1977-05-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. One year having gone by since the government clearly stated that it was drafting freedom of information legislation to which it was giving priority, and dozens of organizations, such as CUPE, the Canadian Bar Association, the Civil Liberties Association, Canadian teachers, Canadian consumers, and many others in their hundreds of thousands, having indicated their support for immediate action, I move:
That this House urges the government to ignore the self-serving views of the small group of highly placed government people who fear open government, and requests that the government bring in a bill, or instruct a parliamentary committee to do so, and also provide for a free vote in connection with the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS ON BERGER REPORT-GOVERNMENT POLICY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the same provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the statement today, as appears in the Alaska press, made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) that "no one invited Mr. Berger to recommend against a pipeline", and in view of the statements yesterday by the Minister without Portfolio from Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) in outright opposition to the Berger recommendations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House request the Prime Minister or the government House leader to make a statement on motions today stating whether these public remarks form
part of government policy and, if they do not, that this House request this government to clearly dissociate itself from such irresponsibility.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the attitude exhibited by the Department of Transport in invoicing CALPA and CATCA for transportation costs connected with bringing the executives of these organizations to Ottawa, at the request of Ministry of Transport officials, to resolve the crisis which crippled Canada's airline industry last June, in view of the circumstances whereby the ministry gave the impression that they could accept all financial responsibilities at that time for the transportation of these executives, who in fact played a constructive part in resolving the crisis, and in view of the lavish use of government aircraft by ministers of the Crown at the expense of the public for far less constructive purposes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the Ministry of Transport rescind or cancel these invoices and arrange payment from departmental funds for this very necessary and co-operative course of action by the executives of CALPA and CATCA in coming to Ottawa.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 11, 1977
Shipbuilding



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that tonight marks the first time in ten years that two Canadian teams will be involved in a professional hockey final and in view of the fact that the mandate of the CBC is to broadcast events of importance to Canadians, thus promoting Canadian unity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That this House request the Secretary of State to instruct the CBC to televise the final series between the Winnipeg Jets and Quebec Nordiques.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and national importance. In view of the serious shortage of work orders for the Hawker Siddeley Halifax shipyards and the consequent threat of the loss of about 1,000 jobs by late summer or early fall, jobs embracing the bulk of shipbuilding and repair skills which form the backbone of an essential port requirement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That this government be instructed to take whatever new initiatives are open to it to reopen talks with the company with the purpose of exploring potential federal government ship requirements that could be advanced to fill the work gap and at the same time to further explore the possibilities of a program of rehabilitation of the yard and the construction of a new floating dry dock for the east coast of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CONFEDERATION


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is promoted by the extremely significant statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson). I therefore move, seconded, in the absence of the hon. member for Winnipeg South, by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That this House concurs with the view of the hon. member for Winnipeg South that the Liberal party and the Prime Minister have not been able to unify Canada, and further condemns the Prime Minister who ran on a ticket of national unity in 1968 in light of the fact that the country is more divided now than it was before.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Needless to say, I have some grave reservations about the urgency of the question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: You leave my countrymen alone.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion under Standing Order 43 can be presented to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the rush jobs that the department is doing on the investigation into the Alcan pipeline route. Inasmuch as the Alcan proposal was brought forward by the Alberta Gas Trunk Line on August 31, 1976, there seems little reason for an inquiry into the merits of the route to be beginning only this week. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the inquiry is to be only a preliminary study, would the minister tell the House exactly how he will manage to stage a follow-up study to the Lysyk commission after it reports in August and before the Prime Minister's September 1 decision deadline?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, the final,

May 11, 1977

complete application for the Alcan route was only received in November, although there was a preliminary application in the early fall. So we were not able to set up something together much sooner. As soon as the application came in, we immediately undertook negotiations with the Yukon government and the Yukon Indians with regard to the type of inquiry which might take place. It is true that the inquiry is limited to a three month period, but it does not have to do all of the things the Berger inquiry had to do. It does not have to deal with the environment or with the conditions which will apply if that route is taken. There are only six communities along that route compared with about 35 along the Mackenzie. Finally, much of the work Mr. Justice Berger has done can be used by the Lysyk panel. So we feel that in that period of time they can deal with economic and social impacts.
The hon. member asked what will happen if the government's decision is to go for the Alcan route. There would have to be more work done by one group or another to determine the conditions which would apply for that route. Mr. Justice Berger dealt with both, and his report on conditions will come out in July.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it appears that if the Alcan route is ultimately selected, the preferred route for Canadian delta gas will be along the Dempster highway to connect with the Alcan express pipeline to the south. In view of the fact that a social environmental impact study of this route is absolutely essential if an informed decision is to be made, will the minister indicate whether he will now set such an inquiry into gear?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, if in due course a link is proposed or we decide on a link from the Mackenzie Delta to the Alcan pipeline, the proposed pipeline down the Dempster Highway, I suppose we would have to have some kind of inquiry or investigation into the social and economic impacts, but that inquiry does not seem to be necessary now. We do not have to do that right now.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-STATEMENT ON BERGER REPORT BY MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, by way of observation on the last two answers-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter David Baker: -it seems that we are running into the danger of making a decision before some adequate inquiries have been made, and part of the responsibility for the delay can be laid at the feet of the government.
My supplementary question is to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the principle of cabinet solidarity, which is fundamental to our system. With regard to the remarks last night of the Minister without Portfolio that he is, and I quote, "not in any way in agreement with Berger" and that he has "no time for Berger's argument that the northern pipeline threatens wildlife", will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House wheth-
Oral Questions
er those remarks represent government policy or whether he intends to put a stopper in the mouth of the hon. gentleman to put an end to his bad habit of leading with his mouth from time to time?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He's all yours now.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF FENCO REPORT ON COST OVERRUNS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister, and it concerns the Fenco study into cost overruns which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last February undertook to table in the House. This report has not been tabled, despite the fact that the minister has had it in his possession for nearly a month. Will the Acting Prime Minister now undertake to release this report, and in addition, will he tell this House whether this study or any other study undertaken by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has examined the vulnerability of the Alcan project to cost overruns?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will check into the possibility of discharging the minister's commitment, as stated by the hon. member, to make this report available. I have to check into it. I think the second question, on the face of it, would require a negative answer, but I will check on that, too.


Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When an examination of the economics of the Alcan route is undertaken it should be remembered that the Dempster highway route is part and parcel of the Alcan route. Will the Acting Prime Minister give an undertaking that the study will include the Dempster highway route and the possibility of cost overruns on it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, these are in the nature of representations that will be studied.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In the House yesterday he said that the programs the government has under way to deal with unemployment, including the allocation of funds for Canada Works and Young Canada Works, are based on anticipated high levels of unemployment. Considering that the most recent figure has established unemployment at 8.3 per cent-the highest level of unemployment since records have been kept-and considering that unemployment is higher today than the government's unofficial estimate

May 11, 1977
Oral Questions
said it would be, will the minister reconsider the answer he gave yesterday? Can he tell the House, for instance, that the government will consider bringing in a special summer works project that will deal with this extremely high level of unemployment in a serious manner?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that undertaking.


UNEMPLOYMENT-POSSIBILITY OF NATIONAL PROGRAM OF RESIDENTIAL INSULATION TO CREATE JOBS
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering that the cost of current levels of unemployment to employed Canadians is about $9 billion per year, some $2 billion being for welfare and unemployment insurance payments, $6 billion for lost productivity, the rest being made up of taxes not paid by the unemployed, would the minister consider financing a national program of insulation for residential buildings across the country which has been estimated to cost about $1 billion? That $1 billion would provide at least 4,000 additional jobs and be important in conserving energy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the hon. member's proposal has merit. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has already implemented such a program in two provinces and obviously is concerned about its application in all of Canada. The hon. member mentioned that the cost of such program would be $1 billion per year. At the present time it is not possible to find resources to add to the present budget to finance such a special program, although undoubtedly the suggestion has all the benefits the hon. member says it has.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When we first proposed such an insulation program last September we did not anticipate that even the government would take it up in such a half-hearted way as to apply it to two provinces. We estimated at that time that the savings in energy costs alone to the Canadian economy in the years ahead would justify the capital expenditure. Considering the savings in energy, which are so important to the Canadian economy as a whole, and considering the need to provide jobs early in the summer months particularly for young Canadians, will the minister not make a commitment to go ahead with this eminently sensible program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it is eminently sensible but not financially possible at the present time, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance is not in the House, may I direct my question to the acting minister?
Considering the strong protest from members of life underwriters organizations against the new budget proposals of March 31 last concerning the taxation on life insurance proceeds, and in view of the fact that these new proposals will result mainly in penalizing the families of policyholders, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to reply to the statements made by the members of life underwriters organizations and if so, when and how?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may be aware, we have given first reading-or are about to-to all the budgetary proposals that have been put forward by the Minister of Finance. They will be before the House in the present session, and before the committee of the whole, and it will be possible for the hon. member to make direct representations and receive direct explanations on this point at that time from the Minister of Finance.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Could the minister inform the House if, according to his terms of reference, Mr. Justice Berger has now completed his task with the tabling of his report and if he has now resumed his duties as a supreme court judge of British Columbia?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand Mr. Justice Berger intends to issue another report as a second volume. He has not resumed his duties at present as a member of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, but I know that he and his Chief Justice have discussed privately the date on which this is to occur.
May 11, 1977


POSSIBILITY OF MR. JUSTICE BERGER EMBARKING ON DEFENCE OF HIS REPORT
Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has Mr. Justice Berger informed the minister of his intention to embark on a promotional campaign and of his desire, as reported, to accept invitations from the media and interest groups in order to defend his viewpoint which, clearly, now has political connotations and which obviously will now have to be resolved not by the itinerant judiciary but by the executive and legislative branch of government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, only to the extent that there has been comment on that in the newspapers.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-ASSURANCE OF ADEQUATE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE TO ASSESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of Mr. Justice Berger's statement regarding gaps in environmental knowledge, specifically "that present scientific knowledge is inadequate to serve the needs of government in assessing the impact of proposed oil and gas developments in the north ..." I ask, is our present scientific knowledge inadequate to serve the needs of government in assessing the impact of proposed oil and gas developments in the north, and, if so, will the minister assure the House that approval to proceed with the pipeline will not be granted until adequate scientific knowledge is made available both to the government and parliament?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Berger examined much scientific and technical evidence with respect to the environment. I cannot prejudge the National Energy Board report; it may consider some of those questions as well. We hope to get such evidence from all sides before we make a decision.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-IDENTIFICATION OF SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Robert Lloyd Wenman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister support in principle the maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment through such means as intensifying ecological research, establishing national parks, ensuring wildlife conservation and, in relation to pipeline corridors, identifying geographic areas of specific environmental and social concern or sensitivity, areas in which will be imposed restrictions concerning route or pipeline activities and, possibly, areas excluded from pipeline construction? Have such areas of specific environmental and social concern or sensitivity been identified in the Yukon? If so, is the government now willing to exclude from pipeline
Oral Questions
construction such areas of the Yukon as were identified by Mr. Justice Berger?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to read that question before giving a proper answer. The hon. member lost me with all his questions and subquestions.


INFORMATION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State who I understand is now charged with responsibility for bringing in freedom of information proposals, if any are to be brought in at all. In view of the facts set out in my Standing Order 43 motion, which was so rudely and loudly rejected by hon. members opposite, and having in mind that in January, 1968, the then justice minister Trudeau quoted with approval, in the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, three United Nations and international charters which accepted freedom of information, when is the government going to minimize the public suspicions created by stonewalling such cases as CANDU and Polymer, and take immediate action to guarantee open government?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in the Speech from the Throne the government indicated that it would be presenting to the committee a policy paper on this subject. I am pleased to tell him that the paper is ready. It has been translated and is in the process of being printed. It will therefore, be available very shortly.


Gerald William Baldwin: In order to establish his credibility as a supporter of open information, which I believe the minister to be, will he now agree to receive this afternoon the delegation from Access in connection with this proposal at an open meeting? If not, can he indicate why such a meeting should he held in secret behind closed doors.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to tell the hon. member that I am having a meeting with this group this afternoon, of which he is honorary patron.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: I am glad to know that he shares the passion that I have for open government and the conviction that it is essential that the process of government be opened up much more than at present and information be made more readily available. The reason the meeting this afternoon is not open is, as I indicated earlier, that the report is ready to be presented. I felt it was my obligation to speak to members of parliament first about the report rather than to present it publicly to a

May 11, 1977
Oral Questions
body outside parliament. My understanding of the courtesies of parliament is that that is the appropriate approach. I am sure that if I had turned the meeting this afternoon into a press conference about the report, I would have received complaints that I had not presented the report to members of parliament previous to that. That is the explanation. However, the Access group will, as I am sure the honorary patron knows, be having a press conference of their own to explain the recommendations that are being made.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that there is evidence that the Department of Public Works is now adopting a policy of "privatization" where more of the department's work is going to be farmed out to outside consultants in the private sector, can the minister tell us what he plans to do with the large expert staff built up by the Department of Public Works over the years to do this work within the department?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is an area at which we are taking a look. In many areas the capacity does not exist within the department. There are some questions relating to the paving of the Alaska Highway, whether in fact we should use the staff within the department or use the private sector. I feel strongly that we should make use of the private sector. There are many cases where the expertise does exist. It is a question of whether one does it or goes to the private sector.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I am sure the minister knows that a lot of expertise does exist within the department. How can he justify a policy of hiring many more outside consultants instead of using expertise within the department in a period of supposed government restraint? Would it not mean that there would be a lot fewer projects completed with the same financial outlay as a result of this policy he is intending to follow?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the latter part of the question is no. Like any other department of government or any other employer, we have a certain turnover of staff. It is a question of deciding as this turnover occurs whether the individual who has departed should be replaced or whether we should look at consolidation and make use of the private sector. My inclination is that we should do the latter.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question. The other day he spoke in glowing terms about the independence of the judiciary. My question arises from a preferred indictment which his department laid against the relative of a senior pressman in this city. A preliminary hearing was held in reference to a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking in marijuana. The charge was dismissed at the preliminary hearing stage. The matter was taken before a judge. The minister laid a preferred indictment while the matter was pending before the court. Is that the kind of independence of judiciary the minister endorses?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the matter, as was clearly indicated by the hon. member for Calgary North, is now before the courts. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that I have great difficulty in making any comment on it. I can only say that in the interests of the administration of justice I felt it necessary to exercise my right under the Criminal Code to prefer a direct indictment on the basis of sworn evidence placed before me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Apart from the case I have mentioned, when a charge has been laid before the courts and dismissed at the preliminary hearing stage, and the matter is then taken before a judge, is it the general policy of the Minister of Justice that while the matter is pending before a judge on which he has to make a determination to prefer an indictment on his own and run rough-shod over the courts of Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, without in any way accepting the premise of the hon. member's question or in any way being taken to comment on the specific case to which he has referred, that is obviously not the general policy of my department.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR DELAY OF DECISION UNTIL NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD HAS REPORTED
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In his absence, I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the obvious and serious concerns facing this country over the next 15 to 20 years relating to our overall energy supply, and in view of the rather irresponsible and extremely premature action on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party in firmly rejecting the Canadian Arctic Gas pipeline proposal at this early stage, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the government will take a much more responsible stance, one which is obviously more in the national interest of Canadians,
May 11, 1977

and await the further major reports to be issued in the near future by the National Energy Board, one dealing with an update on the demand and supply side of our oil energy reserves and the other dealing in detail with the northern pipeline proposals currently before it, as well as the benefit of parliamentary debate before making its final judgment on this most important matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from any comment on the position taken by any other party, I want to make it clear on behalf of the government that no decisions have been made with respect, (a) to a pipeline and, (b) to the route of any such possible pipeline; that we regard the delivery of the Berger report as a very important element, providing very valuable information in the total context about a decision. However, it is certainly the intention of the government to await the report of the National Energy Board and other relevant reports before a decision is taken on this question. That is the general position.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. One of the world's great experts on oil blowouts, Mr. Red Adair, said yesterday that a blowout in the Arctic is inevitable as long as drilling is done there; pray to God it does not happen but there will be an accident as long as men drill for oil. Eventually someone will make a mistake. In view of the clear indication from Red Adair and the evidence before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and the Environment by the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Environment opposing drilling in the Arctic, and in view of the overwhelming evidence in the Berger report of risk to the ecology, will the minister advise what date cabinet is going to come down with a decision on the renewal of the Dome Petroleum drilling permits and also advise whether it is his view that drilling should continue in the present circumstance?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will give my advice to the cabinet committee. No date has been set for a decision on this matter. It is still a completely open question. Perhaps I will get in touch with Mr. Adair and talk to him about it.


DRILLING IN BEAUFORTSEA-PROTESTS FROM UNITED STATES
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary on the same subject. Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment told the House that representations had been received from the United States regarding the risk to U.S. waters as a result of Beaufort Sea drilling but he was not able to be specific. Could the hon. gentleman be more specific today and
Oral Questions
tell us whether the United States has made any protest, and, further, whether any agreement has been discussed under which the United States would be compensated in the event of an oil spill damaging to its interests?


William Warren Allmand: I know that representations have been made and discussions held. But that took place with the Department of External Affairs, not with my department, although the views expressed were communicated to us. In the arrangements for drilling last summer, provision was made to compensate all the parties, including the United States, in the event of a blow-out. Whether there have been further representations with regard to that aspect, I am not certain.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Labour in the absence of the Minister of Finance? It arises from the historical relationship involving parity of wages between Halifax and Saint John longshoremen. Since wages at the two ports are now somewhat apart due to technicalities enforced by the Anti-Inflation Board arising mainly from the difference in the yearly starting dates of the contracts, would the hon. gentleman use his good offices to carry out the warm statement of the Minister of Finance when replying to me with regard to this matter at the dawn of the Anti-Inflation Program?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I shall certainly look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport. In order to alleviate certain anxieties expressed by many employees and pensioners of Canadian National Railways, would the minister check with the company, or have an inquiry made to determine whether or not the system of railway passes for employees and pensioners will be continued once the proposed Via rail system is in place?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: I shall be pursuing this question. I have received many representations with regard to it from pensioners and others and I understand their great interest in the continuation of their rights and privileges.

May 11, 1977
Oral Questions SUPPLY AND SERVICES


USE OF PAYMENT WITHHELD FROM NORTHROP TO MAKE LOAN TO CANADAIR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. When the government reached an out-of-court settlement with Northrop requiring the payment of some $9 million to Northrop, the minister told the House that some $6.5 million of this was actually money which the government had previously withheld from Northrop. A report has now surfaced to the effect that this money was actually lent to Canadair in lieu of progress payments and that the debt is going to be magically converted into a Canadair asset. Could the minister tell the House whether it is true that the money which was withheld from Northrop was loaned to Canadair through the defence production revolving fund and whether this is the money which the government now proposes to write off by the device of renaming it an asset of Canadair?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is confusing two issues. It is a fact that our settlement with Northrop represented for the larger part money which had been withheld from their contract and thus was owed to them. Furthermore, the loan granted to Canadair was not related only to the Northrop contract but also to various contracts, and for the fruitful negotiation of those contracts, this loan had been granted and has been recently reimbursed to the government.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Bearing in mind that the government has owned 100 per cent of Canadair since January 5, 1976, according to the minister's reply to a written question, and is now perpetrating a Financial shell game which permits a Canadair debt of more than $8 million to be turned into an asset, requiring, strangely enough, a further transfer of more than $8 million from the taxpayers to the company, is the minister now claiming another First for this Liberal government-that this group of Financial geniuses has now bought and paid for 122 per cent of Canadair?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the negotiation for the Canadair purchase has been done by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and of course any investment in the company is decided by this department. Our relations with this company are therefore on a supplier-to-customer basis.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State as the minister responsible for the citizenship branch; it follows a question which was asked last week by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. At that time, the minister said he would be writing a letter to members of parliament asking their co-operation-I believe he has already done so. What we would like to hear is what he plans to do about the backlog in the citizenship branch which is causing serious difFiculties to a great many Canadians who may wish to travel, join the Armed Forces or engage in a variety of other activities. Can the minister suggest at least one small step to be taken in clearing up this backlog within the citizenship branch by speeding up the processing of applications?


John (Moody) Roberts: I wish to express appreciation for the hon. member's co-operation. As I indicated to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, we expect the backlog to be cleared up fairly quickly and I am exploring the suggestions which have been made by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and other members that improved liaison might be arranged between the Passport Office and the citizenship branch. I would be happy to consider any other suggestions the hon. member might have to make.


Howard Earl Johnston: Is the minister aware of the undue pressure placed on the citizenship branch by various provincial departments and, I suspect, federal departments as well, demanding that provincial public servants apply for citizenship immediately upon qualifying, under threat that failure to do so will result in their jobs being posted, and that this situation has worsened since the qualifying period for citizenship became only three years? Can the minister tell us whether federal departments are demanding the same of their civil servants who might be in the position of holding landed immigrant status? If this is the case, has the minister considered asking the provincial governments to place a moratorium on that sort of demand, at least until the backlog of applications in the citizenship branch has been cleared away?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the situation which the hon. member has described. I will certainly look into the matter.


IMMIGRATION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It
May 11, 1977

arises from an alarming increase in the number of documented cases of Hansen's disease, more commonly referred to as leprosy. The department has informed me that cases of leprosy in Canada have increased dramatically-there were 38 in 1965, 51 in 1970, 92 in 1975 and 99 last year. Can the minister explain this increase? Is it possible that our health checks are proving inadequate? Can he advise us what has been done by his immigration officials abroad to make sure that a person suffering from leprosy is not admitted to Canada?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Health checks are, of course, made but as a result of the hon. member's interest and the question he placed on the order paper I have asked my officials to take a long, hard look at the situation.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I thank the minister for that answer. Has he taken any steps, in conjunction with officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare to document the threat to Canadian health which these cases may be presenting? What steps are being taken to make sure that the disease, to the extent that it is communicable, is not spread in other areas of Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare engaged in these tasks are highly competent and I know they work in close contact with their provincial counterparts. Given the dramatic increase about which the hon. member has spoken, I am certain they are watching the situation closely.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wonder if we could ask him to leave the seat of his successor and perhaps answer my question.
At the time the regulations were put into effect, I asked the previous minister of transport a question with regard to research and Canadian manufacture of emergency locater transmitters and cross-position indicators. Since that time there have been many hundreds of failures causing many thousands of dollars worth of search and rescue activity falsely occasioned. I wonder if the minister can tell me now whether there have been any studies or research done, or are any going to be done, into the problems of the CPI's and ELT's that might take some of the strain off private flyers?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the question of a superior kind of ELT has been under examination, including the costs of a change and the reliability of any successor equipment. I have not looked at the
Oral Questions
state of the analysis for several weeks now. I will be glad to do that and bring a further report.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. May I ask the minister if his research is going into the problem of batteries for the ELTs as well?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it goes into the whole question at the present time.


TOURISM
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. My question has to do with section 602 of the tax reform act of the United States which reads, in part, that Americans travelling abroad for conventions should not be allowed to deduct expenses from their taxes. Since this has caused a good deal of consternation and a loss of many hundreds of thousands of dollars to cities such as Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal and Vancouver in lost convention revenues, I would like to ask the minister if the government has made an active solicitation to the American government, specifically the president, and could he inform the House, if they have done so, as to what reply there has been?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in Washington meeting with President Carter, he raised this problem with him. When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce visited his counterpart, the Secretary of Commerce in the United States, the matter was also discussed. Canadian authorities are still pressing the United States government to review the matter in the hope that a change can be made to relieve the Canadian tourist industry.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I believe the particular section to which I alluded comes up for debate in Congress in July, when there will be public hearings held and technical changes can be made at that time. Can the parliamentary secretary give the House a firm commitment that further representation, as strong as possible, will be made to the United States Congress to see whether this severe injustice can be corrected?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. member the United States Senate voted on such a motion within the last two weeks, and unfortunately it was defeated by two votes. I want to assure the hon. member that further representations are being made with the United States Congress in the hope that this matter can be relieved at the earliest possible time. There are ongoing discussions, as always, between Canada and the United States on these and other tax matters.

May 11, 1977
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


REQUEST FOR CENTENNIAL COMMEMORATIVE STAMPS FOR CANADIAN NATIONAL EXHIBITION
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Canadian National Exhibition is the largest exhibition of its kind in the world, and in view of the fact that 1978 is the one hundredth anniversary of the Canadian National Exhibition, will the Postmaster General consider striking a centennial commemorative stamp for this event in 1978?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to receive the representations from the hon. gentleman. I have visited the CNE on a number of occasions. I find it is an excellent exhibition. We are considering the matter with all due seriousness.


AIR TRANSPORT
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and is in regard to the proposed merger of Transair and Pacific Western Airlines. This subject has been discussed in the Manitoba legislature in the last couple of days, and the premier has informed the legislature that he is having difficulty in contacting the minister to discuss this subject. I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if the premier contacted him yesterday or today, and can he bring us up to date on whether the merger will be proceeding or not?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the premier has been accurately reported because we have had no trouble getting in touch with one another. We did speak about the question, and I have nothing further to say about the question of ownership because any such announcement or indication would come from the directly interested parties.


POSSIBILITY TRANSAIR WOULD GIVE UP WINNIPEG-TORONTO ROUTE IN EVENT OF MERGER
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems arising out of the merger is that Transair would have to give up its Toronto-Winnipeg run in return for some of Air Canada's viable western routes. Is the minister involved in this, and will Transair have to give up these routes if the merger is completed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some discussions among airlines about the various positions they would take in the event of a change in ownership and the appropriate application before the Canadian Trans-
[Mr. Poulin.)
port Commission be approved. Of course, any discussion they may have about their positions can only be that and cannot affect the fact that the applications do have to go before the Canadian Transport Commission. That applies not only to changes in ownership but changes in licences for routes as well.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr.   Ren@: 
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Now that the minister has admitted that in the past Canadian National Railways has purchased rails from Colorado Iron in the United States, will the minister advise if the Canadian National Railways is considering, or would he suggest to them, placing further orders for rails with the Sydney Steel Corporation, and if not required by Canadian National Railways at the moment, they could be stockpiled for future use as has
May 11, 1977

been done in the case of uranium, coal, butter and other commodities-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: And eggs!


Robert Muir: -thereby providing employment for unemployed steel workers in Cape Breton?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National only looks elsewhere for rails when there are good reasons for doing so. There were some overcapacity problems not too long ago. Following visits from steel workers and the representations from my colleague, the President of the Privy Council, I had meetings with Canadian National. As a result of those meetings, discussions with the steel plant took place and orders for rails were accelerated with Canadian National agreeing to take the rails earlier. They have been doing just that and stockpiling them for use later in the year.


HOUSING
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: 
Dean Waldon Whiteway: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the same minister also having to do with the AHOP program. In view of the fact that observers close to the financial markets of this country are predicting real difficulty-I think the minister is aware of this-and due to the ballooning which will take place five years from now when these loans become due, would the minister at least be prepared to concede that CMHC may not only have to maintain the subsidies but in fact have to assume those mortgage payments altogether?


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can tell the hon. member is that this program is very popular in Canada and that it allowed a few thousand Canadians to acquire 38,000 new housing units in Canada; I should think those people do not share the concerns of the hon. member.
Oral Questions


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the report of Dr. Noel Hall on Canadian railway pension plans. In view of the fact that very little has been done about this report, and particularly in view of the fact that nothing will be done to improve the pensions of those already retired unless some initiative is taken by the government, can the minister say whether the government is considering taking an initiative on behalf of those retired railway employees?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is quite accurate to say that nothing has been done with respect to the Noel Hall report. As the hon. member is aware, the report directly aims its remarks at the CPR, which is a private corporation. I have talked to some leaders of the railway unions and this is going to be a very serious subject at the bargaining table during the current negotiations. What flows from it may very well have implications for the pensioners already retired to whom the hon. member refers.


SUGGESTION PENSION FUNDS BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY UNIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Labour. Surely the minister agrees that the CPR, or any other railway or corporation running a private pension fund, should be directed by legislation to make the pension fund available for inspection by the unions? This does not have to wait for other people. Why does the government not act on this part of the Noel Hall report?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that is an area that we may very well look into.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: Before some hon. members get too excited about the situation, if my interpretation is right, I believe it is the feeling of the union leadership, at least those to whom I have talked, that they would prefer the matter now to rest in their hands in the free collective bargaining system, and they are assured that they can do rather well, better perhaps than a lot of the rest of us.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in connection with a matter of utmost

May 11, 1977
Oral Questions
importance, to emphasize once more the lack of objectivity which the French network of the CBC is demonstrating in its news bulletins and which may infringe upon the privileges of hon. members. When I came to the House yesterday, together with my wife and brother-in-law, I was confronted by a battery of photographers bent on filming my arrival, as though this was a special event of some sort. Yet, not once before, out of the hundreds of occasions I covered the distance and entered through the same door to reach the House, was I considered newsworthy material.
During the Radio-Canada six o'clock news bulletin, reporter Paul Racine, a great man for imagining things, referred to a so-called disruption and possible rank breaking within the Social Credit Party of Canada. And to support his "story", he mentioned the contacts which Liberal members are reported to have had with the hon. member for Bellechasse in their efforts to have him join the Liberal party. This reporter also claimed that when he looked yesterday afternoon for the hon. member for Bellechasse, he finally found him in the lobby situated on the government's side.
Must one infer, from the presence of a man at a given time in the office of a bank president, that this man is there to negotiate the purchase of the bank? Does the fact that opposition party leaders meet each morning in the office of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the Liberal Party leader, mean that the Liberal party is courting them? Are not hon. members, whatever their party affiliation, allowed to stroll about freely either on the right or on the left side of Your Honour's chair?
Mr. Speaker, it is true that during the House's sitting yesterday afternoon, I went to the lobby on the government's side to take part in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, a meeting which the committee chairman had called and at which two Progressive Conservative members, one NDP and three Liberal members were also present, besides myself. Are we to infer that, because a New Democratic or a Conservative member is found with Liberals, he is being courted and that he will join them eventually?


Mr. Corbin:: Who knows!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Racine, given his imagination, could have added the names of those persons, without rhyme or reason as he did in my case. Mr. Racine of the Radio-Canada news service got in touch with me immediately after this meeting. He asked me if I had been approached by the Liberals and invited to join them. I said no and I added that I happened to be in the lobby to attend a meeting of the agriculture sub-committee. Therefore, he knew why I was there and it is in bad faith that he gave the impression in his news bulletin that I had been approached by the Liberals. I find this way of informing the population repugnant and yet, newsmen are the first to demand honesty from politicians.
Perhaps we might expect the same degree of honesty from them. Why this sudden interest in me? After the Radio-Canada news last night, I realized that it was not by chance that the cameras were there at the entrance of the House and

that Mr. Racine launched that rumour, because the reporter's statement was accompanied by a film which was intended to have viewers believe that there was some truth in that phony story. This is another proof that Radio-Canada does not always serve the Canadian people objectively. Yet it would have had plenty of opportunities to make headlines with the speeches I made in the House to denounce economic dictatorship, big finance, or in favour of pensions at age 60, in defence of small wage-earners, private enterprise, but it did not. Following this, the CRTC, which is making an inquiry into Radio-Canada, should add this incident to its agenda.
To conclude, I want to inform the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I was elected by the people of Bellechasse as a member of the Social Credit party and that I do not intend to renege my mandate. Indeed I have always believed that it was not the party-


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Until it becomes a federalist party.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: We cannot criticize newsmen for not respecting our privileges if you do not respect my privilege to express my point of view in the House itself. Anyway, I always thought that it is not the party that makes the man but the men who make the value of a party.


Mr. Bechard:: Agreed, agreed!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I hope that Radio-Canada will have the courage to correct this failure to tell the truth, something which can deprive hon. members of their privileges. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin):
That considering the prejudice to my reputation as the hon. member for Bellechasse, this House request Radio-Canada to set the facts straight as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As always, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Bellechasse involves a very important procedural matter and, if possible, I would rather delay my decision for a few hours perhaps. I shall make a decision tomorrow if possible, to deal with such an important matter.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I agree, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instru-
May 11, 1977

ments. Because this committee and others, so far as I know, scrupulously present their reports in both official languages, I no longer intend to refer to that fact in presenting reports.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. MacGuigan.

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to present the third report of the special committee appointed to supervise the implementation of radio and television broadcasting of proceedings of the Elouse and its committees.
[Editor's Note: For text of the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The order paper already indicates that Friday has been designated as an allotted day which has been assigned to the New Democratic Party. In order that hon. members might have all the notice possible as to what will be under discussion, I should like to indicate that the motion to be put down for Friday will be in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and it will deal with matters arising out of the Berger report. I should also like to indicate that it is our intention that this motion be put down under Standing Order 58(9)(a), which means that we would like a vote to be taken at the end of the debate.
In view of the fact that that is Friday afternoon and there are members who try to catch planes to get away for the week end, we are also proposing-and I have discussed this with each of the other House leaders-that on Friday we alter our hours of sitting slightly. Our proposal is that we sit through the noon hour from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., and that we end the day one hour earlier than usual, in other words, that the debate come to an end at 3.45 p.m. instead of 4.45 p.m. We propose that the bells then ring for the 15 minutes set down in the Standing Orders and that the recorded vote, if it is called for, be taken at 4 p.m. I think you will find that this proposition is generally supported.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving us notice of the subject matter and particularly of his intention with respect to the taking of a vote on a Friday afternoon, which is unusual. I
Order Paper Questions
think his suggestion, which he was kind enough to discuss with me on behalf of the official opposition, is an eminently sensible one in view of the geography and airline schedules that afflict this country. It is certainly acceptable, and we are prepared to consent.


Mr. MacFarlane:: That is acceptable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fortin:: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the House is disposed to make an order to that effect today. It is suggested that on Friday, it being an allotted day under the control of the members of the NDP, the House will sit at the usual hour except that it will continue through the lunch adjournment and therefore the ordinary hour of adjournment will be considered to be four o'clock instead of five o'clock, and that for the purpose of taking a vote pursuant to Standing Order 58(9) (a) the hour at which the bells will commence to ring will be 3.45 p.m. on Friday afternoon and that the bells, as usual, be of 15 minutes duration, and that the vote be taken at 4 p.m. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am sorry for that, but I was only trying to draw your attention before the question was put. I only want to say that this proposal may perhaps suit many members who come from cities not too far from Ottawa but it certainly does not suit hon. members who live in remote areas of this country.

However, I will not be a party pooper, Mr. Speaker, and I will go along with the motion, but I want that to be on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it should be explained that part of the discussions are discretionary and part are not. Those that are not discretionary relate to the fact that the motion is in the hands of one of the opposition parties on an allotted day, which must be agreed to, of course, by the government. That day has been allotted on a Friday and it is the right of the opposition to call a vote without any assistance. What is under discretion is the altering of the Standing Orders in order to take a vote earlier than usual. That was the only part that was put to the House for consideration at this time.
5518

May 11, 1977
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 149, 613, 1,544, 2,185, 2,229 and 2,309.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of External Affairs?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1 (a) and 2. Study on the Baltic States and their Consular Representatives in Canada, $4,000, M. Wershof; Study on staff accommodation practices abroad, $14,300, A. Cote; Development of a programme of studies in India, $1,500, Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute; Survey on Europe as seen by Canadians, $4,500, Centre d'etudes et de documentation europeens, Universite de Montreal; Specialized studies in International Law, $35,669, University of Alberta; Study on the implications of Global Population Trends, $5,000, C. Taylor; Study on future trends and developments in Canadian-American Political and Economic Relations, $1,820, D. Munton; Study on Development and Application of a system for the determination of priorities among Canadian Foreign Policy Objectives, $7,000, Carleton University; Evaluation of rentability of Cultural Centres, $7,500, G. Fournier & Associes Inc.; Study on the feasibility of creating, maintaining and retrieving abstracts of publications by Computer System, $5,000, J. Black; Review of distribution of the Departmental Publication-International Perspectives, $2,940, N. Gordon; Analysis of ways and means to improve access to British Education System for Canadian Information Material, $4,900, N. Shuttleworth; Evaluation of the Department's Book Presentation Program to U.S. High Schools, $16,750, Bridgewater State College; Analysis and production of the Department's Publication, Annual Review, $4,000, S. Freifeld; Elaboration of a report on Studies of Canadian Foreign Policy in Secondary and Collegiate Institutions of French Canada, $5,000, Centre Quebecois de Relations Internationales; Study on foreseeable future relationships between Policy Objectives, Administrative Mechanisms, and Programme Activities, $11,000, Nepean Development Consultants; Study (Confidential Report), $2,550, V. Hood.
1 (b) and 2. Administrative Reporting Control System, $10,000, S. Rahmer; Organizational Structure, $7,500, ARA Consultants; Study of Telephone System Servicing, The Secretary of State for External Affairs, The Under-Secretary and his Assistants, $3,135, Parsec Communications Inc.; Development of a Computerized Information Storage and Retrieval System, $20,000, BMCS; Review of Automated Word Processing Equipment, $3,375, BMCS; Organizational Review of Financial Services, $4,350, BMCS.
3.	$89,165.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-REGIONAL OFFICES
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many regional offices are maintained by the Department of Transport (b) where is each located (c) for what area is each responsible?
2.	On what date was each established and with how many personnel?
3.	What is the present personnel strength of each office?
4.	In addition to regional offices, are district or other sub-offices maintained and, if so (a) in what locations (b) how many?
5.	Are the duties performed by those manning the regional and/or district offices line functions, in the chain of command from Ottawa to the operator in the field, or do they have other functions to perform and, if so, what are such functions?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) The
Department of Transport presently maintains 11 regional offices, (b) The locations are as follows: (i) Canadian Air Transportation Administration (CATA): Moncton, New Brunswick; Montreal, Quebec; Toronto, Ontario; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Edmonton, Alberta; Vancouver, British Columbia, (ii) Canadian Marine Transportation Administration (CMTA): Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; St. John's, Newfoundland; Toronto, Ontario; Quebec City, Quebec; Vancouver, British Columbia, (c) See maps following.
2.	CATA: Moncton, 1.6.48, 40 employees; Montreal, 2.11.36, 3 employees; Toronto, 2.11.36, 2 employees; Winnipeg, 2.11.36, 2 employees; Edmonton, 2.11.36, 2 employees; Vancouver, 2.11.36, 2 employees. CMTA: Dartmouth, 1.4.67, 23 employees; St. John's, 1.8.71, 41 employees; Toronto, 1.5.72, 18 employees; Quebec, 1.4.72, 26 employees; Vancouver, 1.4.68, 19 employees.
3.	CATA: Moncton, 2411; Montreal, 2329; Toronto, 2112; Winnipeg, 1367; Edmonton, 1703; Vancouver, 1578. CMTA: Dartmouth, 1776 (Including 233 lightkeepers); St. John's, 564 (Including 78 lightkeepers); Toronto, 788 (Including 165 lightkeepers); Quebec, 1344 (Including 71 lightkeepers); Vancouver, 964 (Including 110 lightkeepers).
4.	(a) District offices and sub-bases are maintained by the
Canadian Marine Transportation Administration in the following locations: District Offices: Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; St. John, New Brunswick; Montreal, Quebec; Quebec City, Quebec; Parry Sound, Ontario; Prescott, Ontario; Prince Rupert, British Columbia; Victoria, British Columbia; Hay River, North West Territories; Sub-bases:	Amherstburg, Ontario; Kenora,
Ontario; Thunder Bay, Ontario; Sorel, Quebec; Selkirk, Manitoba, (b) 10 district offices, five sub-bases.
5.	All the personnel manning the regional and district offices perform duties in the line chain of command from Ottawa.
[Mr. Speaker.)
yx6-9I008
t



(,.' "\


CANADIAN MARINE TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION- CANADIAN COAST GUARD REGIONS AND DISTRICTS ADMINISTRATION DU TRANSPORT MARITIME DU CANADA-SERVICES DE LA GARDE COHERE CANADIENNE REGIONS, DISTRICTS ET LES ENVIRONS
[Stage Direction]
Coast Guard Maritimes Region Garde cdti6re r6gion des maritimes
Charlottetown * Coast Guard District Garde cdti6re district 1 de Charlottetown r Dartmouth Coast Guard District Garde cdti6re district de Dartmouth
Saint John Coast Guard District Garde c6ti6re district de Saint-Jean ^ Prescott Coast Guard District Garde c6ti6re district de Prescott
&[DOT]
>i
[Stage Direction]
to
[Stage Direction]
r*
©
May 11, 1977__________________COMMONS DEBATES__________________________5519
[Stage Direction]


' * ' ' ' ' *
5520	COMMONS DEBATES	______ _________May 11, 1977
May 11, 1977

Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of the Environment obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
Motion for Papers
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: In so far as the Department of Fisheries and the Environment is concerned:
Province
(i)	British Columbia
(ii)	Alberta
(iii)	Saskatchewan
(iv)	Manitoba
(v)	Ontario
(vi)	Quebec
(vi)	Quebec
(vii)	New Brunswick
(viii)	Nova Scotia Prince Edward
(ix)	Island
(x)	Newfoundland
(a)	(b)	2	3
Number Part-Time Number Full-Time
Agency Employees Agency Employees	Paid From	Agency Average	Employees(Calendar Year	(Calendar Year	Supplementary	Main	Hourly Rate	Average1976)	1976)	Estimates	Estimates	1975	1976	Hourly Rate815	5	X	5.74	6.29	Not Known96	15	X	5.29	5.59	Not Known12	18	X	4.60	5.65	Not Known18	2	X	5.37	5.90	Not Known741	147	X	5.18	5.66	Not Known31	X	6.47	6.67	Not Known455	6	X	5.32	5.55	Not Known1	1	X	4.77	5.25	Not Known39	23	X	5.17	5.47	Not Known2	X	5.24	Not Known4	2	X	5.88	6.22	Not Known
Total Paid
(i) 1975
1.149.887.00 89,908.76 23,815.38
7,044.50
1.538.173.00 29,965.00
544,880.54
70,751.81
27,689.59
(ii) 1976
1.639.824.00
107.018.00 13,592.20 20.554.53
2.061.656.00
125.788.00 504,150.35
66.935.00 21,149.86
99,000.00	63,436.00
10,700.00	22,775.00


SAINT JOHN RIVER-PARTICULATE DISCHARGE
Mr. Fairweather: What is the anticipated impact on the lower Saint John River Basin of the solid particulate discharge into the Saint John River at Union Point, Saint John, New Brunswick?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: It is expected that the impact of emissions at Union Point of atmospheric particulates on the Saint John River will be minimal. Approximately 99 per cent of the atmospheric particulate emissions are contained at source, resulting in a particulate discharge of about four tons per day. This emission rate is less than other major sources in the area and in our experience, is far less than the fugitive emissions of particulates from traffic and other human activities. The suspended solids emitted directly via the effluent are relatively inert chemically but can interfere with the transmission of light through the water. They also cause some interference with the gills of fish and can smother marine life on the bottom. However, a quantitative estimate of the effects of suspended solids in the effluent are not known at this time.


RECYCLING POLICY FOR TIN CANS
Mr. Fortin: Has the government a re-cycling policy for tin cans and (a) if so, what is it (b) if not, for what reason?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The government advocates the recovery of all potentially useful resources from the municipal waste stream, including the tin and ferrous metal components of tin cans wherever a net benefit to society would occur. We would recommend this policy for provinces and municipalities; however, in some instances, a more desirable management option may be to prevent the generation of the waste in the first place. The relative merits of these alternate policies are presently under review by many of the appropriate authorities across Canada.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


CANADA COUNCIL ADVERTISING IN &quot;LE JOUR&quot;
Mr. Herbert: What is the total cost of advertising placed by the Canada Council in the Montreal publication Le Jour1.


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: A total of $392 was paid by the Canada Council to advertise arts awards competitions in Le Jour: $182 for an ad published on September 6 and 13, 1975 and $210 for an ad published on February 21, 1977.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 75 is acceptable to the government.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

May 11, 1977
Criminal Code


PENSIONS-COPY OF LETTER OF CONDOLENCE ON DEATH OF SPOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 75-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the letter of condolence the Department of National Health and Welfare sends to a woman, who has been in receipt of the Spouse's Allowance, following the death of her husband before she has reached age 65, including the portion of the said letter that tells her that her Spouse's Allowance is being discontinued.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-51, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act-The Minister of Justice.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), by way of a point of order, seeks an order of the Chair that Bill C-51 be divided because it is an omnibus bill containing a number of amendments to the Criminal Code. It is the hon. member's contention that no member of parliament should be compelled to decide with one vote on one motion several questions which, even though not contradictory, are quite independent from one and another, except perhaps for their connection to the criminal law.
The hon. member makes two arguments, the first by analogy to the well-established rights of a member of parliament to force a division of a motion which contains distinct propositions. The second is that even if the practice in respect of motions has not previously extended itself into a practice in respect of bills, the reasoning is essentially the same, and therefore a member ought to enjoy the same right to force the division of bills.
The argument of the government is under three headings: first, that the Criminal Code is itself an omnibus piece of legislation for the obvious reason and advantage of attempting to collect the criminal law under one statute and is properly, therefore, amended by an omnibus bill; second, that the nature and impact of substantive motions is quite distinct from those motions relating only to the progress of a bill, so that both the practices and principles must remain separate and distinct. In that sense the several stages and the procedures and practices surrounding the several stages of a bill afford to hon. members ample opportunity to put forward the different views they may have in respect of the various clauses of the bill, whereas that

does not exist in the case of a substantive motion which must be taken upon one decision.
Third, the government argues that the use of omnibus amending bills is a well-established practice in our House, notwithstanding the numerous attacks which have been made upon it in the past.
Indeed there is no shortage of precedents, for the same situation has arisen several times in the past, with all of the same arguments having been made, and obviously, judging by the rulings, carefully considered. I refer to two very thorough rulings by my distinguished predecessor, the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, one on January 26, 1971, which is reported at page 283 of the Journals having to do with the government reorganization bill, and the second on January 23, 1969, which is found at page 616 of the Journals and which dealt again with an omnibus amending bill to the Criminal Code. Except for the wiretapping legislation which is, of course, a bill which has been passed since that time, all of the same statutes plus a few more were included in the amending bill.
All hon. members who took part in this discussion obviously studied these decisions very carefully and recognized the usual impeccable reasoning and precise expression of the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux. There is no need to repeat his language. His decision is crystal clear, and there can be no doubt that a motion containing two or more substantive provisions is quite distinct from a procedural motion or a motion which is generally described as having only the effect of dealing with the progress of a bill. The practice in respect of substantive motions has never been extended to those motions which relate to the progress of a bill. The use of the omnibus amending bill is well enshrined in our practices, and I really can find no reason to set aside my predecessor's very clear and sound reasoning, or the practice. Nor can I find any authority which would support an order of the Chair at this second reading stage that the bill be divided.
I should emphasize as well that the remedy sought by the hon. member is not to divide the bill according to the separate statutes to be amended but by subject matter. Were that to be attempted, it would place before the Chair, it seems to me, questions of interpretation and responsibility for the drafting of an extremely complex order, which in my opinion the Chair ought not to attempt.
I suppose there is no need to speculate on whether circumstances might arise in the future in which such a remedy might be available. However, I certainly am bound by the clear language of our precedent rulings and previous practices to reject the point of order of the hon. member for New Westminster, and I decline to make the order which he requests.
This still leaves, as it has in the past every time this kind of argument has been put forward, some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of bills do in fact provide a remedy for the very legitimate complaint of the hon. member that a bill of this kind gives the government, under our practices, the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related, subjects.
May 11, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think an hon. member of the House ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate question. Previous rulings have made reference to several devices open to hon. members under our proceedings regarding bills, but it seems to me that each which has been mentioned in the past suffers from at least one weakness.
For example, it has been suggested that motions by way of an instruction to the committee, once the bill is in the standing committee, that the bill be divided, might be applicable. This is a practice which has been rather prevalent in the British House, but in our procedures it raises a very great number of serious and unanswered procedural questions, and in any case it has never really been successful. It has been suggested that hon. members have an opportunity to vote clause by clause in the committee and, of course, to persuade other hon. members to do the same, but even if that can be effective it still does not constitute an expression of the entire House.
It has been said that at the report stage hon. members can isolate clauses by tabling, with the appropriate notice, motions to amend, but even there it seems to me the point is not answered, as equally it is not answered by the suggestion that at third reading stage hon. members can put down motions to refer the bill back to the committee for reconsideration of certain clauses. I say that those two remedies do not answer the point fully because it may very well be that an hon. member might take the position that the law is fine the way it is and that he ought not to be put under the burden of contriving some kind of amendment or seeking further study when in fact he does not want further study. What he really wants to express is that the law is fine the way it is and that it ought to be left alone. It seems to me that he ought to be entitled to put that point at least at some stage in our proceedings, and furthermore, to require other people to come to a vote on that proposition.
Therefore, I think that in the past when attention has been directed to these remedies, not enough has been said about one device which does rest in the hands of hon. members, at least in my opinion, and that is a motion to delete pursuant to Standing Order 75(5). The reason this has not been developed fully in rulings in the past is that in the most recent rulings- the two I have cited, one in 1969 and the other in 1971, when the new procedures of the House were under discussion, and in the latter case when they were really rather fresh-I do not think the full impact of the motion to delete was recognized at that time.
Hon. members will recall that this subject of motions to delete pursuant to Standing Order 75(5) was very much before us when the House debated Bill C-84, the bill to abolish capital punishment of several offences. Opponents of the abolition of capital punishment sought to introduce in the House, at report stage, motions of two kinds. They sought to introduce motions to amend, which had the effect of reinstating the law by way of an amendment of one kind or another, and I ruled that those amendments, because they offended the basic principle of the bill, were out of order. However, there were also
Criminal Code
motions to delete the effective clauses pursuant to Standing Order 75(5). There could be no question but that those motions to delete equally offended the principle of the bill as those motions to amend, for in fact the effect of deletion would have been to have restored the law which was, in fact, to impose capital punishment for those offences, and it posed a great problem for the Chair.
I dealt differently with the motions to delete because I felt that we clearly were not subject to the same restrictions as those precedents relating to amendments only, because the motion to delete was enshrined in a specific Standing Order, and whether it had been the intention of the drafters of that Standing Order to hand this power to the private member was irrelevant to me. The fact was that it was in our Standing Orders, and it seemed to me that if there was doubt as to the extent to which the private member could take advantage of that Standing Order, that doubt ought to have been resolved- and in my opinion was resolved-in favour of the private member having the opportunity to use that motion to delete to bring the House to a vote in that situation.
I felt that there was some discrepancy between the two rulings, one having to do with amendments which contravened the principle, and the other having to do with motions to delete which might-and I stress might-have offended the principle of the bill, and in the course of that ruling I asked that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization examine that discrepancy and attempt to resolve it for the House.
It also seems to me, however, that even if the greatest respect is paid to the principle and to the classic reasoning that we have applied in the past to amendments when we are dealing with motions to delete-in other words even if the greatest respect is paid to the principle that motions at the report stage are circumscribed in their procedural inability to offend the principle of the bill, it still seems to me that in most cases it is likely open, and certainly in this case it would likely be open to an hon. member who seeks to do what the hon. member for New Westminster and other hon. members have said they ought to be able to do, a point with which I have some sympathy, that is to say, that where a bill is presented- and certainly it is the right of the government to present such a bill-which contains amendments to several different areas of the law although all connected to the criminal law, a member ought to be able to use some procedure at some stage of the bill to cause the House to make separate decisions on those very subject matters.
Therefore, while I carefully guard the specific rulings on the contradiction between the principles of the bill and the motions that might be put forward until the actual stage arises, because we are speculating as to what the cases may be, it seems to me in advance that in a bill of this sort where several subject matters of the criminal law are sought to be amended in one statute, which is proper in our practice, a member ought to be able, if he wishes, to attempt through motions to delete under Standing Order 75(5) to isolate those sections which he

May 11, 1977
Criminal Code
feels ought not to be amended or that ought to be voted upon separately, without offending the principle of the bill. I think that would give the hon. member and other hon. members an opportunity that they should enjoy, to put their position on the record, which I think ought to be known, and also to require others in the House to vote in respect of that position.
This is again without prejudice to the specific arguments as they may arise, because I think hon. members will realize it might be foolish to speculate what the specific motions might be and what might be the arguments against them in terms of contravention of the principle of the bill. As a general proposition it seems to me that if we could accept it in a situation such as the capital punishment bill until it is further resolved, where the connection was the criminal law and where there were several sections or crimes for which abolition was sought and members were entitled to say, "I am in favour of abolition for some of those sections but not others; therefore when do I get my chance to require the House to side with me or against me?"-if that could be accepted as subject to further clarification by the standing committee on Procedure and Organization, surely it can be accepted in this situation where the hon. member seeks to say, "I may be in favour, for example, of amendments to wiretapping but not to gun control, or to gun control, but not to other offences and provisions with regard to dangerous offenders, for example, that are in the bill."
So, guarding it for the specific arguments that may arise, I wish to stress again that it seems to me the hon. member ought to have the opportunity he seeks through this point of order, which I have set aside, and that that opportunity ought to arise generally without offending the principle of the bill through the use of Standing Order 75(5).


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the ruling that has just been made, as Your Honour knows I was unable to participate in the debate on the point of order on Monday night. I want to say that I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) raised the point of order on Monday so that it could be debated by the House and disposed of by Your Honour before the bill was called. I appreciate that it was done that way rather than raising his point of order today, as that would have thrown the business of the House into some confusion.
The theme of this bill is, of course, familiar to the House and was dealt with extensively in the last session. The theme is obviously the greater protection of the Canadian public through improved measures concerning the prevention of crime and the treatment of criminals. One of the essential features of criminal law in the system of administration of justice that we have in this country is that the Minister of Justice-as I pointed out in a speech on a similar bill last session-is responsible for seeking this protection and ensuring that the law provides such protection involving as it does the
[Mr. Speaker.)
well-being, the safety, and ultimately the very lives of Canadians.
This theme has been debated extensively in the past-both in principle and in detail. Bill C-83 of the last session contained the same four elements-firearms control, electronic surveillance, dangerous offenders, and custody and release of inmates. Sixty-three different speakers were heard at second reading stage of that bill. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs studied it for some 9'h weeks, and received in total 38 briefs.
During that time, Mr. Speaker, those briefs instigated amendments made in committee, and the bill was then reported back to the House with a large number of these amendments. Furthermore, in the course of report stage, a number of letters and statements were sent to me, and these have been carefully considered by myself and members of the government. Indeed this new bill's whole existence is predicated on the contributions made during and following the debate on Bill C-83.
On this side of the House I would note the valuable work done in this regard-and it is always dangerous to name some-but I would refer to the valuable work done by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) and also those who had reservations about the bill and were helpful in making changes in it. In the latter regard, I note the contributions of my colleague from British Columbia, the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall), the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goo-dale), and the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell). This only represents a small number of those who were actively involved in the discussions and decisions made on Bill C-83 and the redrafting of the proposals such as are now contained in Bill C-51.
I should like to put on record as well recognition of the considerable work done in this regard by hon. members opposite, especially those who are members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). The spokesman for the official opposition at the committee was the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I should also like to mention the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin). I repeat that it was the contributions of these hon. members along with those of many other members of the House and of the many and varied interest groups and provincial governments that led to the development of the bill now before the House. I hope that hon. members recognize the extent and the value of this effort.
The fact that this amount of work has been done in the House, in committee, and in the various caucuses of the House, combined with the pressing need for legislation of this type will, I trust, cause all hon. members to give these measures the quickest and most deliberate consideration. To that end, I will devote myself on this occasion to touching only briefly on some of the major provisions of the bill.
May 11, 1977

During the debate on Bill C-83 and the discussions which have transpired since then, the primary focus has been that of firearms control. The public contributions in this area have been particularly extensive, and I am thinking in particular of the work that has been done by concerned groups such as the Canadian Association for Sensible Arms Legislation, including as one of its members the Canadian Wildlife Federation; the Canadian Retailers' Association, and the city of Windsor, again to name but a few.
The major differences between Bill C-51 and its predecessor are found in the firearms sections, and I am confident the time has come to adopt these especially vital measures of protection for society. If some were able to claim when the predecessor bill was before the House that they were not consulted adequately, or their views were not taken into account in the preparation of that bill, let me say that is not the case with the bill now before the House. There has been extensive consideration of and consultation on all possible points of view on this bill.
It is clear to me that our laws in this country relating to firearms need to be changed. It is wrong, for example, that an escaped criminal from a penitentiary can go to the nearest sporting goods store and buy a gun, rifle or shotgun without questions being asked, as easily as he can walk into a drugstore and buy toothpaste. Something is wrong with the law when that is permitted and possible, and it is my responsibility to recommend to my colleagues and parliament the necessary changes in the law to alter that situation. I submit that it is parliament's responsibility to deal deliberately with that situation and with my recommendations.
In this country it is difficult to propose measures relating to firearms control. I say that because this country is diverse. The interests of those in the huge metropolitan areas of Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, have to be matched with the interests of the trapper in northern Saskatchewan, or of the Inuit in Tuktoyaktuk who depend on a rifle for their livelihood, or the interests of all those countless numbers of people across Canada who use rifles and shotguns for legitimate and responsible sporting purposes. Combining within one regime various provisions which will protect the public and take into account the diversity of our country is an immensely difficult job. 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.
The objectives of the government's firearms control proposals remain unchanged. Simply, they are to prevent the potentially dangerous user from gaining access to guns to the extent feasible; to encourage responsible gun ownership and use; and to discourage the criminal use of firearms as much as possible. Bill C-51 addresses itself to meeting these objectives in a number of ways. It will do this, first, by screening new acquirers of firearms before they can obtain a weapon; second,
Criminal Code
by providing a mechanism for identifying existing gun owners who may be potentially dangerous and preventing them from possessing and using firearms; third by prohibiting certain particularly dangerous firearms which have no legitimate sporting purpose, and restricting others; fourth, by strengthening the registration provisions for restricted weapons-but obviously this in no way applies to long guns or shotguns; fifth, it will do it by strengthening and extending the permit provisions for businesses that deal in firearms and ammunition; sixth, by promoting the education and training of firearm owners; and seventh, by providing stiff penalties for criminals who use firearms.
The instruments for achieving these ends were developed with a view to utilizing existing schemes and mechanisms as much as possible in ensuring that they involved the least possible interference in the lives of responsible Canadians and provided the greatest effectiveness for the least cost. Thus we have moved away from the concept of universal screening of gun owners and zeroed in on those gun owners or would-be owners who might be dangerous to themselves or others if they have access to a firearm. These include persons who have histories of conviction for offences involving violence against anyone, those who have been convicted of firearms offences, those who have a history of violent behaviour or who have a record of treatment for mental disorders associated with violence. These provisions have been, to the best of our ability, spelled out in the most objective terms possible. Consequently there is an objective test governing who may or may not qualify for a firearms acquisition certificate.
Had we been able to use these screening criteria last year, and I do not want to spend much of my time dealing with incidents which have occurred-a number of tragic incidents would never have taken place, including the one involving Ernest Lamourandire, the Yonge Street sniper. He had a long history of convictions for crimes of violence, yet there was nothing in the law to stop him from walking into a Yonge Street gun store and buying the high powered rifle he used to wound five people and kill himself. That there exists no mechanism in the law which could prevent this is wrong.
For new acquirers of firearms we have developed a firearms acquisition certificate system. Anyone wishing to obtain a firearm would first have to apply for and be issued a firearms acquisition certificate application. The acquisition certificate application would be reviewed by a firearms officer, in most cases a police officer. This system has several important advantages. It permits the screening out of persons who should not have access to firearms. It provides an effective delay or cooling off period before a firearm can be acquired. It provides a tangible means by which firearm retailers can determine that a buyer is not under an order of prohibition. It offers a measure of control over the mail order sale of firearms. Also the need to obtain a firearm acquisition certificate should cause new acquirers, some of whom may be unbalanced, to reflect more carefully on the serious responsibility inherent in firearms ownership.
5526

May 11, 1977
Criminal Code
An added check is provided in the proposed acquisition certificate system in that not only must the new acquirer show the certificate when obtaining a firearm but the law requires the person transferring the firearm to see and record the certificate.
Concern has been expressed about the cost, which was to be charged under the previously proposed bill. I have been somewhat alarmed to note some of the statements which have been made about the matter of cost. Mr. Speaker, it is proposed that the cost of the acquisition certificate will largely be paid by the $10, five-year fee. I believe it is proper as the committee suggested last session, that people who wish to use firearms should bear a share of the cost of protecting Canadian society from the misuse of those guns, just as society itself pays for part of that protection. The remainder of the cost of the system will be covered by the federal government; therefore a contribution will be made not only by those obtaining acquisition certificates but by the public at large. This provision is in conformity with the view of the committee and was incorporated in the legislation.
The government recognizes that the ability of gun users to handle firearms safely and competently is of great importance. Competency training and testing have traditionally been an area of provincial responsibility and so provision has been made to allow each province to have the government require completion of a safety or competency course as a prerequisite for the issuance of an acquisition certificate in that province. I am of the same view as many wildlife groups who for many years have urged competency testing programs within their provinces. I look forward to working with them and encouraging the provinces to take advantage of that provision in the bill by which they could attach competency to the issuance of an acquisition certificate.
Furthermore, provision has been made in the legislation, and I direct hon. members attention to those clauses in particular, to allow the provinces to ask the federal government to declare that in their provinces hunting licences, competency certificates and other permits issued in connection with the use of firearms may substitute as federal firearms acquisition certificates under the conditions specified in the legislation. Much of the debate centred around the need for local administration and provincial administration. That is being provided in this section of the proposal, if provinces want to avail themselves of that facility.
The screening of existing gun owners will be achieved through a strengthening and broadening of the court's powers of prohibition. Thus, persons convicted of an indictable offence involving violence against a person and carrying a sentence of ten years or more, or using a firearm while committing an indictable offence, would be subject to a mandatory court order prohibiting them from using or possessing firearms for a minimum of five years.
Morever, the courts could impose prohibitions against persons convicted of other crimes of violence or offences against
[Mr. Basford.J
the firearms sections of the Criminal Code. Police may also ask the courts to issue orders of prohibition where they have information indicating that someone should not be in possession of a gun; for example, where someone consistently threatens a member of the family or a neighbour with violence. I emphasize that this is an additional screening measure affording a further measure of public protection. Now, in addition to the court or magistrate making a mandatory order of prohibition where a serious crime is involved, there will be a discretionary power in a court or magistrate to make a prohibition order with a power for police officers to aply to a court for this judicial order on proper information and belief that a certain person is a danger to himself or others, and his ability to have a gun should be restricted or prohibited.
In connection with potential domestic violence, a further preventative measure is offered through the proposal to strengthen seizure rights for police. Where police are called into a family quarrel, for example, and a gun is present, police would have the right to seize the weapon so that it does not become the tragic means of settling the dispute. Whether or not a gun is seized, the police course of action has to be justified forthwith by application to a court in order to prevent irresponsible seizure or harassment of innocent people by the police.
I submit that the two systems of an acquisition certificate for new acquirers of firearms and the provisions relating to court prohibitions and court order seizures go hand in hand. They provide an effective measure of public protection which we do not now have in the law and that we need, without at the same time unduly interfering with the rights of responsible citizens.
In all cases, a system of appeals is available to protect the rights of gun owners who have had action taken against them.
Some parts of these legislative proposals, particularly those relating to the business permit system, require the establishment of regulations in order to make them responsive and flexible.
I know there was a great debate on regulations the last time the subject was debated. Any student of Bill C-51 will notice that there is far less regulatory discretion in Bill C-51 than in Bill C-83.
On the question of dealers, it would result in an immensely rigid system to put all of the proposed regulations relating to dealers in the statute. However, these regulations have been discussed with those interested. They will be discussed with the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, as well as with police, gun owners, and representatives of the businesses affected by them.
We continue to believe that gun owners must be better informed about responsible firearms ownership. I have described the steps being taken in the acquisition certificate system to promote competency training and testing of gun owners by the provinces. We will encourage the fullest extension of such training and testing across Canada.
May 11, 1977

For people who do not store, handle, and use their weapons responsibly, penalties must be imposed. There are still far too many instances where children, for example, gain access to improperly stored weapons or ammunition causing tragedy for themselves or playmates. This cannot go on. Generally speaking, careful use of firearms is a matter of common sense.
Gun clubs and provinces make excellent material available advising people how to handle, transport, and store their weapons safely, and there is no excuse for people failing to do so.
As far as the use of guns by professional criminals goes, this legislation will make it as difficult as possible for them to gain access to firearms, and will provide penalties for committing crimes with guns which are so stiff that the crook feels it is too dangerous to do so.
I think one of the things the committee was looking for when we discussed this the last time, and I also agreed to, was somehow to write into the law a system of mandatory minimum sentences for the use of firearms in the commission of crimes which would be a signal to the criminal element that if they were going to commit crimes they had better not do it with a firearm. It was the unanimous feeling of the committee that that was the desirable and necessary approach to take. It is alarming to note that the incidence of firearms robbery rose 53 per cent between 1974 and 1975 while non-firearms robbery rose only 11 per cent. We must turn this trend back, and I believe that our new proposals can do so.
Hon. members will recall the discussion during the last year on the work of the Quebec crime inquiry. It was very much in the news. The recommendations made by that inquiry relative to the criminal use of firearms and what the law should be were carefully considered in the preparation of this legislation.
The firearms control provisions in Bill C-51 fill a critical gap in the protection that Canadians have a right to expect. They have a right to expect parliament and myself to deal with that. That gap must be filled now before yet more deaths and injuries point out in the most tragic manner possible the urgent need for improved control of firearms.
In a free society we have to take account of what the views of the Canadian people are, without at the same time using the strength of the majority to override the legitimate interests and needs of the minority.
The last public opinion poll taken on this subject in February, 1977, asked, "Would you favour or oppose a law which would require a person to obtain a police permit before he or she could buy a gun?" The responses were 85 per cent in favour, 12 per cent opposed, and 3 per cent with no opinion. I submit that the proposals relating to firearms contained in Bill C-51 are precisely in line with that question. The question refers to a police permit, the legislation to an acquisition certificate which would apply and be necessary for the new acquisition of a firearm. We have a responsibility to respond to the need and the desire of those 85 per cent who want that sort of system within the law of this land. We obviously have a responsibility to take into account the interest of the 12 per
Criminal Code
cent who oppose this system. Many of them are sportsmen, gun-users, trappers, and native people. In designing Bill C-51 and in the immense amount of consultation which has gone on, we have endeavoured, successfully I think, to take into account the proper interest of that 12 per cent. I hope this minority will recognize, as we proceed with the debate, that we have endeavoured to take their interest into account while protecting the majority of the Canadian people.
I wish to turn now to the provisions of the bill relating to electronic surveillance, an immensely difficult issue which concerns each one of us. As many hon. members will recall, the question was debated at great length in 1974 when the protection of privacy bill was under consideration, and again when Bill C-83 was before the House. The provisions in Bill C-51 in relation to electronic surveillance do not in any way derogate from the fundamental principles, approved by parliament, that the individual has a right to privacy in his lawful communications with others, and that private interception of communication is outlawed.
Just as the protection of privacy legislation was passed by parliament with no intention of frustrating the capacity of police authorities to uncover and prosecute crimes, the amendments in this bill are designed to ensure that the activities of the bosses of organized crime can be more effectively investigated than is possible at present. The amendments are essentially the same as the provisions passed by the House committee which reported on Bill C-83. There are two important changes and each of them further protects the fundamental right to privacy. I might add that in this speech I shall deal with those two changes only. In committee I shall obviously have to deal extensively with all the provisions relating to electronic surveillance.
The first change has to do with the 90-day notice provision. Your Honour will recall that the earlier bill allowed a waiving of the 90-day notice provision according to which, if surveillance had occurred, notice had to be given within 90 days. In committee last year the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) introduced an amendment to extend the 90-day notice to a period of five years if a judge so ordered. In other words, the giving of notice could be delayed for a period up to five years. This meant that while, as a general rule, the police had to give a notice to a person who had been the object of an interception within 90 days of wire tapping, in special cases a judge could order, upon the basis of a sworn affidavit, that the permitted period could be extended to five years.
This amendment, as I followed the committee proceedings, was generally supported. I quote, for example, the hon. member for Calgary North as reported in the official record of committee proceedings of June 16, 1976. The hon. member is reported as saying:
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see this change. I do not think any of us can take individual credit but I do know Mr. Leggatt took that position, as did Mr. Fairweather and Mr. Diefenbaker in our party, and myself, as well as Mr. 80016 -lO'/e

May 11, 1977
Criminal Code
Lachance, the member for Lafontaine-Rosemont. He, too, is a big man in this field.
So I want to congratulate the minister-he is not here, but he will hear about it, I am sure-
As I obviously have.
-on being flexible, on making this change, and on making it realistic.
I am delighted that the hon. member for Calgary North has expressed support in that way.
We have suggested a further amendment by which the notice period would be limited not to five years but to three years. This is obviously an improvement over the provision which was contained in Bill C-83, approved by the committee and commended by the hon. member for Calgary North. What we are proposing in Bill C-51 is that a judge, upon special application and upon sworn evidence, may extend the delay in notification not to five years but to three years.
The second change in Bill C-51 is to ensure that the fundamental confidentiality of a client's conversation with his lawyer is protected. The amendment says that no authorization can be granted to intercept a client's conversation with his lawyer at the lawyer's office or at home unless, as the bill provides, there is evidence before a judge that the lawyer himself is involved in the commission of a crime. Hon. members may recall two instances which received a good deal of public attention involving electronic surveillance of lawyers' offices or telephones used by lawyers, one in Sault Ste. Marie and another in Perth.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There was one in Calgary in my own office.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In those instances the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) and I worked out guidelines, and the Solicitor General issued them as instructions to the RCMP.
It is essential that these amendments protecting solicitor-client conversations be passed. It is essential for the protection of the citizen. The bill must be looked at in that light. This is not something special for the lawyers. It is an essential protection for the citizen that he should be able to talk freely with his counsel knowing that no one will be listening or eavesdropping on the conversation. I commend these amendments concerning electronic surveillance to parliament, reminding Your Honour that they were approved by the committee in the last session, subject to two changes which tighten up proposals approved by the committee and which protect the citizens to an extent greater than was previously envisaged.
My colleague, the Solicitor General, will be speaking in this debate tomorrow and will have a good deal to say on other aspects of the bill. I shall touch on them only briefly. The proposed legislation in relation to dangerous offenders is virtually the same as that which was approved by the committee when considering Bill C-83. It will repeal the existing provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with habitual criminals and dangerous sexual offenders and enact new provisions which would enable the courts to impose an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment in the case of all dangerous offenders, including dangerous sexual offenders. The court may impose such a sentence if the offender has been found guilty of a sufficiently

serious offence involving the use of violence or a serious sexual offence, if the court feels that there is a threat of continuing behaviour of this sort.
An application to the court to find a convicted offender to be a dangerous offender can only be brought with the consent of the attorney general of the province concerned. The National Parole Board will be required to review the case of a dangerous offender not later than three years after the sentence and every two years thereafter.
With regard to the last part of this bill, there has been in this country a great deal of interest in the custody and the release of inmates of penitentiaries. Because of the very extensive work now being carried on by the penitentiaries subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, much anxiety has been expressed. Most of these provisions, as I have indicated, will be dealt with tomorrow by my colleague, the Solicitor General, who will be speaking in detail on them. I touch on some of the highlights in order to remind the House, in terms of public protection which is the central purpose of criminal law, that one of the provisions provides that statutory remission in federal and provincial institutions would be abolished and replaced by an equivalent measure of earned remission.
When someone is in an institution, under the current law, they have a certain amount of their sentence remitted. Under the proposed amendment that would not be possible. As a result of the changes there would be a greater onus on inmates to earn time off their sentences through good behaviour in the penitentiary, and greater pressure to behave responsibly while in the penitentiary. Remission would be earned at the rate of one day for every two served, computed on a monthly basis. Earned remission could be forfeited and, once forfeited, could not be restored. Furthermore, the National Parole Board would be strengthened in a number of ways to ensure that we have an effective parole system.
The major new development in this portion of the bill is the revision that is planned in the Prisons and Reformatories Act which was not contained in Bill C-83. Again, the Solicitor General will deal with those extensively tomorrow. I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that these provisions have involved considerable consultation with the relevant provincial authorities. These provisions will no doubt be dealt with in detail in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I would return to what I said at the beginning of my remarks, namely, that the vital measures in this bill represent the culmination of considerable effort by many parties. I am referring to parties on this side of the House, parties on the other side of the House, and those outside of parliament. The time has now come to bring these long labours to fruition by prompt and deliberate consideration of this measure.
The process of law reform, especially in the criminal area, is a step by step one. Further work in all these areas will no doubt occur over the next few years. It is critical, however,
May 11, 1977

that this process not be sidetracked because no society can afford to have its criminal law out of step with, and hence unresponsive to, the emerging problems which have to be faced.
As I said, as Minister of Justice I have a clear responsibility for submitting to parliament measures which are designed to protect society under the laws. The measure now before this House advances that protection in terms that are consistent with basic Canadian principles of individual freedom. To my mind Bill C-51 is a worthy example of the application of both of these concepts. I believe, as a result of all the discussions, all of the debates, and all of the resolutions that have been moved in this parliament on this subject, that after debate on second reading, and consideration by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the time has come not to talk about firearms control but to pass laws relating to firearms control.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks on Bill C-51, 1 wonder if I might ask the minister one question in reference to the firearms section. Do I take it from reading the bill that the present owners of long guns aside from shotguns, do not have to have a certificate or documentation? I am referring to farmers, ranchers and hunters. There may be ten million or six million owners of those kinds of guns. I have seen two figures. Regardless of how many there are, they would not have to have any certificate or licence in reference to those guns?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has a perfect understanding of that section. His question represents what the proposals are. As far as existing gun owners are concerned, they will not require an acquisition certificate or a licence, which is the word the hon. member used, under these provisions. They will require an acquisition certificate should they decide to buy or acquire an additional firearm. Unless and until they go to acquire an additional firearm, they will not need an acquisition certificate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer.
I want to join with the minister in his introductory remarks with regard to the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. In the years I have been in the House of Commons, I have sat on most committees. I must say I have always enjoyed my associations with the members of the Liberal party, the government, the members of the New Democratic party, and the members of the Social Credit party and have respected their abilities in committee to be non-partisan and to work together to improve legislation and other matters which come before us.
Often we lawyers are criticized by people who say there are too many of us in politics. I am sure the lawyers who are present today have also heard that remark. Some credit can be given to that profession because we are used to going into courtrooms and taking a certain position for our clients-of course I am prejudiced-but the lawyer on the other side may
Criminal Code
take another position, and naturally does. It is one commodity which you are selling. Lifty per cent of the time you are always wrong if you are litigating. Thus, you learn to lose, and you love to win. That is part of the confrontation in the dialogue, in the debate which takes place in the House of Commons and also in committee.
I join with the minister in saying that the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), is a very learned scholar in law, a very able chairman and, above all, is a very courteous chairman to people on all sides of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think I have been very truthful.
Before leaving my introduction, I must say that working with the minister has been a great pleasure as far as I am concerned. If I am going to take a certain position, the minister generally knows I will be taking that position, or vice-versa. In that way we are able to come to grips with the subjects which are before parliament in a manner that is concise, precise, and we are able to take apart that portion we are going to criticize and agree on that portion on which we are going to agree.


Mr. Oberle:: That is enough of that. Get on with it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Sometimes you get heckled by your own party, but I am used to that.


An hon. Member:: Start shooting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, let us hear from Eldon Woolliams.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, once again we are faced with the deliberate effort to join five distinct, separate parcels of legislation into one omnibus bill. Some of them are new; some of them are merely amendments to the existing Criminal Code.
What bothered me all during the debate on Bill C-83 last session was that we did not get full reporting by the media; the only thing we heard about from the media was the firearms session, which was only one fifth of the bill at that time.
This bill is similar in nature, Mr. Speaker. It deals first, with firearms control, commonly called gun control; secondly, it deals with electronic surveillance, or in other words wiretapping or bugging; thirdly, it deals with dangerous offenders' legislation, formerly known as habitual offenders or habitual criminals; fourthly, it deals with custody and release of inmates under the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act; and fifthly, the bill revises the Prisons and Reformatories Act. In other words, we really have five pieces of legislation here. It joins together these five parcels of legislation and, in my opinion, this is irresponsible, with great respect, as well as devious and reprehensible. It is done deliberately and purposefully, and, to say the least, is in the incompatible form of

May 11, 1977
Criminal Code
marginal, unrelated amendments which are designed to frustrate parliament, and which always result in delay and holds up the process of parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be moving an amendment to the motion for second reading, and the amendment will be to the effect that the bill be not read a second time but sent to the justice and legal affairs committee for study. I found that necessary when we dealt last year with Bill C-83, and although there was some question as to the right to move such an amendment at second reading stage, the Chair upheld that particular amendment. It will therefore not be necessary for me at any stage, I hope, to spend time presenting arguments in view of that precedent.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Chair directed that, if I were to leave out one phrase, the amendment which I moved to Bill C-83 was in order. Naturally having run the risk once and succeeded, I have followed the exact words of the amendment which was approved by the Chair then, and therefore the Chair will have no difficulty finding my amendment in order.
The purpose of this study will be to have the bill appropriately severed and to show ministers that they cannot in this parliament, as they did in the last parliament with Bill C-83, run roughshod over this institution, its processes and its procedures. Our party fought a long, tiresome and tedious fight not only to have the bill severed, with the support of members of other parties in the opposition, but to have changes made to the gun control legislation. We moved many amendments to Bill C-83; I think at one stage we had 34 amendments lined up. As a result, we can at least say there has been much improvement. In that regard I agree with the minister, and I will have something to say about that a little later this afternoon.
I wish now to zero in on what I consider the most damaging effect of part of this legislation, and in presenting this argument the House will see the reasons why the bill should be severed. This bill, under the heading of "electronic surveillance", makes very substantial amendments to that part of the Code entitled "Invasion of Privacy", known as "Interception of Communications".
Pausing there, Mr. Speaker, it is true that this matter was before the committee on several occasions. Once in 1972 or thereabouts the matter was sent to committee by reference. At that time Mr. Turner was minister of justice, and the only authorization that he wanted to wiretap or to bug was to have the Solicitor General and the Attorney General of Canada merely sign a slip of paper. I took great exception to that and said we should never allow bugging to be authorized without a judge's order. So Mr. Turner repented after speaking to members of the Canadian Bar, who did not like it either.


Mr. Paproski:: Then he resigned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It was a little later when he resigned and went home. Then the matter came before the committee after what we call the short parliament, and as a result of the efforts of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and the then hon. member for St. Paul's, Mr. Ron Atkey, and with

co-operation from the other parties, amendments were made to protect the citizen against erosion of freedom, and for this I think we can take credit.
The minister quoted me, Mr. Speaker, but he quoted me somewhat out of context. I was dealing with the fact that I was at least happy to have part of the act amended. The minister wanted to abolish notice altogether but I did not want it changed. Since then, I might say, I have learned a lot. I suppose a lawyer is always a student. When you share an office with your partner, as I do, and you have communications between solicitor and client being listened to and the Crown admitting those communications as evidence, then you have to take a hard look at the precedents-stare decisis, as the minister knows-to see how the court is interpreting this legislation and, above all, how the police are using it. Therefore when the minister quoted my affection for his amendment, it was affection for half an apple, because half an apple when you are hungry is better than no apple at all.
Trial lawyers, professors of various law schools, and learned newspaper writers on the subject-and I particularly want to congratulate the Globe and Mail-are well aware of the abuse that the law authorities have been guilty of in the application of the law as it now stands. Therefore when we give law authorities more power, we are assuring the erosion of the freedom and liberty of the subject as to his or her privacy, and are creating a new era of further invasion of privacy, and assuring a greater authoritarian state. That I will oppose.
What are the amendments in question which I challenge, Mr. Speaker? First of all, the granting of an authorization will be extended from 30 days to 60 days, doubling the time for invasion of privacy. That is a 100 per cent gain. Second, the minister wants to abolish absolutely the necessity to give the person who is the object of wiretapping a notice within 90 days that he has been subject to electronic surveillance of some kind-having his phone tapped, his place of residence or office bugged, or his means of transportation.
In regard to written notification to be given, there is an exception under Martin's Criminal Code, 1976, page 118, section 178.23(1), which provides:
The Attorney General of the province in which the application was made or the Solicitor General of Canada, as the case may be, shall notify in writing within 90 days next following the period for which the authorization was given ...
Now the period is to be extended to three years, or it could be up to three years. What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker? We were fooled in Bill C-83. The minister was so eloquent when he said that that was one of the greatest pieces of legislation ever to be brought down, but I do not want any member to be fooled today. The minister used much affection and eloquence in telling us today what a great bill we have before us, but what change has been made? Notice can be given up to three years, or within a shorter time. I can say from my experience that when the police draw up the usual order it will always contain the three year clause whenever a lawyer's office is to be bugged. They will then listen in to communications between a lawyer and his client, and a case
May 11, 1977

will be before the courts long before the lawyer knows that his office is being bugged.
We are not only worried about bugging, Mr. Speaker; we are worried about derivative evidence. By that I mean evidence gathered as a result of listening in either through illegal bugging or legal bugging of which you are unaware. That is where the infringement of the freedom of the subject comes in.
In effect, this amendment means that if the authorities have up to three years to notify the person who has been the object of electronic surveillance, they have in fact abolished the notice altogether, as all orders will likely read that the rights shall exist for three years and no notice will be forthcoming until the last day of the third year, and by that time perhaps the people involved might have passed on to another land.
To make matters worse the courts have ruled under the old act-and this is what concerns me-that the failure to give notice did not make the evidence inadmissible at a trial against a person whose rights are being challenged by the all-powerful state. I want to emphasize that. The courts have ruled-and I will read some cases now-that the fact that they did not give a person notice of electronic surveillance did not make the evidence inadmissible. I attended a seminar of the Canadian Bar Association at which there was a lawyer who gave an excellent academic paper on the subject.
Clause 9(1) of the bill dealing with section 178.13 at pages 47 and 48 and subclause (1.1) are of some help, but even if there is an illegal wiretap against a solicitor in communication with his clients, the judge can still rule that evidence as admissible, for clause 10(2) states that the evidence will be made admissible, with or without authorization notice, if a judge is of the opinion that the communication is relevant to a matter at issue in the proceedings, or there has been merely a defect in form. I might digress and say to the Hansard reporters that they have in their hands a copy of what I am saying at the present time, except for the few phrases or sentences that I may add. The judges should not have this discretion, in my opinion, and it has been my experience as a trial lawyer, particularly today, that the judges generally rule and exercise their discretion in favour of the Crown.
Hon. members must remember that the Crown has the money, the Crown can buy the brains. The little citizen who is charged by the Crown can only get what he can afford. For example, in serious murder trials where the plea is insanity and you have to get a psychiatrist, at $5,000 a day the little man cannot afford a psychiatrist.
Now I come to the next part which I do not like with reference to bugging. I refer to the admissibility of derivative evidence. Under the new amendments to section 178.16 of the code, any evidence obtained, either directly or indirectly, as the result of an intercept, regardless of whether the private communication is inadmissible, becomes admissible. In addition, a judge or magistrate may receive in evidence an illegal private communication, if he deems it to be relevant to a matter at issue in the proceedings.
Criminal Code
In this particular revision the government has clearly separated from current American trends and appears to have opted for the English tradition of admitting everything and anything that is relevant to an issue. I was told that at the last trial I had in January. There is some difference even from the English tradition. This obstacle having been removed, the Canadian courts will have much greater liberty in this area, and the time consuming deliberations on admissibility noted in certain recent cases will be eliminated.
There are many cases in which it has been held that not only was the evidence admissible but all derivative evidence from wiretaps was ruled admissible. For example, a lawyer might be talking to his client and his client tells him he is charged with a drug offence.
I raised a question today about four boys living together, one of whom had drugs in his suitcase under his bed. He likes a little drag of marijuana before he goes to sleep but, because they are all living together, they are all charged together. The three who may be innocent may call their lawyer and say to him, "We knew the marijuana was under the bed or in the overshoe." Thus the derivative evidence goes in. That becomes pretty difficult for the defence, and pretty difficult to defend the liberty of the subject. It will take more than the eloquence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to prove to me and to my friends of the Canadian Bar Association that this is good law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No appeal has yet succeeded in reaching the Supreme Court of Canada. The case of Johnnie Dale McDonald (alias John Adam Dante, John D. McDonald) versus the Queen, an appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, embraced secondary issues concerning the extent to which the Crown may invade solicitor-client privilege, but the court refused leave to appeal on June 29, 1976. Had the appeal succeeded, one question of major interest in regard to wiretapping, that is, privilege under section 178.16(5), might have been resolved.
By an important determination at the provincial appeal level in the Queen versus Violet Rose Douglas the Ontario court of appeal has held that authorizations to intercept at a specific address, naming a specific party, do not cover interceptions of unknown persons at such address, and that transcripts of intercepts must be "word for word" or they are inadmissible. The particular application of this decision was to sections 178.12 and 178.16 of the code. That has been of some help.
In a Saskatchewan case heard early in 1977, the Queen versus Patricia Dawn Trickett, of January 13, 1977, the Saskatchewan district court, Maher, D. C. J.-by the way, may I pause for a moment to say that I graduated with him, so naturally I was quite interested in his decision-it was determined that even though the accused was not named in the wiretap authorization, the intercepted conversation was, in part, with a named person and concerned an offence for which the authorization was granted. In other words, what Jack Maher ruled in that decision in Saskatoon was a little different

May 11, 1977
Criminal Code
from the ruling of the Ontario court of appeal. He has ruled that even though one does not have authorization to listen into the conversation of B, if you only had it for A, you could hook B into the evidence as well. It is unclear how this decision fulfilled the requirements of sections 178.12(e) and 178.13(2)(c) of the code.
One month before the Douglas case noted above, the Ontario court of appeal came to some important conclusions in another case, that of the Queen versus Albert Welsh and Anthony Ianuzzi, of February 10, 1977. Here what were mainly at issue were considerations of conditions precedent in relation to section 178.23(1) of the Code, the so-called notice clause requiring notification of the person who has been under electronic surveillance that he has been the subject of wiretapping. As 1 said, the code requires notice of 90 days. They ruled in this case, and now we are to have the three year clause, that this did not stop the admissibility of the evidence. I only mention these cases because of what my good friend, the Minister of Justice, had to say with reference to my words, and his having half an apple.
Then there is another case, the Queen versus Wai Ting Li, dated July 28, 1976, British Columbia county court, Spencer, county court judge. It was a case where charges of trafficking had been laid under the Narcotic Control Act.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I went to school with him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, the minister taught him some funny things, judging by these facts. However, this judge was one of the top football players at the school. At a voir dire issues were raised whether wiretap evidence was admissible, in view of the problems of authenticating the recordings, and whether the requirements of section 178.16 as regards admissibility had been met. It was determined that derivative evidence was admissible under that section, a decision resting upon judicial discretion. In other words, the judge had the discretion. In other words, the evidence which is gathered as a result of listening in on an illegal bug becomes evidence against people. I dealt with a situation where three could have been innocent and one guilty, but that all goes into a package. I am not going to read the judgment. I have it here, but I hope 1 have described it in a succinct fashion.
There was another case, the Queen versus Ju Kong Cheng et al, December 13, 1976. I do not know whether that is a relative of the Minister of Justice or not. It was a British Columbia county court case, and the judge was Judge Wetmore.
It was held that the notice clause was not a condition precedent to admissibility of evidence and that interceptions are lawful for the duration of authorization under the unknown persons clause so long as the person is unknown when the authorization is obtained. That differs from the Hamilton case where they listened in and found that one of the police officers was involved in hanky-panky.

Without the oral evidence of the peace officer who swore the required affidavit to obtain a wiretapping authorization, the determination of the authenticity of the authorization at a voir dire is thrown upon section 30 of the Canada Evidence Act which requires seven days' notice by the party producing the affidavit to the other parties. It was held that that did not keep the evidence out. I could go on and on, but I shall not. I just emphasize these cases to show that whether it is the Minister of Justice or an official in his department-and I respect his officials-when we draft law, and parliament is considering it, it is subject to interpretation by judges. It is not what we say today in this debate that counts; it is what the judges interpret the words of the statute to mean. That is what often happens, and we often have to amend statutes because appeal courts find weaknesses in laws we pass which are not corrected in the Red Chamber.
In summary, there are five significant changes to the privacy sections of the Criminal Code in the criminal law amendments bill tabled in the House of Commons on April 20, 1977.
First, authorizations to intercept will not be permissible at a lawyer's office or other place where he communicates with clients unless the lawyer, a member of his family, or a member of his office is suspected of being involved in an offence. However, there again I say that under the clause and in view of the cases I have read, that would become a question of discretion for the courts.
Second, authorizations may be granted by a court in relation to any offence punishable by five or more years in prison, including bookmaking, smuggling, and offences related to organized crime.
The authorization period would be extended from 30 to 60 days.
Transcripts of unauthorized intercepts may not be admissible as evidence, but evidence derived from such transcripts would be admissible.
The notice clause will be extended from 90 days to any period not exceeding three years.
Our party has fought a hard fight in reference to human rights, and as the Globe and Mail said on May 2, 1977:
A year ago Mr. Basford wanted to eliminate the need for notification altogether. A howl of outrage went up and last June Mr. Basford recanted by suggesting that the period for notification be up to five years from the end of the wiretap. Now he suggests that it be up to three years.
Nonsense. Ninety days is adequate. Perhaps more than anything else it forces police to use wiretapping in only the most extreme cases and that, after all, is what the law should be aimed at doing.
I mention these facts because of what is developing in various provinces. A man is charged with murder, and there is some question about his emotional stability, whether he is sane or not. Before he has a lawyer he is wheeled into a mental hospital and interviewed by the Crown psychiatrist in order to help the poor fellow out, to find out if he is sane or insane. He is asked if he is under medical care, and he is given drugs. In one case a fellow was given 26 ounces of whiskey to see how he reacted when he was drunk. This came out in cross-examination at the last murder trial with which I was involved. Then
May 11, 1977

after all that the man was found sane. It was said that after his 26 ounces of whiskey he did not react too badly. It took only three people to hold him down on the floor, but that was not outrageous. This is a fact. This fellow was sent to jail, and then he got a lawyer. However, that was too late. By that time the psychiatrist was not a person in authority. The question of admissibility of evidence did not apply to him, and anything the accused said, whether he was drunk when he said it, or under drugs or under the belief that he needed to tell somebody his problems and get them off his chest, it became evidence.
Worse than that, the defence was ordered to get its own psychiatrist. A Crown witness listened in, wrote a letter to the Crown, and the psychiatrist for the Crown admitted that he based his opinion on whether the man was sane or not on all correspondence. The statement was admitted. With this kind of law the police get more powerful every day. We are living in a different kind of world today. I am not criticizing the police, but the minister says crime is increasing so we have to get tougher and tougher. On the other hand, every once and a while some innocent person gets caught in the web and all this is used against him.
I dealt with a case today in which a fellow was charged with a marijuana offence. His case was thrown out by a magistrate. Then the Crown rushed to a judge to get an order for indictment. The judge asked where the accused was, and the Crown's lawyer said, "I do not want him here because he will interfere with my case". The lawyer for the Crown went to his office and got the minister or his agent-I do not know whether the minister did it personally-to lay a preferred indictment. I did not know we had a double jeopardy clause at work in this country. That is an abdominable process and a bad procedure.
When Mr. Turner first introduced this legislation some years ago, speaking to the Canadian Bar Association he said he thought it was enough just to have the minister sign a wiretapping authorization. Well, we got that changed. The first bill died on the order paper when the 1972 election was called by the government, and when the bill was presented to the short parliament by the minority government, my two good friends, Mr. Ron Atkey, and the hon. member for Fundy-Roy-al, carried on the fight and managed to get the privacy section amended as it now reads. Now we see the government once again coming forward to amend a good law for which the opposition so ably and intelligently fought. With all its weaknesses it is better than the government is doing now. I do not think all these things should be wrapped up in one bill. I honestly do not know how I am going to vote, but I cannot at this stage or in committee endorse these changes.
This bill should be severed so that this question can be decided by a vote of the House on second reading, so that we are not asked to vote against some legislation we approve of and some of which we emphatically disapprove. I say here that where a statute gives the authority to invade in any way the privacy of an individual and its provisions are not carried out properly, such evidence should be declared inadmissible, not to
Criminal Code
help the crook but to make sure that the all-powerful state does not erode the freedom and liberty of the little person who must battle for his freedom and liberty against all the odds in favour of the state, armed with money and brains.
To substantiate my argument may I quote from a few authorities to assist the House to see that we are not making a mountain out of a molehill.
Let us consider the approach of Mr. Justice Judson. In giving one of the majority judgments in the Wray case he wrote:
In my opinion, there is no justification for recognizing the existence of this discretion in these circumstances. This type of evidence has been admissible for almost 200 years. There is no judicial discretion permitting the exclusion of relevant evidence, in this case, highly relevant evidence, on the ground of unfairness to the accused.
He held that if this law is to be changed it must be changed by parliament. We are writing in that some magistrates and judges have that discretion, yet here is a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada saying, "The evidence is there; I cannot do anything about it. I am going to have to put it in."


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is not what he says at all.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I just quoted right from the book. If the minister wants to change the law books, that is fine with me.
Let me contrast that statement with the words of Mr. Justice Brandeis, one of the most fair minded judges who has ever graced the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States. In his famous dissent in the case of Olmstead versus the United States he said:
Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.
In other words, I do not think evidence illegally obtained should be admitted, because if you allow the police to break the law they will do so.
I do not mean to suggest by referring to an American decision that I am advocating the strict exclusionary doctrine that has developed in that country. In the United States, generally speaking, evidence is not admissible in a court of law that is illegally obtained. The application of this strict rule has led to scandalous abuse. There must be a balance, and I should like to see that balance in our jurisprudence.
Nevertheless, there is a large constituency in and out of our profession which adheres to the belief that the Ontario court of appeal in the Wray case was right-that Privy Council decisions touching the same concerns were right-that Their Lordships Cartwright, Spence and Hall, dissenting in Wray, were right, and that the court must consider factors other than just

May 11, 1977
Criminal Code
relevancy. I quote Mr. Justice Spence, in his dissenting judgment, who said:
I am most strongly of the opinion that it is the duty of every judge to guard against bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. That is a duty which lies upon him constantly and that is a duty which he must always keep firmly in mind. The proper discharge of this duty is one which, in the present day of almost riotous disregard for the administration of justice, is of paramount importance to the continued life of the state.
Unfortunately, few Canadians are aware of the serious ramifications flowing from the Supreme Court decision in the Wray case.
That prospect is frightening enough, but perhaps the most disheartening aspect of the Wray case is that the court's decision has the unintended effect of giving judicial permission to participation by the state in the illegal conduct of policemen. The rule in Wray denies any value other than the search for truth. But I quote Viscount Knight Bruce, who said:
... truth, like all the good things, may be loved unwisely, may be pursued too keenly-may cost too much.
But since the Wray case was decided in 1970, neither parliament nor the courts have taken any action to reverse the dangerous precedent that was set, despite the sensible guidelines regarding judicial discretion which have been issued by the Law Reform Commission of Canada.
Indeed, not only has Wray remained as the law of the land, but since 1970 the Supreme Court's ruling has obviously assumed the proportions of a huge umbrella under the shelter of which many of Canada's prosecutors feel impelled to tender as evidence some very questionable items, and the courts are required to condone practices that prior to the Wray case would have been totally unacceptable.
I want to refer now to what has been going on, Mr. Speaker. According to the annual report of the Governor General as it pertains to wiretapping, for the period of 1976-77, 548 authorizations were given under Section 423 of the Criminal Code; 21 authorizations under Section 192 of the Customs Act; 529 authorizations under the Narcotic Control Act; 106 under the Food and Drugs Act; 11 under Section 163 of the Excise Act, and one under 158 of the Excise Act.
Perhaps the most interesting statistic in the report shows that 1,062 persons were arrested whose identity became known to a peace officer as a result of an interception under an authorization. The number of criminal proceedings commenced at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada in which private communications obtained by interception under an authorization were adduced in evidence and the number of such proceedings that resulted in a conviction was 13. That is, criminal proceedings, 13; convictions 13.
I do not know what to think about this, Mr. Speaker. We see that when we give the police too much authority it results in 1,062 arrests.
Now I will turn to something that the minister spent most of his time on, gun control. Many of the amendments we suggested to the House in debate proved true and have been incorporated in the bill. I am thankful for that. It is like a prayer, Mr. Speaker-I am thankful for what I am about to receive. I am

happy to say that we have helped bury Bill C-83. The function of the opposition was fulfilled in this case-with excellence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Take, for example, the clumsy definition of ammunition and the denial of the rights of those who earn their living as trappers and hunters. The rights of the ranchers and farmers were infringed upon but all these things have been corrected somewhat. I could go on ad infinitum, Mr. Speaker. I, personally, and our party caucus prepared more than 30 amendments. Many were accepted, yet on second reading of that bill in the House we were told it was a beautiful piece of work. When it got to committee, however, it was stripped naked. The bill before us is brand new and streamlined, and amendments can also be made to it in committee.
I do not really believe that even this bill will do what all of us want, that is, take firearms out of the hands of criminals. I do not know whether there are six million or 11 million shotguns and rifles in the hands of Canadians now, but whatever the figure is, this bill does not affect them. I can sell my gun or give it to a member of the NDP-


An hon. Member:: I do not want it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -or even to the minister. How can the transfers be traced? What we have now is really a law for newcomers and a law for oldtimers. That may be better than nothing. I think the minister was being fair in trying to prevent people who have a shotgun and decide they do not like the lady they are living with from rushing down to the hardware store for ammunition to settle things or going out and committing other crimes-I know that is the purpose of this bill. I would be the first to say that that is a good object, but it does not really correct the situation. I do not know how many guns there are. One article I read said 11 million and another, more conservative, said six million. No matter how many guns there are, they will move around society.
I wish to discuss the regulations now, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that he has cut down on regulations. That reminds me of the man who in 1975 raped six women but in 1976 only raped three, so he contended he was better. I am not going to go into them all, but they claim to regulate the handling, storing, advertising, the kind of ammunition, mail order supply, fees, applications for permits, traffic in firearms deemed to be curios-the list goes on and on.
In 1976, 3,326 orders in council were passed, of which 653 were published in the Gazette-that is not the Montreal Gazette but the Canada Gazette. This means that Canadians did not know about 2,673 orders. A former Prime Minister said one should know the law, and as the minister well knows, ignorance of the law is no defence. But how can one know of laws if they are not published, or not promulgated? What is the use of proclaiming the law in the middle of the night, as it were, when you are asleep? Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, the committee considering Bill C-83 won a battle.
May 11, 1977

Liberal members of the committee and the chairman agreed that rules and regulations proposed under Bill C-83 should be brought before the House of Commons and subjected to scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, that is the only way to legislate criminal law. In passing such laws, we must be concise and precise.
I congratulate the chairman for his position, and I think he agrees with mine.


Mr. Gilbert:: He is present in the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The duties of the commissioner are substantial. He will be busy indeed, being responsible for the issuing of permits, dealing with prohibited and restricted weapons and issuing certificates to people who want to buy guns. I do not know how large his staff will be, what the cost will be, or what fees will be charged. Mr. Speaker, one should not enact such provisions by order in council. The criminal law must be precise and concise, as the chairman of the committee said when we studied Bill C-83. Other members of my party will speak on other aspects of the bill, and possibly cover some of the ground I covered in my remarks.
I now deal with the clause which I think it is good to include in the bill and which I hope will do the necessary job. I am speaking of the clause relating to dangerous offenders. In March this year I addressed a question to the Minister of Justice concerning an inmate of an institution who had been released on mandatory parole by right of law. That person had, on several occasions, been charged with raping children aged six and seven. He applied to be released on parole. The Saskatoon parole division was not empowered by law to refuse that parole. The chairman of the Saskatoon parole division wrote a letter to the Calgary parole division about this man who had raped children. This man has lived a life of crime, involving rape and indecent assault, and it was feared that he was capable of killing his next victim. Unfortunately, this man was released in society. He left Saskatoon and came to Calgary, where he was an unwelcome guest.
I have put before the House our position on this bill and have said where we stand on the question of electronic surveillance, or bugging. As I tried to explain carefully, and I argued by referring to case law and precedents, judicial interpretation of electronic surveillance provisions has placed too much power in the hands of those in authority. I tried to show how such power can be abused, to the detriment of the citizens of Canada. We must examine this question as well in committee.
I spoke of the difficulties associated with gun control rules and regulations, and mentioned some of the weaknesses and strengths of the bill. I still remain to be convinced that the bill will prevent a crackpot from acquiring a gun and shooting someone. This is a technical bill, and in order to debate it thoroughly one needs to do a great deal of research.
In conclusion, may I move the amendment which I said at the beginning of my remarks I intended to move. Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), I move:
That all the words after the word 'that' be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Criminal Code
Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
As reported at page 11636 of Hansard for March 9, 1976, a similarly worded motion was proposed. I moved an amendment in similar terms, which Mr. Speaker accepted. If one substitutes Bill C-51 for Bill C-83, the terms of the amendment proposed today and that moved previously become exactly similar.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and I particularly appreciate the remarks initially made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who threw bouquets in all directions. He congratulated the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) on accepting his proposed amendment. For a while I suspected he was preaching for a call. I know the hon. member for Calgary North is secure in his position as a practising lawyer, but I am sure he would make an excellent judge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I was greatly impressed with the erudition of the hon. member for Calgary North and listened with interest to his arguments concerning the wiretap provisions of the bill, arguments he backed with case law. It is refreshing to hear an argument backed with that kind of in-depth research and logic. Too often we deal with such questions on the basis of emotionalism rather than logic. When speaking of wiretapping the hon. member did himself and his party and, indeed, the entire opposition, proud. Later I shall speak in some detail on gun control but for a moment let me deal with wire-tapping.
First let me say that in my remarks I do not intend to reflect on the ruling Mr. Speaker handed down in this House relating to the procedural point which we raised several days ago. Unfortunately our present procedures, which follow parliamentary tradition, do not give members of this House any chance on second reading to distinguish between their support or otherwise of wiretapping and gun control. That procedure is unfortunate, and it seems to me a device must be found beyond that suggested by the Speaker, which simply involves deletion on third reading. We need desperately a proceeding which will apply to the second reading vote, which is most important, in order to enable the public to understand our positions.
Obviously, in terms of gun control, this is a compromise bill. We have half a loaf, which is sometimes better than no loaf at all. But we do not support the wiretap provisions of the bill. We feel as strongly and vigorously as we ever felt that those provisions of the bill are an insidious invasion of the privacy of Canadians. These further extensions of that insidious invasion must be resisted by members of the opposition in the interests of their constituents and in the interests of freedom of the mind, that freedom of the mind which all Canadians cherish.
Why I say that the whole wiretap question becomes one that is insidious and, in a sense, immoral is that in the mind of a

May 11, 1977
Criminal Code
citizen, he must believe he is free. Surely that is one of the things that distinguishes Canada from totalitarian countries. However, you cannot feel you are free if you think you are tapped. You cannot feel free if you do not know whether there is a bug on your telephone. The wiretap amendments that have come down have expanded, not reduced, the areas of the law where wiretap becomes available.
I want to deal very briefly with the report of 1976 to the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) on the operations of the wiretap law. My understanding is that this does not deal with the many, many wiretaps that go out in terms of provincial attorneys general. These are the wiretaps that have gone out under federal statute only. I do not have the figures for the whole country in terms of province by province, just those that went out by federal statute.
In 1976, 1,224 telephones were tapped. That led to 1,062 arrests, but proceedings against 368 individuals. Of the 1,062 arrested, there were 824 whose names did not appear on the request for authorization. That means they were fishing expeditions. Innocent citizens were subjected to taps on fishing expeditions. That is surely something that we who cherish freedom in this country should oppose.
In 1976, 517 warrants were granted under the Official Secrets Act. The average time of each of those warrants was 241 days. All 614 original applications for wiretapping were granted. There was not a single denial by a judge, yet we have had the police, the law enforcement agencies, lobbying the minister over and over that they should not need to have their requests reviewed before a judge. Here the judiciary has clearly co-operated with law enforcement by turning down none. Only two of the 614 applications had any limitation at all in the terms and conditions attached to those wiretap approvals.
Nine warrants allowed police officers to listen for more than 180 days. What we have had is a rubber stamp provision under the wiretap law.
The minister raised the question of the good feeling in the committee that in fact the provisions for notification have now been reduced from the suggested five years to three years. I agree that consensus was developed around that. However, that argument about a consensus was a nice little carrot that the minister hung in front of the committee.
The key to the wiretap bill is the expansion of the offences. That is the insidious part. Let me give an example of what could happen under the wiretap provisions as they are now proposed.
Clause 7(1) (c) states that an offence mentioned in section 192 of the Customs Act (smuggling) is a wiretap offence. I ask hon. members how many people in their constituencies have ever come across the border with an extra can of beer or a pair of pants under their ordinary pants. Smuggling in Canada has become very widespread. It is a kind of human failing. Let us be realistic about the question of smuggling. A lot of people may take an extra package of cigarettes across the border. A tap can be made for that offence. No judge can deny the

authorization to issue the tap. It is a case of "open sesame" to tap ever body the police wish.
Under the offence sections, comprising the guts of the wiretap provisions, it is so broad that there is almost nothing for which the police cannot tap. That is why we in this House must resist to the best of our ability this insidious invasion of the rights of individuals and, more important, the right of Canadians to feel they are free in their own minds so that they can pick up their telephone and have a conversation without thinking they have to be guarded in what they say. We know that happens in countries in eastern Europe and so on, but surely in the kind of democracy we have developed on the North American continent and to a large extent under British and Western European tradition, we should continue to protect the rights of people to feel free in their own minds.
There are other provisions in the wiretap section to which we take exception. The hon. member for Calgary North referred to them. There is no reason why police should be rewarded for illegal conduct. We should support our police in every way. They have a difficult job. However, when they cut a corner, when they do not bother with an authorization from a judge, when they go out on a job with the impression that it is O.K. because it is pretty important that they catch a particular person-I agree that it is important to catch a criminal-that little review process of going to a judge is very important in order to avoid abuses.
As a result of a breach of the wiretap provisions the police obtain illegal evidence. The tape is not admitted in court, but everything they learn from the tape goes into evidence. If that is the case, there will be a law for the police and a law for other people, because they can introduce illegal evidence as a result of illegal activity, but the rest of the population must abide by the law.
That is an unsound principle in our law. I am disappointed that the minister has not yet seen fit to accept what is now common practice in the United States. He has not accepted something that the British Bar Association has looked at very seriously and may very well accept. Instead, he has accepted the hoary old argument that if it is any kind of evidence, no matter where it is from, throw it all in. That reduces the standard of police work.
It is very easy to sit at one end of electronic equipment and listen to people. However, it can be seen from the records introduced by the hon. member for Calgary North and myself that the amount of convictions obtained in that way is almost nil. It is peanuts.
The police should be getting out from behind their earphones on to the street getting good, hard evidence the way policemen always did, through meeting and talking to people and getting informants.
When Ramsey Clark was the attorney general of the United States, he had the best record for getting Mafia convictions. He refused to use wiretapping. Instead of wasting police time, he told the police to get back out on to the streets to see what was happening. He told them not to waste their time listening
May 11, 1977

to bedroom conversations, something that was quite common in the United States under their law.
The offensive part of this legislation is clearly the wiretap provisions. I am very disappointed that we keep getting this hoary old thing thrown back at us in an omnibus bill, confusing the issue of gun control with wiretapping.
Under the gun control provisions, I said earlier that half a loaf is better than no bread at all.


An hon. Member:: It is the apple that was talked about last time.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: You guys have the apples, we eat the bread. In any event, there is obviously a little food in it for all of us.
Under the gun control provisions, we should not proceed further in this debate without saying something about those individuals who fought very hard for the safety of Canadians in terms of gun control legislation. I am thinking particularly of Mr. and Mrs. Slinger whose son died during a very tragic event in Brampton. But they did not sit back and wring their hands. They decided to go to work to protect other people in Canada, to protect other sons.
I think of Maggie Burtinshaw of British Columbia who faced a severe personal tragedy when her son died. She did not sit back and wring her hands. She went out and did as a good citizen should. She went out and worked for a change in the law. Now, this change in the law may not go as far as Maggie Burtinshaw and others may wish, but I have to admit that it does go a significant distance toward curing what has been a major fault under our criminal law, that is, failure to reduce what we can call preventable homicide in cases where you can predict the behaviour of an individual who is unable to control his own emotions. The measure before us does provide a review process by requiring him to obtain a firearms certificate.
Sometimes statistics are dry,- but on this occasion they tell an interesting story. Forty-six percent of all murders committed in Canada are domestic murders. The gun control lobbyists always maintain that you will never take the guns away from the criminals. But a criminal is not a guy who runs around the streets with a big "C" on his forehead so that he can be identified. There are a lot of criminals who are first offenders-they were not criminals until they committed an offence. And they are people just like you and me who have lost control of themselves. Those people are certainly involved in 46 per cent of the domestic homicides in Canada. In some 44 per cent of those cases the agent of death is a firearm, and 72 per cent of those firearms are rifles. These are hard statistics which we cannot avoid considering carefully.
The last statistic of importance is one which shows that in the United States 54 per cent of the homicides involve the use of the handgun, not the rifle. Almost the reverse situation occurs in Canada. In this country in only 10.4 per cent of cases is the agent of death a handgun. Therefore the gun control system we have used in Canada to date in terms of handguns
Criminal Code
has, in my view, significantly reduced the number of Canadian homicides in the area of handguns.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: What is the percentage of homicides?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The percentage of homicides where the handgun is used as the agent of death in the United States is 54 per cent, and in Canada it is only 10.4 per cent. In Canada we have a very strict handgun law and in the United States they have very poor handgun laws.
My argument is that gun control provisions, contrary to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Calgary North, do have a significant effect on reducing homicide right across the country. That is the reason I welcome this half loaf which is presented in terms of a firearms bill, and I think the hon. member for Calgary North may also welcome it, even if for different reasons.
When we get to the positive aspects of the measure before us I would agree that the efforts made by the hon. member for Calgary North and others in the committee to take away the guarantor provision were a positive step. Eliminating it did, in fact, reduce an unnecessary elitism in the system by which you had to know somebody important in order to get a licence. I agree it was desirable to remove that proposal.
Establishing the cost of the firearms certificate at $2 per year is something about which nobody can reasonably complain. Specific examples of preventable homicide are numerous. I shall not bore the House with many of them. These are headlines: October 23, 1976, "Bought Gun for Protection; Man Shoots Son by Mistake." "Lethbridge-Boy's Purchase of Rifle Leads to Homicide." September 12, 1974, "Children Watched as Mother Gunned Down by Commonlaw Husband." These were preventable homicides. They were cases where the conduct of the murderer was predictable because he had previously indicated the presence of mental disorder, or had a record of previous criminal activity. In those kinds of homicides the provisions contained in the bill are significant.
But what the bill fails to deal with is the six million rifles which are still out there in the hands of a few unstable people-a very minor percentage. One of the things we will get to, because of the provisions of the bill, in about 50 years is the reduction of the proliferation of firearms. Under the provisions of the bill you cannot transfer a rifle and you cannot sell your rifle unless the person you are transferring it to has a firearms certificate. Therefore the effect of these provisions will be to bring the licensing system to bear, and ultimately there will be a reduction in the number of emotionally unstable individuals who have access to firearms.
Competency training is useful but it does not provide an emotional test. In fact training someone to shoot straight may lead to a murder rather than to a wounding. Competency training is no answer to the question of gun control. However, I do not intend to criticize competency training. I think it is useful that a person know how to handle his weapons, and it should certainly reduce the number of negligent homicides which could occur during a foray into the forest.

May 11, 1977
Criminal Code
I do, however, wish to deal with a key weakness in the bill which deserves examination when the measure goes to committee. I am referring to the provision dealing with mental disorders. We are in a position of risking a computer bank which will have information about everybody in the country in terms of where they were treated and what happened to them mentally. That is something to which I object as strenuously as I object to the wiretapping provisions. We do not want Big Brother to fill that computer full of information about private mental histories of people in Canada.
I urge the minister to be sure that when the applications for the firearms certificates are made up there is a question concerning whether the applicant has been treated for a mental disorder. Second, if the answer is yes, there must be a question concerning where and by whom the applicant was treated. Last, there must be a consent form in the application so that the firearms licensing officer has a full opportunity to investigate the information contained on the application. I do not know what the minister has in mind, but if the purpose of that section is to put mental hospital computer data in the possession of those not otherwise authorized to receive it, then 1 object to that practice as strenuously as I did to electronic invasion of privacy. It is another serious invasion of the right of Canadians to privacy. But I will say this: when a person applies for a firearms permit he is asking not for a right but for a privilege, and should consent to a search of the records being undertaken so that whoever issues a licence may know it is not being given to an unsuitable person. I agree with this in principle, although how it will work out in practice is, to say the least, uncertain.
The minister referred to a Gallup poll dealing with the way Canadians feel about gun control. He pointed out, I think, that 85 per cent were in favour of some form of gun control measures. What he did not tell us was that this 85 per cent approved Bill C-83 and the principles underlying it. In fact, that 85 per cent was not answering a question about new purchasers of weapons; it was answering a question about registration in terms of the whole ballgame.


An hon. Member:: The words "newly acquired" were in that questionnaire.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I would not want to mislead the House. The minister can correct the statement he made, or if I am in error I would be happy to be corrected. My understanding was that the Gallup poll he referred to dealt with the general licensing of firearm owners and not newly acquired weapons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. minister, I am required to seek the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the question to which I referred. "Would you favour or oppose a law which

would require a person to obtain a police permit before he or she could buy a gun?" That was my question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether that clarifies the situation with respect to existing rifle owners. It is a rather ambiguous question. It should have specified whether it was referring to a first time purchaser of a gun obtaining a firearm certificate.
Leaving that aside, not only that poll but every Gallup poll I have seen indicates a broad cross section of support in Canada for the licensing of all persons who own something as innately dangerous as a rifle, and not just new firearm purchasers. I support that position, and I have to agree that the bill has made a significant step in the direction of control. If we wait 50 years, 60 years or 70 years, by attrition the proliferation of rifles in the population amongst those who should not have them will be reduced through old age and through sales. In terms of this party's position, this is not the kind of legislation that we would adopt. At the same time, it is a step forward. I do not believe this legislation should be obstructed to the point where it is withdrawn, or to the point where it dies on the order paper.
I know how nervous the government is about gun lobbies. I would be worried if we went through the same exercise again and the minister had some more delegations from FARO and some of the other groups, and arrived at a decision that even this was more than the Canadian public or the gun lobby was willing to accept. I am hopeful the minister will stay firm with what he has. I have heard very little from the shooting sportsmen and the gun clubs in opposition. They have been remarkably quiet. Therefore we can congratulate the minister for putting out the fire. This bill is not what the majority of the Canadian public would have supported.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Gun club members do not know about it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is time we had this bill passed. I appreciate the motion the hon. member for Calgary North has made. He is as concerned as I am, and many of us are, with splitting the legislation so that our thoughts can be known. I have reservations in supporting the particular amendment that was moved, since it is an attempt to refer the subject matter to committee. If we get into further legislative delays, I am afraid gun control will die on the order paper once again. I refuse to be a dog in the manger on this subject. We need gun control in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The minister has made a significant step forward. Therefore 1 want to say the minister has my support. Unfortunately I am not in a position to vote against wiretapping at the same time; but I am sure the minister will understand why I am supporting the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?
May 11, 1977


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, no yet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is therefore on the amendment of Mr. Wooliiams, seconded by Mr. Paproski-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wooliiams) on a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, our House leader was called out of the Chamber for a minute. He is now ready to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) on a point of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I was rising on the same point of order as that raised by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wooliiams).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I now understand what the hon. member for Calgary North said. I was, perhaps, a little hasty in starting to put the amendment. I saw no one rise and therefore concluded that the House was ready for the question. The hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker).


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my speech this afternoon there are some observations I would like to make with respect to this bill, and the subject matter of this bill, which has had such a checkered career in this parliament.
In view of what the legislation says with respect to firearms control, I am greatly surprised by the fact the minister devoted so much time, out of the time allotted to him, in the course of his speech to that particular provision in the bill. As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wooliiams) said, there was a tremendous parliamentary battle fought over that earlier.
I want to join with the hon. member for Calgary North in supporting the purpose of the amendment which he has put. I think it is a wrong parliamentary practice. I argued the case on a point of order the other night in another matter. We place in the legislation that comes before us so many sections dealing with different aspects that, as the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. Leggatt) said the other evening, one may feel that he or she should vote nay to the entire bill. One may feel that he or she should vote nay because there is a difficulty with a group of sections, and yet be bound to vote yea, or be perceived to vote yea.
It is a blot on our legislative process that we have come to a point where that procedure is acceptable. It has been upheld by the Speaker on the basis of precedent that various aspects of a subject matter, or even unrelated subject matters, or even subject matters with respect to different statutes, can be dealt with in the same bill. The result of all of this is that it makes it difficult for members of parliament to be accountable. By the votes they cast, I believe it tends to prolong parliamentary debate that must follow, because members of parliament feel they must explain themselves with respect to their votes on account of the difficulties of misconstruction-
Criminal Code


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. gentleman from Grenville-Carleton with a great deal of interest. He is coming very, very close to casting aspersions on a judgment of the Chair made earlier this afternoon, by referring to a matter that has been dealt with by the Chair and that the Chair has decided upon. The decision of the Chair was made pursuant to precedents set by Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, the predecessor of the present occupant of the chair. I hope that the hon. gentleman is very careful not to impugn the motives, or indeed the judgment, of the Chair in these matters.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The Chair was quite attentive to the remarks of the hon. member and I think he was relating his remarks to the reason why he was supporting the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wooliiams). The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has the floor.


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) for his interjection because it demonstrates to the House and to the country that while he was sitting in his seat he was asleep. The hon. gentleman is so quick to interject. Had he been listening he would know that I was not casting any aspersions on the Chair, or on the previous occupant of the chair. What I was saying was that it was unfortunate that the Chair was bound by precedent, a precedent in a matter which makes it difficult, on the one hand, for the public to understand, and on the other hand for parliamentarians to explain their actions in terms of votes and accounting for those votes.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, an observation of that nature is not a reflection on the Chair; it is a reflection on an unfortunate precedent which the Chair must follow in these circumstances. I take second place to no member of the House in regard to the respect which I show the Chair. I have to confess that from time to time I disagree with decisions of the Chair, but I am as aware as anyone of the position the Chair is in under our rules, the fact that there is no appeal from its rulings. This places a great responsibility on the Chair, and because of this my respect for the Chair is increased. I think it does not advance the debate in any way for the Postmaster General to rise in his place and show what is in fact a bona fide disrespect for the Chair by intervening the way he did, by asking the Chair to intervene by raising a spurious point of order.
Perhaps because of our complex legislative process or because we tend in modern society today to intervene to a greater and greater extent in the lives of individuals, this parliament is busier than ever, which means it is necessary for more and more provisions to be packed into fewer and fewer bills. That may be the case, or there may be a thousand explanations. It may be, as the deputy opposition whip said, a matter of some cunning on the part of the government, which I suspect might be the case. But whatever the reason, it is unfortunate that this is deemed to be acceptable parliamentary practice.

it because it does not really affect us at all. It does affect us, it affects us very badly, and on reflection I think that when the people of Canada view this bill and consider it in terms of the use of the new devices of electronic surveillance, the extension of the use, the lack of notice, and the power that is given to the police in an extended way, they will be asking the government some questions. There is a duty on the government to explain why it asks this parliament to extend those powers.
I hope there will be some speakers on the government side who will, for once, not sit mute and not acquiesce in whatever the minister says is all right, who will rise in their places and, on the basis of some evidence that they can present to the House during the course of this debate, tell us what has happened in the country that we have to place in the hands of the police, however well intentioned they may be, the power to intrude on our civil rights. I hope they will tell us why it has been necessary to take cognizance of the cases that were brought forward by the hon. member for Calgary North. The
Criminal Code
hon. member indicated that if the law is not followed-the law that this parliament dealt with-then the evidence that has been procured as a result of the law not being followed is still admitted in a court of law.
I think parliament has to take a look at that kind of question that has not been answered. I think the hon. member for Calgary North has done the House and the people of the country a great service by putting on the record the number of cases that have come to his attention and are likely to continue unless we, in the course of the discussions on this bill, review it carefully and decide whether or not circumstances have deteriorated to the extent that police should have these powers. My suggestion is that they cannot.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 12, 1977