are talking only about the control of the gun he used this time. What shocks me about the police is that they seem to have known when and where he bought the gun, they knew all about it. Obviously they did not need this kind of legislation. Why did they let him buy it? Why did they not send a better trained policeman with a warrant to pick him up? In my opinion they are not really doing anything to prevent people from misusing guns, but they are really doing a number of things that are detrimental.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
[Stage Direction]

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before the recess I was talking about the fact that the police chiefs of. Canada are not particularly happy with the minister because they do not believe the wiretap legislation he is proposing is sufficient. They are also quite upset about the watering down of the bill with regard to gun legislation. In their brief the police chiefs

July 18, 1977

talk about the unnecessary and impractical procedural burden which will be put on a firearms officer when he has to issue certificates of acquisition. They add something-which 1 presume is interesting to lawyers, but it is surprising to me-and it is this sentence:
It is the applicant who wishes to avail himself of a privilege-
That is, to buy a gun.
-and therefore the onus should be on him to provide the information necessary on the further grounds that he is also in a better position to provide that specific information.
It is proposed that the following question be asked: "Do you wish to say anything further which would incriminate you, because if we find out about something afterwards, you will face a more serious offence?" The police wish to go that further step so that the person who applies for a certificate, which the police chiefs call a privilege, could face other charges if the information he gives turns out to be inaccurate.
The brief of the police chiefs also says:
We further feel that any certificate renewal should be made only where there has been a revocation, and that the five year review of existing certificates should therefore be dropped.
The police chiefs think that anything else would be too expensive, would involve too much of the time of the police, and would be limiting.


An hon. Member:: You are saying that.


William Arnold Peters: No, I am paraphrasing what the police chiefs said. They were the ones who said that the five year review of existing certificates should be dropped, and that unless people do something wrong or there is some reason to revoke a certificate, people should not have to reapply after five years.
This is not the kind of legislation which will remove guns from people. On the other hand I do not think it will do anything to make it easier for the police to control the use of guns. There is considerable confusion as to what are prohibited guns, what are restricted guns, and what category the remainder fall under.
It has been argued that this legislation will control revolvers, but it will not affect them at all. They are already controlled. There are many revolvers on the market, and many are being used in hold-ups and in other criminal offences. Revolvers have always been very closely regulated. Machine guns would be banned under this legislation, but they have been banned under the Criminal Code for a long time. Machine guns have not been legalized, and there is nothing in this legislation which changes that. The only change affects automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
We are asking many people to support a bureaucracy in its efforts to do something which really will not accomplish anything. It is unfortunate that young members of parliament and young members of the public do not remember the fiasco of a number of years ago when there were $2 radio licences. People were supposed to pay $2 to licence each radio. They were supposed to do it voluntarily, and there were all kinds of
Criminal Code
inspectors who went around the country counting radios. That did not work, and the system was discarded.
Recently in Ontario the same thing was tried with regard to fishing licences. That was nuisance legislation. It was not designed to make just enough money to pay for itself. It did not keep people from fishing. It was established to produce revenue and to allow some control. There were better methods, and they are now being used. It seems to me this will be true of this legislation also.
If a person wants to buy a gun he will still need to have a certificate, and if he wants to sell that gun he will also need a certificate. In this way all new acquisitions will be recorded. This will not affect the more than 10 million long guns that are in circulation today, however, and I believe may lead to confusion in any attempt to control hand guns and other weapons used illegally by criminals.
This legislation is not going to satisfy anybody, but it will create a great deal of confusion for the police forces in the country and give them more work to do. Statistics accumulated and put in the hands of the police could be used against ordinary people.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the firearms provision and the wiretapping provision in this bill should not be passed.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief but I believe they will reflect the view of my constituency on this very important bill that we are tackling for the second time in this session. My constituency mail on Bill C-51 now before us was a great deal lighter than the mail I received on the earlier peace and security legislation, Bill C-83, although the tone of the mail was similar. Most letters came from rural people, farmers, hunting and sports associations and their members. There was very little comment on the wiretapping provisions of Bill C-51 and I think this is because the public at large do not understand the implications, so most of them did not comment on it. This impression is confirmed through conversations with many constituents.
Predictably most of the comments I received fully supported my stand on Bill C-83, the bill that died on the order paper, and almost all were critical of the firearms acquisition certificate, and were unanimously critical of the $10 fee.
A significant number of people pointed out that the priorities of the bill were wrong in view of the evidence on the misuse of alcohol and drugs in our society today. Many pointed to the statistic that 72 per cent of all violent crimes are related to the misuse of alcohol and drugs and felt that this matter should be receiving the attention of the House, not gun control as presented in the bill. I must say I thoroughly agree with that view.
My correspondence suggested that competency courses of instructions in the handling of firearms would be more applicable than this form of gun legislation. I agree with that as well. The underlying theme of all correspondence, however, in regard to the gun control feature of the bill, was that even with
7766

July 18, 1977
Criminal Code
the substantial work done in committee on both Bill C-83 and Bill C-51, and in spite of the improvements resulting from the various amendments, this new bill will not do what all of us want, that is, take firearms out of the hands of criminals.
I received only about 50 letters on this bill, a small number in comparison to the number received on the earlier bill. About half of that 50 were from my constituents and the other half from all over western Canada.
I should like to put my personal views on record regarding the wiretapping provisions of the bill. There is no question that today our society is very disturbed and concerned about the frightening evidence of organized and unorganized crime in Canada. How far should we go in our efforts to combat this upsurge in crime?
I am equally concerned about the civil rights aspects, the invasion of our private rights in our homes. Recent high level break-ins-official or otherwise-pinpoint the need for a very high level assessment of our criminal laws as well as the political direction and responsibility of our police and security forces. We are not going to get this protection from the wiretapping provisions of this bill.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a very appropriate letter appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail on the subject of gun control, written by a former member of this House. It is a short letter, under the heading "Gun control" and reads as follows:
Gun control
Justice Minister Ronald Basford is quoted (Officer Slain, Six Wounded in Ottawa-July 12), as indicating that the slaying of an Ottawa policeman should "get Parliament and the Opposition moving to pass a bill we have been trying to get through for 18 months."
On Feb. 5, 1973, as an opposition member in the 29th Parliament, I asked the then Minister of Justice, (Otto Lang) if, in view of the shooting down of a third Toronto policeman, he would consider implementing the suggestions made by the Policemen's Association, regarding the ownership and registration of firearms in Canada.
He answered: "The problem is that regulations in relation to firearms most certainly interfere with the ordinary activities of a lot of law-abiding citizens, whereas in no way are they certain to interfere with the activities of criminals."
Mr. Basford was a member of the Government who supported that policy and made no protest. That was four years ago.
Reg Stackhouse Toronto
It seems appropriate to conclude by pointing out the utter futility of the package concept in preparing legislation of this type. If the five parts of this bill had been split into at least two bills we could have been finished with both gun control and wiretapping long ago.
I cannot support this package bill, Mr. Speaker, mainly because of the government's proposals on gun control and wiretapping.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief but I want to go on record as saying I intend to support my party and oppose this bill. Had the bill been split it could have been passed two years ago and this legislation would not now be before us.
It seems to me that in some of the speeches there has been a tendency to malign the police forces of this country. Some wild charges have been made about what the police will do with wiretaps-that they will use illegal wiretaps and engage in nefarious schemes, skullduggery, and other things that are objectionable. I disagree with such accusations, Mr. Speaker. I have probably had no more than the average number of encounters with the Ontario Provincial Police who service a number of municipalities in my riding. I may get the odd speeding ticket, and that is the sum of my encounters with them. Much the same applies to the RCMP. We see the RCMP on ceremonial occasions and know of some of the work they do. I have a personal relationship with a senior officer of the force who grew up next door to me. He is a sterling character; I know his family, and hope some of the accusations levelled against the RCMP will be cleared up during the forthcoming inquiry.
I resent some of the things some hon. members have said about our police forces. Let me say that in the small area I represent our police forces are not villains. They are the protectors of our people. I sat four years on the board of police commissioners of the city of Belleville and I can tell you that Chief Doug Crosbie heads one of the finest police forces in all Canada. I am not ashamed to say I had a hand in hiring him, but I do not single him out particularly, because chiefs before him were also good. Let me also mention Carl Beattie, chief of the police force in Deseronto. When they have a barbeque at the Lion's Club, or when there is work to do at the arena, to get ready for the kids on Saturday morning, Carl is one of the boys; but everyone in the village knows that on Saturday night, when Carl Beattie is on duty, you had better not drive down the main street of Deseronto faster than you should, or carry a mickey in your hip pocket, because Carl will put you in the clink as quick as a wink.
The same is true of Charlie Fletcher in Picton. I have an Indian reserve in my riding, one of the few with its own police force. When there is a problem in Shannonville, or on the Tyendwaga reserve, Tom Maracle comes up and talks to the people. If it is an Indian problem he straightens it out.
Those kind of people protect people in my part of the country. Mr. Speaker, I submit many hon. members who have spoken recently, barring the hon. member who spoke before me and dealt with a specific part of the bill, have come dangerously close to imputing serious crimes to police forces in Canada. I object. In my opinion these small police forces will not engage in undue wiretapping. I guarantee it. Small communities never have enough money for equipment and men. They do not have enough men for wiretapping, or for the sort of wiretapping they might like to do. The municipal police budgets are never large enough to enable the police forces to do the job they want to do. Those forces are equipped with the best equipment it is possible to obtain for them in the circumstances. They try to buy equipment as good as they can afford, and keep their training methods up to date. But they make a

July 18, 1977

major decision when they decide to upgrade their radios or buy a new radar unit.
Personally I am not worried about wiretaps. Like most members of parliament 1 probably spend more time on the telephone than the average Canadian. Perhaps I use the telephone more than some other members do. If any people want to listen to my telephone conversations, they are welcome to try. Go ahead. I have nothing to hide. I am not the least bit worried about somebody tapping my telephone. I merely want the record to show that there is support in this House-I know I speak for many members-for those forces which protect Canadians. Our police forces are not a bunch of villains.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise under your chairmanship; this is the first time I have had this opportunity. I have something to add although I have spoken this afternoon on the amendment of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) about wiretapping. Everybody will realize that this legislation which is over 80-pages long, despite all the points dealt with, as I said this afternoon, is an omnibus bill dealing with the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, wiretapping, gun control, etc. We find that the gun control section covers 44 pages of the bill, and that is why I said this afternoon that this was the most important question in the legislation, and that it would have been absolutely necessary to have a bill dealing specifically with gun control. What sort of a control? To what extent?
We are in favour of some control, and we have already had controls since World War II on ordinary and automatic weapons, but mainly since the sixties; and I should add that controls on automatic weapons are a lot stricter now, because I remember that when I had one day to have my revolver registered, I realized that the laws had become a lot more severe. We do not object to that, but we are saying that this legislation goes too far or is not precise enough, so that it frightens almost everybody. That is why I should like to convey to the House the reaction of the people in my constituency of Roberval who see in this bill not only a protection for law abiding citizens, as the minister claimed, but also in my opinion a legislation which favours the criminal to the detriment of the honest citizen. I am thinking about the farmers, the sportsmen and the businessmen of my constituency. Mr. Speaker, when 1 spoke on Bill C-83, I even proposed not only to grant permits but free permits. With all the money involved in this bill, it is simply another Loto Canada set up by the federal government and permits should be granted to those who require them, such as all farmers.
The bill specifies Indians and Inuits. I agree, but there are also other groups. I cannot imagine a farmer unable to have a permit for one or two guns, or sportsmen, and I added also businessmen. Nowadays, Mr. Speaker, if someone really wants protection, he must in a way look after himself. There is the civil defence, protection in general, of course, but I think it is
Criminal Code
essential that responsible citizens have the right to protect themselves. If a businessman does not have the right to keep a gun in his home to protect himself against bandits, that is terrible. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the situation if every bank manager, every bank teller could be armed? There would no longer be any bank robbers or at least far fewer of them would dare go into a bank with five, ten or 20 tellers. Then, they would start to be scared. But if there is a law that in fact disarms all those people, all the honest people, that forces them to hand over their weapons, who will then be favoured? Mr. Speaker, this bill will not disarm a single bandit. They will continue to keep their guns, and all the equipment they use to commit their crimes. In some stores, some banks, when robbers come face to face with a weapon, they do not show up a second time.
According to police reports, the law is not strong enough for us to abolish capital punishment. We started with doing just that; and now, we are asked to disarm all the honest people, under the pretext that crime will thereby be reduced. It is impossible to do so by proceeding in this way. The minister says he heard witness after witness. Yes, indeed, there were many in committee. I shall take a couple at random, for instance, from the report of the Canadian Police Association, and another, which I have here, from the report signed by Mr. McCann, advisor to the government or even from the report on arms control; those people are not extremists. They do not deny the government the right to exercise some control. I quote from that brief:
As responsible owners, we feel that arms control should endeavour to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning such weapons while responsible citizens should be allowed to enjoy their favorite sport without undue restrictions.
I consider it undue restriction to have all those people.
In the first place, the department is going to set up a committee to enact regulations, to impose taxes because people are more concerned over regulations than the act itself. And following that bill, which already contains 44 pages on firearms alone, I anticipate another volume on regulations they want to impose on each and everyone. And you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the bill emphasizes the punitive rather than the educational aspect. And that is the kind of avenue the government always follows. For instance, if a farmer forgot to register an old gun handed down from one generation to another, the officials will have the right to seize it because he did not report it.
We know how those things happen because there are confiscations every day in our area even with the present regulations because some hunter kills game that he is not allowed to kill, his gun or his rifle is confiscated or he is quietly on his way home after six o'clock and was unfortunate enough to leave his gun on the back seat, the gun is seized, a $200 to $250 gun that he will never see again. He is given a fine, and his rifle is taken away. People come to my office asking: Is it possible to get at least our rifle back after paying the fine? No. What do they do with it? We do not know, and nobody can tell us. But I think that thousands and thousands of rifles are being trafficked, I believe, by some public servants who take a wicked
80020-27*72

July 18, 1977
Criminal Code
pleasure in seizing every time they can the rifles and guns of people who need them.
I am afraid that this bill which is excessively permissive will further strip honest people of a firearm to which they are attached, a firearm they want and would then have the right to keep in their possession in their homes. That is why, as I said this afternoon, I repeat that bills like this should be selected and graded so we would have time to discuss and vote with the necessary amendments to strengthen that bill, and when it would come back to the House, I think it would be easier to pass. What did happen? It was buried in an omnibus bill and the witnesses were indeed listened to but without giving it more attention to bring in the amendments they were proposing about firearms. That is why I say that we cannot support Bill C-51, not because it is entirely bad, no, but because it is an omnibus bill and we cannot afford to get everyone into the same boat.
For example, is the registration of firearms going to cost $10 or $15? We do not know. The regulations will determine that and the regulations are not written by members of parliament but will again be written by public servants who will determine the amount of money they need to pay to have the right to own a firearm. But will those permits be renewable every year now? Every five years? Every ten years? That is another thing, we do not know yet, Mr. Speaker. 1 think there are many obscure issues in this bill and it is impossible at present for us to give our support to that part of the bill. I say that this bill operates to the detriment of honest citizens. We also find the following statements in the A. McCann report which I realize has been tabled in committee. I quote:
Estimates to the effect that 7 to 10 millions firearms are owned by Canadian citizens certainly prove that a lot of people 2 to 3 millions perhaps are interested enough in firearms to buy and maintain them. Only a few of these weapons are meant for illegal use. Although firearms owners are entirely in favour of effective controls, it seems unreasonable to subject a great number of citizens to such impracticable regulations. As for revolvers, controls on this type of firearms have existed in Canada since before the Second World War. These controls have been tightened in the sixties and since then their possession has become so difficult that it borders on prohibition.
And on that point they are right for I have made the experience myself. In spite of that, these controls did not result in a decrease of gun usage for criminal activities.
This is what I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker. Even with all those precautions, another report says that the crime rate has increased and that criminals are more active than ever. It is not by refusing everyone a permit that we can decrease the incidence of criminal acts.
A comparison of the crime rates in countries with strict gun control has proven its use, unless other appropriate factors be considered as well. For every country, the comparisons emphasize the importance of history, population, family life and mutual respect. In the case of criminals, there is a premeditated intent to violate the law. If this includes the use of a firearm, violation of another law by the criminal is therefore completely unimportant. The criminal will always be able to obtain the weapons he needs from illegal sources. This is why we cannot believe that any control or prohibition can have a concrete effect on the criminal use of firearms.
The next paragraph talks about mental patients. I believe mostly in some control at the level of weapon sales, but this control that we shall have will be another federal tax on illegal
[Mr. Gauthier (Roberval).l
sales. Instead of using the police for imposing a legal control, the government wants another licence traffic. And everyone knows what this traffic is like in politics. Everyone knows that this is the source of the whole problem. There will again be people who will not be entitled to hold permits but who will still get them because of political patronage. This will again come into play. If there was a legal commission to issue permits without any fee involved, there would be much less political influence. And this is always what I fear in such cases.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the federal government requires a permit for firearms trading, this is quite well for the trade. However, we do not want some regulations to deprive once again some honest citizens. This is what we fear in our areas especially according to the reports which I received at my office. All those who came to my office are afraid, but I think their fears will soon be justified if this goes on, because the minister mentioned that only the Indians, the Inuit and those who earn their living by hunting would have free permits, but they are not alone.
There are other Canadians who do not hunt for a living but who like that sport and who also have the right to own a gun either for their own pleasure or for their personal needs, such as farmers, tradesmen, businessmen and those who have great financial responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, 1 understand that this bill, regardless of what we might say, is going to be passed anyway, but I simply wanted explain why I was opposed to it, once again not because the whole bill is bad, but because of that famous omnibus bill that I have never swallowed and will never swallow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions through the usual channels as to when a division on this motion might be taken and it has been agreed through the usual channels, I believe, that it be taken at the close of the question period tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: That is the gist of the discussions, and it is quite agreeable to us on this side.
July 18, 1977


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I think that is strange. A short while ago, the minister came to my office and told me that there would be a vote tonight. I find it rather strange being told that there has been an understanding. I have not heard about that, and the minister came to my office a short while ago and told me that there was going to be a vote. This is why I am in favour of this vote tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will point out to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) that he has a choice open to him. The House needs unanimous consent so that the vote may be deferred till tomorrow, after the oral question period, and as the Chair is not privy to these negotiations between party House leaders and since any member has the right to dissent, the unanimous consent of the House must be obtained before the House may make an order for the vote to be scheduled for tomorrow.


Stanley Ronald Basford: May I say to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) that I did discuss this matter with him this afternoon before he made his speech and I thought I made it clear there would not be a division tonight-that the yeas and nays would be called but that the division would be taken tomorrow. That is the agreement I have been seeking to obtain all day-that after the debate had been concluded we would do the actual voting tomorrow. 1 apologize if I did not make this clear. I thought I had.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think there was a misunderstanding, because when the minister came to talk to me, 1 did understand that he asked me if I was going to speak tonight. I said I would but that I would allow time for the taking of the vote tonight. Then he said to me: "Very well." I told him that immediately after I finished speaking, the vote could be held. I do not see what difference it makes whether the vote is taken tonight or tomorrow. I had understood correctly and 1 was indeed under the impression when I talked to him that the vote would be taken tonight, so 1 made arrangements accordingly.


Mr. MacEachen:: Thank you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Roberval indicated to me, when I explained that 1 thought the vote would be taken tomorrow, that it was immaterial to him whether it was taken tonight or tomorrow. 1 thought I had informed the hon. member earlier that it would be taken by agreement tomorrow. I know he was ready to have a vote this evening but other groups in the House preferred to
Criminal Code
defer the voting until tomorrow. I would ask him, in line with our conversation, to agree to that course.


Mr. Epp:: You Liberals blew it!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry. I never said tonight or tomorrow. I said tonight when I spoke, because I had my reasons for wanting the vote to be taken tonight. That is why I did not want it postponed until tomorrow, because tomorrow there will be other business to be considered and we do not have enough members tonight to discuss the legislation that will be called after the vote. That is my reason for being honest with him.


Mr. Blaker:: Do you agree that we adjourn until tomorrow?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Do I agree to adjourn until tomorrow? That is precisely the point. I am being asked if I agree to adjourn until tomorrow, and I cannot agree because we do not have enough members to proceed with the next legislation that will be called.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If I understand correctly the hon. member for Roberval, since his party is not ready to proceed with the legislation to be called after the division, if it were not taken tonight but deferred until tomorrow, he would prefer the vote to be taken tonight, so that there will not be much time left, but enough to proceed with another bill and not necessarily to dispose of it.
There seems to be a misunderstanding. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) insists that his party is not ready to proceed with other legislation, if the vote is postponed at this time, and unless there is some agreement by his party after the question being postponed, we would not proceed with other legislation. He is not ready to give unanimous consent. Unless someone finds an argument to get that consent, I will have to call in the members.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if the vote is taken tomorrow, I do not mind, but let us call it ten o'clock immediately, so that we will not consider other bills after that.


Marcel Lessard: I rise on a point of order. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Roberval, the constituency next to mine, that there appears to be a clear case of misunderstanding between the hon. member for Roberval and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). I should like to add that the hon. member apparently fears that there will not be enough time or opportunity to debate the next bill, which is Bill C-60, the purpose of which is to create a constituency in northern Ontario. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is certainly ready to deal with this question. If my hon. colleague from Roberval would agree to have the vote postponed until three o'clock or 3.15 tomorrow afternoon, Bill

July 18, 1977
Criminal Code
C-60 might be called immediately and give the hon. member for Villeneuve, NDP members, and probably others, and perhaps some also from this side the opportunity to make their views known. Anyway, it is already 8.55 p.m.
There is hardly an hour of debate left before the end of the sitting this evening. This would allow the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and other members to state their views on Bill C-60. Then the discussion on Bill C-60 could take place at some other time as determined by the Chair, or the House leader in consultation with the leaders of the other parties. I suggest to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) that he consider the matter and allow the debate to be deferred until tomorrow at 3.15 p.m.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I made a distinction which I explained to everyone, and the members of the New Democratic Party were aware of the fact. I said that if Bill C-51 was discussed after supper, there would necessarily be a vote, because we would not be ready to deal with Bill C-60. In other words, they want to slip Bill C-60 between two others, but it will not be done just like that. This is the reason why I say that the vote should take place this evening. The minister should tell us why a vote cannot be taken this evening. We are all here and we are ready to vote. We are waiting for it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since there is no unanimous consent, I must call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader what he intends to deal with tomorrow and, if this is possible, later on in the week and into next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow we shall continue with the third reading of the unemployment insurance bill, and consultations will take place with respect to what we shall be considering after that.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, the occasion for this adjournment debate arose as far back as last February 4, as reported at page 2720 of Hansard.
(Mr. Lessard.]
July 18, 1977

One of the most serious criticisms of our parliamentary procedure I have noticed in close to five years spent in this House relates to a practice which is slowly but surely increasing, to the great detriment of our parliamentary tradition. I refer to the government's deliberate policy-making by order in council, or by direct ministerial authority.
This portion of the adjournment debate will deal with that situation, especially with respect to three policy announcements which were made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) during the last Christmas recess, dealing with Canada's beef cattle industry, at a time when no proper debate or comment in the House was possible. Today, seven months later, as we prepare to adjourn for a summer recess, we find there has been no opportunity to examine and debate these policy pronouncements, especially in committee.
The first one was on December 23, 1976, which was the announcement of Canada's offshore beef quotas, against Australia, New Zealand, and United States beef imports into Canada. The facts which should have been pointed out in a proper debate in committee, immediately after our Christmas recess, would include this long overdue action which was a full year late. Cattlemen had asked for action more than a year earlier. Approximately nine months before this announcement the signs were clearly evident that we were headed for massive levels of offshore beef imports over the remainder of 1976, a 60 per cent increase in the offshore beef imports over 1975 which came to a total of 186 million pounds. This is the equivalent of approximately 535,000 Canadian cows. These came in at very badly discounted prices of as much as 31 cents per pound below the equivalent beef entering the United States from offshore. During 1976 there was the largest supply of domestic beef in Canada's history. The result was a massive displacement of our fresh cow beef to the United States market.
I want to point out that I have no criticism of Canada's participation in the North American market, but those displaced cows moved to that market because our own market was $3 lower due to offshore imports. That exercise cost our Canadian cow market at least $30 million. The most sinister aspect of this 1976 situation was that it was so deliberate that no action was taken until a year later when the damage was done. Beef to the consumer was held at cheap levels, and the control policy and the cost of living factor appeared to be working for the consumer's benefit.
The second announcement occurred on January 4, 1977. The minister announced his cow-calf stabilization policy for the calendar year 1977, following the minister's own stabilization policy. 1 have no quarrel with that aspect, but I do quarrel with the fact that this cow-calf policy was not retroactive to 1976. That was the worst year ever in our cattle industry with costs of production taken into account.
The minister had repeatedly promised this policy would be announced in 1976 for 1976, including a promise to the provincial ministers of agriculture during the summer or fall of
Adjournment Debate
that year. This lack of action for 1976 contributed to the very depressed cattle market, and of course was another contribution to the ongoing cheap food policy.
The third one was on January 23 or 24 of 1977, when the minister announced the details of his feed cattle support policy for last year. In this policy announcement the minister departed from a traditional departmental announcement which followed a prescribed and accepted pattern or guideline. He changed the rules in two ways: by using 95 per cent of the previous five year average market price instead of 90 per cent, and by using a flat dollar figure of $1.79 to be added to the stabilized level of $40.16 in order to make a payout possible. This $1.79 was the cost of production increment when the feed grains and feeder cattle, the two principal input costs in producing feeder cattle, were both down in 1976. This cost factor should have been a reducing factor.
These are facts and items of debate which should have been brought out in a parliamentary forum at least six months ago, and not now in a politically charged atmosphere. That is the trouble in our Canadian cattle industry-there is far too much politics involved in our market orientation. Why not let the market work?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that in asking his question on February 4, 1977, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) acknowledged the importance of the programs which this government has put into place for the benefit of the Canadian cattle industry. The three programs which he mentioned-the cow-calf stabilization program, the slaughter cattle stabilization program, and the beef import quotas-have since been supplemented by an additional program at the request of producers in western Canada. I am speaking, of course, of the drought program.
As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) explained in his response on February 4, he has no objection in principle to the referral of these programs to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for discussion. In fact he would welcome such an opportunity further to explain their value to Canadian cattlemen. However, he is also aware that there is generally a very heavy demand on the time and resources available to both members of committees and the committees' branch itself.
The agriculture committee has recently expended a considerable amount of time and effort in studying the report of the commission of inquiry into the marketing of beef and veal. Issues of concern to the industry, such as those mentioned previously, were provided with an excellent forum for discussion during these meetings. The other place has also been most active in this respect. In addition, the Standing Committee on Agriculture considers the agriculture stabilization estimates, as well as those of the department, each year. Discussions are very broad in scope at these meetings, and issues such as the hon. member has mentioned tonight are regularly discussed with the witnesses who are present.
Although I am aware of the hon. member's concerns as they relate to the cattle industry, I have also noted the specific

July 18, 1977
Adjournment Debate
concerns of other members relative to different commodities. I am sure that the request of the hon. member would, therefore, give rise to a request for discussion by several other commodity interests. In view of the foregoing, and under the present circumstances, I do not believe that the minister would support the hon. member's request.


TRANSPORT-REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN FEDERAL SHARE OF COST OF HIGHWAY PROGRAM FOR ATLANTIC REGION
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am debating tonight the reply given me by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in which he advised that he was not prepared to accede to the request by the Atlantic provinces highways ministers and myself for a more deserving cost sharing formula in regard to the $100 million highway strengthening program for the Atlantic region announced recently, other than that the federal government would contribute 50 per cent of the cost.
I say with all due respect to the minister that I find it difficult to reconcile his creating a new precedent when another precedent has been set in two other areas of highway programs. Under the original agreement to build the Trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland during the Pearson regime, the federal government participated to the extent of 90 per cent of the cost. The minister replied to me that he was not sure that the generous treatment offered at that time should necessarily be repeated.
I remind the minister through his parliamentary secretary that even though the portion of the highway through Newfoundland was called the Trans-Canada highway, any similarity between what exists under that name in my province and that which exists in other parts of Canada is strictly coincidental and primarily a misnomer of the worst degree. I feel that on this basis alone the federal government should even pay 100 per cent of the cost to correct the accepted ridiculous standards of that highway in Canada.
Secondly, his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), has entered into several highways agreements with the province of Newfoundland, which are still existing, to build highways in the province on a 90-10 basis.
Thirdly, I wonder at the answers given to me according to which the program for the four Atlantic provinces of $100 million-about $25 million to each province-is deemed to be so generous when a similar amount of almost $100 million is to be provided to one other province under a $264 million Quebec highway program.
I would venture to say that the most deteriorated section of the Trans-Canada highway exists in my province and in my district, the portion from the Port aux Basques entry to Corner-brook, a most important section of the corridor which is so necessary for the highway traffic to St. John's, Newfoundland.
It is interesting to note that in the Quebec agreement the basis of the financial contribution of $100 million is for

industrial development, to facilitate access to tourist areas and, to improve safety and capacity along the traffic corridor, and I can only wonder why it is not recognized that the same need exists for the Newfoundland corridor to give that province the infrastructure base which is so vitally necessary for our economic development and for a fundamental transportation base so that Newfoundland can finally contribute toward the Canadian dream.
Certainly it should be recognized, from the slow progress made in developing and marketing our resources, that a reasonable transportation system is vital in order to overcome the handicap of transportation costs in competing for distant markets where we sell our products.
I hope that the minister will have his officials drive over the Trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland to see the deteriorated sections which are a danger to the traveller, and which can only be termed an embarrassment to Canada. What can our province do with $30 million? Our share of the program can do little to meet the needs, especially when it is spread over a three year period. I can only ask again that the matter be looked into with a view to meeting our regional objectives the fulfillment of which which we have awaited with too much patience over the past years. I hope that the very efficient parliamentary secretary can give me an answer which will give some hope for the future and which will meet the needs of Newfoundland in line with the highways agreement which was signed.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in considering the question of an appropriate role for the federal government in supporting the upgrading of the primary highway system in the Atlantic provinces, it is important to recognize that for the most part highways are a provincial responsibility.
However, as evidenced by a recent announcement, the federal government proposes to spend up to $125 million over the next three years to help improve transportation services in the four Atlantic provinces. The major highway strengthening program to which the government will contribute $100 million is, of course, of the highest priority.
An analysis of the highway proposal, or at least of those parts of the proposal that were put forward as having priority in the context of an initial three year agreement, submitted jointly by the provincial governments, indicated that the standardization of minimum truck weight and related regulations would indeed result in significant benefits that could be considered to be national rather than purely provincial in nature. This conclusion formed one of the main arguments in support of federal assistance.
As to the question of the cost-sharing ratio, the government feels that a 50 per cent federal share of the eligible costs would appropriately reflect the extent of "national" interest in the program. And, Mr. Speaker, given the need for fiscal restraint, the federal government is unable to assume additional liability at this time.
July 18, 1977

In conclusion, it is useful, I think, to point out that the federal proposal does make provision for a review of the first three year program, an analysis of future needs, and a recommendation regarding further programming.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-POSITION OF CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS ON PARTICIPATION IN MULTIPARTITE NATIONAL FORUM
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of questions which I asked of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) on July 13 as reported in Hansard commencing on page 7626. On June 13, during a speech which I was making, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) interjected when I was suggesting that the evidence was overwhelming that the Canadian Labour Congress would not take part in the Minister of Labour's multipartite national forum which he has been proposing since last autumn. The Minister of Finance interjected and said, "That's not what they say in private".
Subsequently, on July 13, I asked the Minister of Labour the following question which is reported at page 7626 of Hansard:
Can the minister tell the House whether there have been private talks between the CLC and cabinet ministers which indicate that they are prepared to participate in the multipartite national forum or is the position of the CLC as it has been publicly stated, namely, that they are not prepared to participate in that particular forum?
I do not want to use undue language in this Chamber, but I must advise this House that the minister failed to answer that question because he did not want even to seem to be in disagreement with the Minister of Finance. However, the fact of the matter is that the CLC has never privately, publicly, or in any other way given any support to this multipartite national forum which the minister runs around the country saying is the keystone to labour policy on behalf of the Government of Canada.
I pointed out to the minister the other day that he has no commitments whatsoever from business to support a multipartite national forum. That has been made very clear on a number of occasions, if one refers to the press, but it was made very clear when Mr. Sydney Jackson of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in a statement which was reported in the Globe and Mail of July 13 of this year, said that the whole idea was just window dressing, that he had not talked to a single leader in industry who agreed to it, and that his understanding was that labour did not support it either.
I put it to the parliamentary secretary, to the Minister of Labour and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and I have put it to the Minister of Finance in the past: how can there be a government policy, and how can ministers go around the country and say seriously that this is the policy, when two of the groups which absolutely must be part of this multipartite national forum-which the Minister of Labour said is to decide the "big economic issues of the day"-labour and management, have not agreed to participate in it? What commitments does the government have from labour? Frankly,
Adjournment Debate
I do not believe there are any. I think the government has been pulling the wool over our eyes for months, and to the degree it is doing that it is destroying the ability of business, labour and the government to get together to have meaningful discussions.
Second, what commitment does the government have from any section of the business community? I do not want to be met tonight with a lot of nonsense about the fact that these are ongoing discussions having something to do with decontrol. When the Minister of Labour put these things forward in October he was not talking about decontrol at all; he was talking about a forum for discussion in the post-control period, not to determine what decontrol is. The Minister of Finance confirmed to me some days ago in the House that his discussions which are going on right now are not in the multipartite sense but are strictly with business and labour.
I think it is time the Minister of Labour and the government generally stopped this silly little dance of pretending to have policy when they do not have it, and they do not have the support of the sectors of the community-meaning labour and business-which they must have to support the proposal which was put forward by the Minister of Labour. It would be far better to admit that, and come up with another idea. It is absolute folly to continue to waste public funds by putting out public documentation, advertising brochures and the like, which have been appearing on all hon. members' desks recently touting a multipartite national forum to decide the big economic issues of the day many months after it was first proposed when in fact there is no agreement from either labour or business to participate in it.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, in the recent report of the executive director of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association presented at its annual general meeting, the following statement appears:
... the Association has not fully assessed all of the 14 initiatives proposed by the federal Minister of Labour for improving labour relation climate ...
This makes it all the more difficult to be able to conclude that the statement of any representative of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association does, in fact, represent the considered views of that association on the basis of an appropriately careful evaluation of any of the 14 points, including the national consultative forum.
Over the past number of months the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the officials of his department have gone to considerable lengths to consult with business and labour across this country with regard to the 14-point program. They have heard the concerns of businessmen for such issues as the competitiveness of Canadian industry in international markets, productivity, wages, and the climate of industrial relations within which economic decisions will have to be made once controls will have been lifted. They have also heard new and much more broadly framed concerns of organized labour for a more influential voice in matters of broad social and economic consequence. The very consultations in which we have engaged
7774

July 18, 1977
Adjournment Debate
regarding the 14 points have already served to broaden the perspectives from which labour, business, and government look at matters of common interest and concern.
This process of enlarging the awareness of the other person's interests and points of view can be a powerful force for bringing greater wisdom into economic decisions, especially if the various considerations are brought into focus for intelligent analysis and consideration by all interested groups and individuals through the mechanism of the proposed national consultative forum. The forum we envisage would be representative not only of business, labour and government, but also of other interest areas including, but not necessarily restricted to, consumers, co-operatives, professionals, and primary producers such as farmers and fishermen.
Our assessment of the numerous consultations we have had with business and labour about the forum is that the concept
has been enthusiastically endorsed and generally enjoys a wide measure of support. Indeed we have found no one who is actually opposed to consultation among those concerned with and affected by decisions on economic and social matters. The report of the executive director of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association referred to above contains references to consultations in which the association has been involved, and the contexts of those references would lead one to conclude that the C.M.A. has just as much to gain from consultation as anyone else.


John Allen Fraser: That is no answer to the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.36 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, July 19, 1977