1978-03-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has refused to create jobs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the House immediately appoint a special committee on economic urgency in Canada which would be asked to recommend an effective program enabling Canadians to return to work; that the committee consider and report on specific proposals providing for tax reductions and other measures suggested by the parties in the House and large private organizations; that the committee consider what short-term measures could induce economic growth and how employment could be better coordinated with other monetary and tax policies; that the committee be empowered to sit during the Easter recess; that the committee be provided with technical research services and other necessary resources to comply with its terms of reference; that, at the latest, the committee submit its findings and recommendations to the House by Monday, April 10; that the said committee include the members for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), for Matane (Mr. De Bane), for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac), for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), for Waterloo-Cam-bridge (Mr. Saltsman) and for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is concerned with the tragedy which struck the lives of hundreds of Israeli families last weekend. In view of this barbarous testament to our collective failure to find a solution to the Middle East dilemma, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House utterly condemns the brutal murder of innocent Israeli citizens by terrorists of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and in addition finds it abhorrent that any body which wishes to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the world community would in any way associate itself with such an act of depravity.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 regarding an urgent and pressing matter. In view of the fact that we now have officially over one million and, unofficially, 1.6 million Canadians unemployed, the worst economic performance by any Canadian government, a milestone that has become a millstone around the necks of the Canadian people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House urges the government to bring in an immediate budget prior to the Easter recess designed to create jobs and decrease the horrendous level of unemployment in the country today.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 14, 1978


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that hockey plays such an important part in the lives of a great many Canadians who consider it their national sport; considering that it is held in high esteem by both Francophone and Anglophone Canadians; considering that all Canadians have the right to watch their programs in their own language on the CBC network; considering that Francophone Canadians are deprived of their right to watch hockey games in French in the areas which are covered by the CBC television stations in Toronto and Vancouver; and considering that the agreement between the MacLaren agency and the CBC already provides for the payment of television rights in this respect, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House authorize the government to order the CBC to include the Toronto and Vancouver regions in the French network for the broadcasting of hockey games, or to make possible the French broadcasting of hockey games played in Toronto and Vancouver.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of increasing unemployment which is not reported by Canada Manpower offices-as pointed out graphically in Monday's issue of the Globe and Mail-and in view of the decrease, in real terms, of the DREE budget with consequent lessening of assistance to those disadvantaged areas of the country which this program was originally designed to assist, which program was promoted with such fanfare by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, together with his cabinet colleagues, for the benefit of the Atlantic region and eastern Quebec, bring into

sharper focus and on a more specific basis increased programs to alleviate unemployment, focus DREE aims and objectives more particularly on the real areas of need in the country, and that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion consult with the Minister of Transport to ensure that both departmental policies are co-ordinated.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the minister knows, statistics released today indicate that there are now officially more than one million Canadians out of work for the first time in the history of Canada. The minister continues to refuse to introduce a budget immediately to deal with this problem.
If the government refuses to act, as it does, will the minister at least recommend to his colleagues that the government accept the recommendation I made earlier today and name an all-party emergency committee of this House, immediately, to study the proposals put forward by this party and by others in the House of Commons, and proposals put forward by the C.D. Howe Institute and others in the country, to work over the Easter recess and to report back before the middle of April so that if the government will not work, parliament can work to create jobs for the one million Canadians who are unemployed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the proposition made by the C. D. Howe Institute in terms of cutting sales taxes at the provincial level, that is a proposition I myself made to the provinces in the fall, and renewed it at the finance ministers' meeting prior to the first ministers' meeting. That proposition could not be worked out.
The hon. member referred to the fact that unemployment increased somewhat last month, but he has not told the House or the public that employment increased by 100,000 from January to February, and by 287,000 in the past year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what the minister's answer indicates is that not only does he refuse to bring in a budget and
March 14, 1978

let the government go to work, but he refuses to allow the Parliament of Canada a mandate so that it can go to work on behalf of the unemployed in this country. That is shameful behaviour by this minister.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister is playing cute games with regard to a budget, but will he give us an absolute assurance that he will bring in a budget before the dissolution of this parliament?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I told a committee of this House that I felt it was important to wait until the government incentive measures, in force since January 1, had been applied in every sector of the Canadian economy before bringing in a new budget. I also stated that I was hoping to bring in a budget either in late April or early May. As for the dissolution of parliament, this is not a matter within my jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what concerns us is that we believe the question of whether there will be a budget does not come under the control of the Minister of Finance and that the Prime Minister has said there will not be a budget, because he does not want the economy discussed in the House of Commons before there is an election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EFFECTIVE DATE OF EMPLOYMENT TAX CREDIT PROGRAM
Charles Joseph Clark: This minister holds the double distinction of being the first minister whose policies have put one million Canadians out of work and the first minister in 15 years who has refused to bring in a budget.
I want to ask him about one of the measures the government has brought in, the employment tax credit. My office telephoned Manpower offices in Windsor, St. Catharines and Sudbury-three Ontario centres where unemployment today is at or near 12 per cent-and asked for the status of the employment tax credit program. In no case have application forms for employers who might seek that program reached those offices. On March 1, the minister told the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that the program would start the next week, on March 8. Today is March 14. Why did the minister mislead the House and the people of Canada on the effective date of the employment tax credit program?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the program was announced, as I said in the House, I checked, before the end of the question period, with the department of manpower and immigration which was handling the administration of the program. They said that the program was to start on the day that I told the House of Commons. The
Oral Questions
program has been in place since that time. As to how many applications there are in the different offices, the legislation is in place, the regulations are in place and everything is in place. It is up to the private sector to take advantage of the program.
I should like to point out that the hon. member has not referred to the fact that unemployment decreased in all provinces of Canada last month except provinces where there is a Tory administration.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this minister continues to try to play cute little political games while more and more Canadians are put out of work. The fact is that the forms for this program are not in the offices where they would do the most good. This program was promised first in February, and the government failed on that; it was promised in March, and they failed on that. What we want to know is when application forms will be available in these Ontario cities, the industrial heartland of the country, where the policies of this government are creating unemployment rates now in excess of 11 per cent and 12 per cent.
When will it be possible for Canadians who are looking for this government program in order to find a job to have forms they can work on? Will the minister give me a date? He has given us two that were wrong. He should give us a date that Canadians can rely on.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said and I want to repeat that the program is already in force at this moment. If some offices have not yet received those forms, I will inquire of my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and see to it that the necessary steps be taken. The act and regulations have been adopted and the program is in place. If there are any administrative problems, we will make sure that they are corrected with the shortest delay.


MANPOWER
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the context of what is perceived by everybody except this government us an emergency situation, tragic in its proportions for human suffering, given the statutory responsibility that is the minister's, and in view of the failure of the Minister of Finance to bring in a new budget with the necessary stimulative measures to get the economy moving, what advice is the minister prepared to give his colleagues, now that there are over one million people, officially, unemployed in this country or, in real terms, 1.6 million? Surely the minister has some responsibility in this.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, most assuredly, the government has

March 14, 1978
Oral Questions
expressed its concern and has followed this up with action, not on a month to month basis, but going back to the application of about one-quarter billion dollars being spent on the first phase of Canada Works; the federal labour-intensive program announced and administered by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, and the employment tax credit which the Leader of the Opposition chooses to ignore.
When that legislation was brought in, it is to the credit of my department that the civil servants worked day and night to put it into operation so that private enterprise could take advantage of what I think is an excellent program. 1 think it will prove itself. I have some confidence and faith in the private sector, but the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to have that. To suggest that nothing is being done is just not in accordance with the facts, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the country has no confidence in this government. The minister seems to ignore the fact that this is a national emergency, of national proportions. Given the fact that in the industrial heartland of the country we now have an unemployment rate hovering at over 7 per cent, and an unemployment rate in the industrial cities of Ontario hovering at around 12 per cent, with only 32,000 jobs available in Canada today for over one million unemployed, is the minister going to laugh that off and carry on with his statistical shell-game, or is he going to own up to his responsibility and tell the House and the country what he proposes to do, as minister of employment, to meet this tragic, emergency situation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, talking about a shell-game and playing with statistics, I suggest the hon. member is doing just that. A million jobs changed hands in Canada in the course of a year. To suggest that only that number of jobs is available is not in accordance with the facts. We have put programs in place. Notwithstanding the hon. member's suggestion that there are discouraged workers, it is rather interesting that these so-called discouraged workers have more confidence in this country than the opposition has, because the size of the labour force continues to increase. That is the problem we have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, there are 33,000 more young people working this month than there were last month; there are 27,000 more adult women working this month than last; and some 8,000 more adult males working than last month. Jobs are, in fact, being created. As my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has stated, the people of this country have more confidence in this country and this government than the opposition would like to believe.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, 1 direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It relates to the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. 1 think it is a good proposal. The minister did not give an answer to the proposal.
When the official level of one million unemployed is reached, it becomes a national emergency which calls for special measures of the House of Commons. Will the minister, therefore, consider putting together an all-party committee, because some of these problems may not be capable of solution in a partisan way but could be solved by putting together an all-party committee to look at the horrible situation of unemployment in Canada seeking a solution to which deserves the co-operation of all members of the House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the rules of this House provide for the Minister of Finance to appear in front of the committee of the House. I do so once or twice a week.


Mr. Stevens:: We cannot get you there.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will give credit to the hon. member, who once in a while engages in a serious discussion and puts forward some propositions. Generally speaking, when I am there very few questions are asked of me by the official opposition on a specific proposition like that. Most of the propositions put forward by the Leader of the Opposition say that he will cut expenditures by $2 billion. But he has never been able to come forward with any proposal that amounts to any significant amount of money.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is because you can't count.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is misleading the people of Canada to make such propositions.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I appreciate his comment about me. Nevertheless, even granting, as I pointed out, the partisan nature of these meetings-it is the sort of "business as usual" method-this is not "business as usual" any more. Once the figure of one million unemployed is reached, it is a national emergency. It seems to me incumbent upon the Minister of Finance at least to try putting together a committee of the House of Commons to see if joint proposals can be made to solve unemployment in Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, 1 do not propose setting up a special committee designed to deal with this problem, although it is a serious one. Our economy is going through a period of adjustment. The unemployment situation is very serious at this time and is of much concern to us. The labour force participation rate reached a record level this month and if it had remained the same as last month, the
March 14, 1978

rate of unemployment would have gone down. In the past year, the Canadian economy has created 287,000 new jobs, which is an unprecedented achievement unequalled by any other democracy at this time.


INQUIRY WHETHER BUDGET WILL BE BROUGHT DOWN BEFORE EASTER
Max Saltsman: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. The minister stated in committee, and repeated here today, that he has ruled out a budget for March and indicated, and 1 quote, "May will be better for me because I will have more information". There is considerable information available at the moment from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion that unemployment will get worse in every region of Canada.
In light of that, and given the fact that the minister is reluctant to establish an all-party Commons committee, will he at least assure us that there will be a budget before an election is called? Otherwise there will be no way of coping with this problem for the next six or seven months.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, October 20 last, a budget was actually brought down, and I want to point out to the hon. member that the incentives proposed by the government at that time came into force on January 1, 1978. So, it is only fair and reasonable to wait for those measures to take effect before proposing further measures. For instance, the Leader of the Opposition said today that the job creation program in the private sector through incentives to employers has only become effective this month. It would only be fair and reasonable to ascertain its results before proposing another program.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Since hockey is considered as our national sport by both Anglophones and Francophones and since all Canadians have the right to be served in their own language by the French and English CBC networks, could the minister tell the House why hockey games are not broadcast in French by the CBC in the Toronto and Vancouver areas?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to explore the matter. It may very well be that the rights of "Hockey Night in Canada" are not owned by the
Oral Questions
CBC but by an outside company, and they have in their contract accepted limitations on the way the program can be shown. Before giving the hon. member that answer definitively, I would like to check the matter and report back to him.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, I should like to ask the minister whether he considers that cultural and linguistic rights have priority over the rights of some agency such as the MacLaren agency? And in order to help the minister give an accurate and adequate reply, I also ask him why are hockey games now broadcast in French and in English in Montreal, when Francophones in Toronto and Vancouver are denied the services provided in Montreal?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe we must give very strong priority to those rights. As I tried to indicate to the hon. member, there may be legal ramifications. That should be explored before 1 reply further to him.


MANPOWER
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the statistics published this morning, which continue to cause great concern in the Canadian public, I would like to ask the minister if he has made representations to the President of the Treasury Board urging that grants for the Young Canada Works program be doubled if we seriously intend to meet the expectations and needs of thousands of Canadian students this summer?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the number of applications we have had under the Young Canada Works program. Once again, the program is successful. The ratio is about 3 to 1, which gives us excellent programs under the Young Canada Works operation. I want to look at the calibre of those that we might not be able to fund, to see if it would warrant making an application for further funding. One of the criticisms so often made of the Young Canada Works program is that we fund many projects that are not worth while or are a waste of taxpayers' money. I want to make sure we are making good use of the money before I make application to expand the program.
We are working in other areas, of course, and expect to supply some 60,000 jobs for young people this summer. We think this is a step in the right direction. The job experience

March 14, 1978
Oral Questions
training program, which will probably involve between 12,000 and 14,000 young people, is another direction we are taking. So we are moving on a number of fronts, not just under the Young Canada Works program.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I think I should rephrase my question to the minister. Given the present unemployment rate, it is self-evident that students will not be able to find summer jobs. I also believe that the minister is sufficiently responsible to understand the importance of a job for these students if they are to pursue their studies next fall. Furthermore, as I am satisfied that the funds earmarked for this endeavour are quite inadequate, I would like to ask the minister if he is at least prepared to recommend to the minister responsible to allocate additional funds so that a reasonable minimum number of students will be able to find work this summer?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not correct to say that young people will not be able to get work this summer. In fact, they will be able to work. Where we have run into particular difficulty, as in the Sudbury area where Inco normally hired some 1,500 students, we have made funding available to meet the particular needs. But, as I have indicated, simply putting out a lot of money for a project which may bring discredit on a program is not acting in the best interests of either the young people or of a particular program which could be made to work on their behalf. I want to look at this aspect carefully, to make certain that we are making good use of the money and not simply wasting it on being seen to do something when, in fact, nothing is being accomplished.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that unemployment in Canada amounted to about 300,000 ten years ago, was 500,000 four years ago, has now passed the one million mark, and is likely, at the present rate of escalation, to hit the 1.5 million mark some time in the early 1980s, would the minister tell us whether he does not feel there should be a complete reappraisal of the government's fiscal stance in light of such alarming and rising unemployment in this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed these matters with the provinces and have tried to reach a common approach to economic policy in this country. Some of the provincial governments are presenting their budgets at this time. We had a review of the fiscal stance of the government when on October 20 last I made an economic statement in this House, which some hon. members
[Mr. Cullen.)
called a mini-budget and others called a budget. When I feel the time has come to present another budget, we will present one. But I do not feel the time has yet arrived to do so. I feel we should wait to see what effect the $3 billion tax cut which came into force on January 1 has on the economy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance continues to say we must wait. On May 25, 1976, the then minister of finance said unemployment would decline. On March 31, 1977, the then minister of finance stated he anticipated 5 per cent real growth and that unemployment would decline. In his October 20 statement, the present Minister of Finance said, "I want sustained growth of between 5 per cent and 6 per cent in order to bring unemployment down." Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: How can three budgets be so wrong? How can they be so wrong at the expense of the unemployed in this nation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously selects certain statistics and forgets to mention that, last month, the Canadian labour force increased by 3.1 per cent, that 100,000 new jobs were created in Canada in a one-month period and that there were 100,000 more people at work. Of course, people have confidence in the Canadian economy, as the Minister of Employment and Immigration said, because they join the labour force in increasing members, and this month, the labour force participation rate reached a record level of 62 per cent.
* *
*


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It seems to me that the government's policy in so far as the unemployed are concerned is not to create jobs but to go to the country: ministers opposite do not appear to accept responsibility for creating jobs.
The industrial heartland of the country is being adversely affected, as these figures show: in Oshawa-Peterborough, the unemployment rate is 10.6 per cent; in Windsor, 10.6 per cent; in Barrie, 10.7 per cent; in Sudbury, 10 per cent; in St. Catharines, 12 per cent. Noting that this country is about to become a banana republic because of total ineptness in the management of the economy-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -and given the fact that in the last quarter of 1977 there were some 1,050 business failures and that in the last quarter of 1976 there were 761, what specific steps does the minister intend to take to reverse this significant trend, one which is dangerous to the viability of the economy?
March 14, 1978


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a great speech by the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Let's hear a great answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate the response my former colleagues are giving me.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Edmonton.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is obvious hon. members opposite do not want an answer; they think they know it all already. What I was about to say, if the official opposition is prepared to allow me to speak, was that we have listened to a great speech by the hon. member outlining the difficulties experienced by many areas of Canada with regard to employment. We have presented pieces of legislation.
I did go to the spokesman for that party, desirous of getting through another piece of legislation having to do with the Export Development Corporation. I was told I would not get ready passage for it because the official opposition would not approve it. I told them, "You will be blamed, then, for contributing to unemployment in Ontario."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The opposition did not seem to be concerned about the unemployed in Ontario at that particular time. The hon. member said, "You are going to get a rough time." I said, "You are going to get the blame." He was not worried then, and I do not see how the hon. member for Hamilton West can be worried now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I just want to say that that answer is baloney. The minister is abdicating his responsibility. Ministers over there have fiscal and monetary tools for dealing with this problem, but they have neither the guts nor the initiative to bring about some relief.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I direct this question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Given the fact that the industrial base of Ontario is being eroded, will the hon. gentleman assure me that he will at least travel throughout Ontario, and particularly to St. Catharines where unemployment is presently running at the rate of 12 per cent and over, in order to determine whether some relief might be forthcoming? Could the minister give us at least that assurance, or does he also take the position that we must live with one million unemployed?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for inviting me to travel throughout Ontario to see what the situation is in some cases. I should say to him that I intended to do so, and have in fact already done so. I went to the Windsor area, not so long ago, and I intend to go to another part of Ontario within the next few weeks precisely to see, with some of my officials, what the situation is like, and find out whether our department should intervene as I believe it might in certain cases. I trust those things can be done in due course.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General.
Further to the memo the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs sent out with the April 1978 issue of its magazine North advising its readers that henceforth their new address will be: Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, North Tower, 6th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario, when in fact that complex is located in Hull, Quebec, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to ask all departments to change their postal code so that the same can be used for all federal departments located in the national capital area, on the Quebec as well as the Ontario side, to spare us any more stupidities on the part of some thoughtless and narrow-minded civil servants in the face of reality, that is that Hull is an integral part of the capital of Canada?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have already been made aware of that anomaly, for that is certainly what is it. I shall have to consult with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, whose responsibility the national capital is, so that that anomaly can be corrected as soon as possible.


HOUSING
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Given the fact that the construction industry, particularly housing, has been such an important factor in providing employment for Canadian citizens, and that we have over one million unemployed in Canada, would the minister indicate to

March 14, 1978
Oral Questions
the House whether the government is considering extending the provisions of the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, which has been such an important factor in both providing employment and improving the living standards of tens of thousands of people in the older parts of all Canadian cities? Is the government giving consideration to extending that program, which is now coming to an end as a result of the legislation?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether an early announcement, including the amounts of money which will be made available, will be made so that the provinces and cities interested in extending the program can begin to make their plans? Also, can the minister indicate whether the government, at the same time as considering extending the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, will consider changing the plan to provide block funding for provinces and cities for sewage disposal systems, water extensions, and so on?


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have been in the House a week ago. I have already answered these questions. I indicated that my officials have had consultation with provincial officials specifically in relation to the programs which have been put forward by the federal government, which are extremely popular and have been extremely valuable in job-creation and in the commencement of municipal activities.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister's departmental study entitled "Manufacturing Performance" reads, "We have lost 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 1974", and as the Canadian Manufacturing Association indicated recently, "If we can overcome our $11.5 billion a year deficit in fully manufactured products, we could create 80,000 new jobs", would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline what, specifically, he is doing to get the Canadian manufacturing industry back on its feet so that it can start to overcome this gigantic $11.5 billion deficit in fully manufactured products and start to create those potential 80,000 new jobs?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to outline what we are doing to assist manufacturing in this country. That paper from which the minister quoted is a brief outline of where we are at.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: You are just a little ahead of time, Jack, but it will not be long.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The paper the hon. member quoted from is a brief outline of where we are at. The $11 billion end-product figure that he speaks of must be looked at in its true perspective. End-product exports increased 50 per cent from 1975 to 1977. We exported $10.7 billion worth of end products in 1975. Last year we exported $14.9 billion worth of end products. Thus, we are increasing, but we are also increasing-


Harvie Andre: That is hogwash.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member speaks of hogwash. I can only say that he is a good judge of what hogwash is; he has wallowed in it for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me continue to explain, Mr. Speaker. The $26 billion which the hon. member speaks of is the importation of end products into this country. In no way am I going to restrict Canadians in their right to purchase whatever they wish.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is an interesting policy. Do you want to reconsider that?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My department is isolating that $26 billion and encouraging Canadian manufacturers to take any part or all of the $26 billion worth of goods that we now import. Besides that, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, from the minister's answer it is very obvious that this enormous deficit will increase, because the minister has stated very clearly that he will encourage import of fully manufactured products into this country.


An hon. Member:: That is right; that is exactly what he said.


George Harris Hees: Following that statement, I ask the minister whether he intends, or if he is instructing his negotiators at GATT to follow the free trade line which he has so often said he prefers. When he is giving his answer, would he please stick to the facts and not so much to that commodity which is in such abundant supply on his cattle ranch in the west?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I never said I was going to encourage imports; I said that we were going to encourage Canadian manufacturers to take a piece, or all, of that $26 billion we are now importing: we are going to encourage Canadian manufacturers.


Charles Joseph Clark: Read the record.


Some hon. Members:: How?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How? By a whole series of incentives which my department is making available to the manufacturing industry.
March 14, 1978


Some hon. Members:: When?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I went on to say that we have isolated 23 sectors in which we are doing a great deal of study with labour and management.


Charles Joseph Clark: You have isolated St. Catharines, Windsor and Sudbury.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the pretty little boy over there wants to speak, he can get up and do so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Frontenac-Len-nox and Addington.


George Harris Hees: You were saved by the bell. I had a dandy question for you, Jack. I was going to murder you on the next one. Lucky old Jack!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington.


NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have in my possession a petition from 120 residents, including tourist operators, in the townships of Pittsburgh and Storrington, in Frontenac county, fronting on the Rideau River system, protesting the fact that with the construction of the new Brass Point bridge across the Rideau River, a detour of up to 30 miles will be necessary in the daily travel of the inhabitants and tourists, especially to and from Storrington, in order to gain access to Highway No. 15 and the Kingston area. My question is: Why did his department not provide a temporary Bailey bridge to serve the public during the ten-month life of this $1.6 million contract, and avoid the extra energy, expense outlay and inconvenience to the people, to our tourist operators and to our American customers?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that matter and report to the hon. member.


HOUSING
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It concerns the issuance last December of a Central Mortgage
Oral Questions
and Housing Corporation memorandum GMB-1241 affecting procurement techniques and loans to non-profit housing under sections 15.1 and 34.1(8) of the National Housing Act.
In view of the fact that this memorandum has killed, to all intents and purposes, all future non-profit housing projects across the country, especially in Toronto, since it imposes impossible conditions upon non-profit groups, will the minister order an immediate suspension of the provisions of the memorandum for a minimum of six months pending further consultation with the non-profit housing groups affected?


An hon. Member:: Right on!


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is absent from the chamber for a moment. I will take notice of the question and report back to the hon. member.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that there are amendments presently before the committee affecting averaging under the Canada Labour Code, and that the grain industry and the trucking industry have given evidence that very serious problems will be created by these amendments, can the minister tell the House whether his colleague, the Minister of Transport, has received representations in this regard and has discussed them with him with a view to making some amendments from the government side?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has received representations regarding the various averaging provisions in the bill. We are giving consideration to those representations at the present time.


John Allen Fraser: I should like to ask the minister how soon the committee will be apprised of any decision the minister is making, and when we will see those amendments.


John Carr Munro: I would not like the hon. member to jump to the automatic conclusion that there will be amendments. I will be before the committee this Thursday night, as the hon. member knows, on the clause by clause study. Also, I take it I will be before the committee next week. So the hon. member will have ample opportunity to question me with respect to what, if anything, we will be doing regarding the representations we have received.

March 14, 1978
Oral Questions MANPOWER


ADEQUACY OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS TO CREATE JOBS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As we have heard, the government has backed off the idea of bringing in a budget. Also, it has not brought in any measures of an economic nature to stimulate employment opportunities, especially for young people, other than those announced earlier this month for which smaller amounts were allocated than last year.
In view of the fact that the hard figures for February, unadjusted-perhaps we could even adjust those-show there has been an increase in youth unemployment to 449,000, or just under 50 per cent of the total unemployment-which makes it 16.6 per cent-does the minister feel that the programs he has already announced are adequate, in view of the fact that smaller amounts are allocated to them this year than was the case last year? Does the minister propose to bring in new programs to alleviate youth unemployment now; and the situation will get even worse when students come out of university in May and June?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member speaks of programs other than those we have already in place. I suggest to him that, for example, under the Canada Works Program 40 per cent of the participants in the program are youths. Similarly, because I wanted to make a concerted attack on this problem I sought the advice of the National Youth Advisory Group and asked them to look at all the programs we have in place to see if we can make better or more effective use of the funding we have at present, or to suggest to us new programs which might be put in place to meet this need. That is why I am particularly impressed with the job experience training program which has resulted in an increase from 1,000 to 14,000 young people participating. It is a good program. So is the developmental use of UI funds on work-sharing in particular because it affects, in most instances, younger members of the work force.
All these programs are in place and are directed to the very severe problem of youth unemployment. We have concerns in that area, but the people who pay the tab know they are getting value for their money when we put that money out.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I always appreciate the fact that the minister recites, every time, programs which have been put in place, in some cases three or four years ago. Since youth unemployment has increased steadily from 9 per cent to 15.5 per cent, it seems that we need something new, that we need a new approach. Can the minister tell the House whether the youth advisory group which he set up early in February, and from which he said he is eagerly awaiting a report, has met? If it has, will he table the recommendations they have made?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The reason I repeat the programs that have been put in place is that every time the hon. member speaks, he chooses to ignore these programs and the amount of money-


Paul Wyatt Dick: I know the programs are there, but they are not working.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If hon. members on the other side have nothing, they do a lot of shouting, which at least attracts attention. We have a series of programs. I do not hesitate to recite them each time I am asked a question about youth unemployment, because we are working in that area.
The National Youth Advisory Group has met, not once but twice. I suggested this because I want to get direct advice from them and I want it to be as informal as possible; I do not want it to be too structured. We had representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, from chambers of commerce and from young people themselves. It is an excellent idea. They want to study the programs that are in place and what funding might be made available, to give me an intelligent response to the questions I have put to them.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Some 13 months ago, in answer to a question in the House, he advised us that he was reviewing the visa status requirements for Cuban visitors to determine if they should continue to receive exemption status under the non-immigrant visa requirements. Can the minister inform the House of the government's policy at this time, after some 13 months of deliberations?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I want to look into that specific area because it does not involve solely the Cuban situation. We were looking at visas with respect to four or five other countries, and I would have to work out that kind of determination in concert with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will check that out for the hon. member and report back to him.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: As these deliberations continue, I wonder if the minister can assure the House that the Cuban non-immigrant visitors to this country are all friendly and are not engaged in acts which could be interpreted as unfriendly to our form of government?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am not even sure that everybody who comes from British Columbia is friendly to this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In any event, in view of this government's generosity of spirit, we are ready to assume that they are friendly, rather than to accept the opposite suggestion, which is what the hon. member seems to have in mind.
March 14, 1978


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: 
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Prime Minister and the other first ministers stated that greater provincial involvement in policy development should be facilitated in the fishery, and quick action taken to maximize our economic potential arising from the implementation of the 200-mile limit. What steps has the minister taken to ensure greater provincial involvement in policy development, and when can we expect a joint announcement by him and the provincial minister of fisheries of Nova Scotia that a start will be made with the opening of the swordfish industry in Nova Scotia which, I believe, has already been indicated by the provincial minister of fisheries in my province?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: If the hon. member would check Hansard, he would find that I have already answered that question. We are awaiting the U.S. decision to remove or maintain the ban on imports of swordfish from Canada.
In answer to the first question, may I say that the hon. member seems to ignore the fact that there were two federal-
Oral Questions
provincial conferences, one in December and one in February; and more will be planned, if necessary, in the next few months.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On February 15, I raised the serious matter of fluoride poisoning on the St. Regis reserve. The report prepared by Dr. Conibear and Dr. Carnow for the St. Regis Band Council indicated that fluorides originating at the Reynolds metal company have affected all life forms on the island, and they recommended an epidemiological study be carried out.
Now that the minister has had an opportunity to review that report in detail and is aware of the seriousness of the situation on the reserve, can he indicate if he will reverse his decision and support the recommendations of Dr. Conibear and Dr. Carnow for that study?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, we have never opposed the recommendations of Dr. Carnow's study. What we recognized, and what I indicated to Chief Francis in my letter of February, was that there was a case to be made for a study. We agreed to that. What has been at issue is the scope of the study and whether it should go beyond fluorides.
1 am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that after some very positive discussions with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, we on this side are prepared to proceed with the study. We recognized the need for the study long before today. We are prepared to proceed with the study. The minister or her officials will be meeting with the band council on March 21 to define the scope of the study and whether it should go beyond simply the question of fluorosis. We think there is an argument for taking the study beyond that, but I think my colleague would like to discuss that with the chief and his band council.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, to whom I have given notice. My question concerns the Panama Canal treaty currently under consideration by a legislative chamber of our strong ally and neighbour, the United States. I do not invite the Prime Minister to intrude upon the deliberations of the American Senate; nevertheless, in view of the importance to the commerce and comity of our western hemisphere and

March 14, 1978
The Late Milton Gregg
the whole world of assured open access to the Canal, could the Prime Minister indicate that the Canadian government and people support the early conclusion of an agreement between Panama and the United States as a valuable contribution to hemispheric and international good will?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the way in which the hon. member has asked his question because Canada, of course, is not a party to this treaty. Hon. members on this side of the House and, I am sure, hon. members opposite would not want to intervene in a legislative process which is currently before the United States Senate. However, I think I can satisfy the hon. member by referring him to the so-called Declaration of Washington which was signed and adhered to by every western leader, head of state or head of government, with only one exception, when we convened in Washington early last September.
We signed the Declaration of Washington because we felt it was a development which would bring stability to the hemisphere. If I may quote two phrases from that declaration, I am sure the House would see the position of the Canadian government and, I believe, the Canadian parliament on this matter. They are:
Considering that settlement of the Panama Canal issue represents a major step toward strengthening of relations among the nations of the western hemisphere on a basis of common interest, equality, and mutual respect for the sovereignty and independence of every state; Recognizing the importance for hemisphere and world commerce and navigation of arrangements for assuring the continuing accessibility and neutrality of the Panama Canal-
Therefore, the government certainly joins with the view expressed by the opposition that this treaty is conducive to bringing greater stability to the western hemisphere.


THE LATE MILTON GREGG, V.C. TRIBUTES TO FORMER SOLDIER AND PARLIAMENTARIAN
Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of sadness that I rise today to inform hon. members of this House that Canada has lost another of its great champions. This morning I received the news that the Hon. Milton F. Gregg, V.C., had died at his home in New Brunswick.
Many of us pass through this life without making a ripple on the surface, but such was not the case with our friend, Milton Gregg. He served with distinction during the First World War and won the Military Cross at Lens in 1917, a bar to the cross at Arras in 1918, and the Victoria Cross for most conspicuous bravery and initiative during operations near Cambrai in the same year.
Following the war, Brigadier General Gregg went into private business, and in 1934 he was appointed Sergeant-at-Arms here in the House of Commons.
He re-enlisted during the Second World War and again served overseas. Following the war years he served as president of the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton, and in

1947 was appointed Federal Minister of Fisheries. He was later appointed Minister of Veterans Affairs and even later, Labour Minister.
In 1964 Milton Gregg was appointed Commissioner for Canada in British Guyana. Four years later he retired. This retirement was short-lived, however, and later that same year he was appointed President of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation here in Ottawa.
Milton Gregg was in his eighty-sixth year, yet he had the stamina and initiative of a man half his age. He was part of the official delegation which accompanied me to Vimy Ridge last April as we celebrated the 60th Anniversary of that great battle in France.
It was always a pleasure and honour to be in the company of this great Canadian. He was loved and admired by those who had the pleasure of knowing him.
The measure of a man's life is not its duration but its donation. Milton Gregg excelled both ways. His life was long and happy, and his donation left this world a better place because he was part of it.
On behalf of the Government of Canada I would like to offer our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Gregg.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my leader and my party I join with the minister in expressing our sadness at the passing of that distinguished veteran Canadian, Brigadier General Milton Fowler Gregg. Not only did he serve with distinction in two world wars, attaining the highest military honour, the Victoria Cross, but he also served with distinction in this House of Commons. He probably is the only Canadian who ever served as Sergeant-at-Arms and then later served in three portfolios in the Government of Canada.
Canada is a better place in which to live as a result of Brigadier General Gregg's contribution, and in expressing sympathy to Mrs. Gregg we in this House give her the assurance of our appreciation of Brigadier General Gregg's exceptional and distinguished service to our nation.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I feel that it is most appropriate that we take a moment to salute this great Canadian. Those of us who knew Milton Gregg regard it as a high privilege to have been numbered among his friends. He was indeed a valiant Canadian. He was an outstanding gentleman who served this country in business, in education, and in the Government of Canada. I remember him particularly in the three portfolios that he held. He handled each of them with efficiency and with fairness to all who were interested in each of those departments. Indeed, it can be said that Canada is a better place because Milton Gregg lived so many years in our midst. We join in this tribute to his memory, and we extend our sympathy to Mrs. Gregg, to his daughter, and to all who were near and dear to him.
March 14, 1978


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, although I did not have the pleasure of knowing this famous Canadian who has done so much for his country, on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada and on my behalf, I wish to join with the government and all other opposition members in extending to Mrs. Gregg and her family our deepest sympathy.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act, I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of six reports sent to the Administrator by the AntiInflation Board.


MOTION TO ADJOURN
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on this day when Canada's unemployment has reached over one million, and that we are facing a government that has no plans to cope with this disaster, and in view of the fact that what the government needs is time to hold a cabinet meeting to make a decision to bring in a budget, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen.
Motion to Adjourn Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.

[DOT]	0655)


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 254, 280, 474, 939, 1,029, 1,034, 1,083, 1,084, 1,133, 1,143 and 1,219.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Type of
Minister	Aircraft	DateHon. J. Buchanan	Viscount	Oct. 12
Hon. R. Andras was on board the same aircraft Ottawa-Sault


Mr. Symes: 1.	Was government aircraft used to transport (a) the Hon. Robert Andras (b) the Hon. Judd Buchanan (c) Senator Roy Frith (d) Mr. Maurice Foster, M.P. (e) Mr. Marcel Prud'homme, M.P. (f) Mr. Bill Andres, M.P. to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario on or about October 11-12, 1977 and, if so (i) how many aircraft were involved (ii) which of the aforementioned used the aircraft?
2.	From what locations did the flights originate and to what locations did they return?
3.	What was the total cost for the use of such aircraft to and from Sault Ste. Marie?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1. (a), (b) and (i)-see flight itinerary below, (c), (d), (e), (f) and (ii)-see reply to Question No. 2,881, page 8266 of Hansard for October 17, 1977.
2.	See flight itinerary below.
3.	See reply to aforementioned Question No. 2,881.
Point of Origin	Stop	TerminationOttawa Marie.	Sault Ste. Marie	Ottawa


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canadian Judicial Council 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?
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 Canadian Judicial Council in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: In so far as the Canadian Judicial Council is concerned: 1. (a) (v) One part-time employee in 1974/75. None for 1975/76. (b) Nil.
2.	Part-time employees from agencies are paid from the Main Estimates.
3. (a) 1974/75-$4 per hour. 1975/76-Not applicable, (b) Information not available since the rates paid to employees are figured by the agencies, (c) (i) Total amount for 1974/75- $216.49. (ii) Not applicable.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	How many international aid conferences on education were attended by members of government international aid agencies in the past five years?

2.	How many of these conferences were attended by representatives from the elementary and secondary school educational sectors?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. During the period 1972-1977 representatives from the education sector of CIDA's Special Advisers Branch attended a total of six international aid conferences on education.
2. All six conferences were attended by representatives of CIDA with responsibility for both elementary and secondary school educational sectors.


Mr. Clark: 1.	Were the Snaring River and Fiddle River campgrounds in Jasper National Park permanently closed to the public during the Spring of 1977 and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Does Parks Canada plan to open camping facilities to replace the Snaring River and Fiddle River campsites?
3.	Was there any correspondence or other communication between Parks Canada and the Jasper Townsite Committee prior to the closing of the Snaring River and Fiddle River campgrounds?
4.	What are Parks Canada's long range plans for the Snaring River and Fiddle River campsites?
5.	Does Parks Canada intend to install washroom facilities for cross country skiers at Maligne Lake?



&


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Fiddle River Campground was closed permanently in the fall of 1974. Snaring River Campground has not been closed. The Fiddle River Campground was closed for the following reasons: (a) The campground was worn out by overuse; (b) The Fiddle River Campground was operating in competition with Folding Mountain Campground located outside the Park which was run by a private operator. Parks Canada's policy is not to compete with privately-operated campgrounds adjacent to national parks.
2.	In 1974, 90 new sites were opened at Wabasso Campground.
3.	No.
4.	Plans for Snaring River Campground are to add 50 sites to the existing 60 sites at a future date. The Fiddle River Campground will remain closed.
5.	Two toilets are provided at Maligne Lake (one men's, one women's). In addition, Maligne Tours Ltd. have opened their chalets for the winter and toilets are available there.


Mr. Beaudoin: On December 6, 1977, did the government approve projects under the Local Initiatives Programs in the (a) Province of Quebec (b) Constituency of Richmond and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what major sectors (iii) what was the dollar value?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a) No. (b) No. Note I-The approval process for projects under the Local Initiatives Program was completed on March 28, 1977. Note II-Under Canada Works, the successor to the Local Initiatives Program, there was one project approved on December 6, 1977, in the Province of Quebec. The project was approved under the second phase of Canada Works for the constituency of Laurier at a value of $23,894.


Mr. Patterson: For each year since the inception of the Local Initiatives Programme, what amount was spent in the Constituency of Fraser Valley East?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The amounts spent per year under the Local Initiatives Program in the constituency of Fraser Valley East are:
Year	Federal Expenditures
1971- 72	*
1972-	73	$	927,4711973-	74	$	380,7881973-75	$	544,5691975-	76	$	938,4141976-	77	$	1,909,379**
Order Paper Questions * no record by constituency available
** Most up-to-date figure. Several project sponsors have not yet submitted their final reports for the 1976-77 Local Initiatives Program. A definite figure for the constituency cannot be given until all projects have been closed out. There are still three outstanding projects in Fraser Valley East under the Local Initiatives Program.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the National Film Board produce a film for a period of over five years with the working title "Conflict Comedy" and a planned release title of "Running Time" and, if so (a) what was the exact date production (i) started (ii) ended (b) what are the names of all persons who directed the project and what position did Mr. Robert Verrall play in the production of the film (c) was the total cost of the production approximately $1.5 million and, if not, what was the exact cost?
2.	Was the film released and, if not (a) for what reason (b) what are all the reasons justifying the expenditure of considerable public funds on a film which was never released?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. The National Film Board has produced a film entitled "Running Time", (a) Shooting-57 days during period June 5, 1972 to June 1, 1973. Editing-between June 1973 and February 28, 1976. Test print approved-June 8th, 1976. (b) Production Team: Executive Producer-Colin Low Producers-Tom Daly, George Pearson Director-Mort Ransen. Robert Verrall was Director of English Production, August 1972 to January 1976. (c) Cost-$1,166,260.
2. (a) The film was released for non-theatrical distribution in the Fall of 1977 and is available through NFB offices. Recently sold to CBC (English network) for national telecast. A concerted effort made to obtain theatrical release prior to non-theatrical release was unsuccessful, (b) The film in question has been released. The NFB implements its mandate by using all forms of filmic expression, from documentaries through to feature dramatic Films. It also undertakes projects of an experimental nature with a view to advancing the art of film-making in Canada. "Running Time" is a feature length dramatic film, using actors, original music compositions, sets, difficult and new animation techniques and special effects.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many Divisional Heads of the National Film Board are (a) Frenchspeaking (b) English-speaking by mother tongue and, in each case, what is his/her name, job designation, date of appointment and annual salary?
2.	What is the total number of Divisional Heads employed by the National Film Board?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1 and 2. (a) Three, (b) Five.
80033-25'/2

March 14, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Name	Position	Date of appointment	Salary rangeMr. Antonio Vielfaure	Director of Distribution	April 1, 1972	SM-3	$30,800/ 40,900Mr. Francois Macerola	Director, French Production	October 1, 1976	SM-3	$30,800/ 40,900Mr. Marc Devlin	Director of Administration	June 1, 1974	SM-2	$27,800/ 38,100Mr. Creighton Douglas	Director, Technical Services	October 3, 1977	SM-2	$27,800/ 38,100Mr. Ian McLaren	Director, English Production	January 3, 1977	SM-3	$30,800/ 40,900Mr. Michael Averill	Director of Personnel	January 15, 1977	SM-i	$26,800/ 35,300Mr. Robert Monteith	Director, Ottawa Services	October 1, 1972	SM-2	$27,800/ 38,100Mr. David Novek	Director of Public Relations	January 4, 1977	SM-I	$26,800/ 35,300
* Mr. Devlin was, until January 15, 1976, both Director of Personnel and Director of Administration.


Mr. Rodriguez: For each Fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of Nickel Belt by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and those agencies that report to it?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: Nil return.


Mr. Herbert: For the past Five years, for which information is available, by what percentage have unit labour costs increased in (a) West Germany (b) Japan (c) France (d) Canada?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following:
Unit Labour Cost-Manufacturing1 (in National Currencies)
	(a) Germany		(b) Japan (c) France		(d)Canada
			Indexes, 1971 = 100		
1971	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.01972	105.1	106.9	104.3	103.41973	111.6	115.9	112.6	109.21974	121.5	149.8	128.5	124.01975	130.6	177.7	153.2	144.31976	127.2	171.2	155.3	157.2Year-to-year percent changes	1972/71	5.1	6.9	4.3	3.41973/72	6.2	8.4	8.0	5.61974/73	8.9	29.2	14.1	13.61975/74	7.5	18.2	19.2	16.41976/75	-2.6	-3.7	1.4	8.9Average annual percent change 1971-19762	5.7	13.6	10.5	10.2Source: for Canada: Aggregate	Productivity	Measures, 1946-1976, Catalogue	14-201 for	other countries:Monthly Labor Review,	July 1977,	page	16 (Table 4). Indexes were	rebased to	1971 - 100 for
comparison with Canadian data.
Footnotes: 1. The data are available only for manufacturing.
2. Average annual percent changes calculated from the least squares trend of the logarithms of the index numbers.

March 14, 1978


Mr. Marshall: With reference to the 1976-77 Annual Report of the Department of Manpower and Immigration under Industrial training, is it the government's intention to extend pilot projects to other areas of Canada and, if so (a) on what date (b) in which locations?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes: (a) In the coming fiscal year, (b) Dates and locations will depend upon our success in gaining the co-operation of the private sector in participating in these projects.



POINT OF ORDER


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as Your Honour recognized, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) alleged I had "tried to mislead the House" with respect to a question 1 had put to him during the question period. Your Honour expressed the view that it would be better if the word "tried" were removed from the record since it conveyed the impression I had deliberately sought to mislead the House. Looking through today's Hansard I note the word is still in the record, and I feel I should seek clarification of the position. As I understood your intervention yesterday, you felt the word should be deleted. The Minister of Finance gave no indication he was opposed to such a course; we assumed he was acquiescing in it, and I should now like to know whether the word ought to be deleted from the official record.


Mr. Speaker:: I would have to confirm this, but I do not believe the official record can, in fact, be physically altered. It has simply to make reference to the fact that it was understood later that the intent of the use of the word by the minister had been withdrawn. I think the word would have to remain in the original text. However, I will ascertain what the practice is. I understand the point raised by the hon. member and I will examine it and see whether the interpretation I have given is the correct one.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: that Bill C-26, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Post Office Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Games of Violence


Mr. Speaker:: The Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) has just three minutes before five o'clock. Does he wish to proceed now?


Mr. Blais:: There may be some questions Your Honour would wish to announce in relation to the adjournment proceedings this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell)-Energy-Smoke Detection Devices-Effect of radioactive material therein; the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott)-Industry- Plastics-Suggestion industry be exempted from tariff cuts; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Transport-Government action to reduce airline disasters.
Shall we agree that, it being five o'clock, the House now take into consideration private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with the consideration of Bill C-232 and that all previous bills be allowed to stand.


Walter David Baker: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed, then, that the House shall proceed to the consideration of Bill C-232 in the name of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and that the other bills shall stand in their places on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.

Games of Violence


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
March 14, 1978

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved: that Bill C-232, to amend the Customs Tariff (games of violence) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-232 proposes to ban the importation of coin operated or electronic games which simulate acts of crime or violence on the part of the player. The bill will achieve this purpose through an amendment to the Customs Tariff Act which would add an additional item to the prohibited list of items under Schedule C of the Customs Tariff.
These games of violence were first brought to my attention by an article in Safety Canada, a monthly publication of the Canada Safety Council. The March, 1977, issue advised of the imminent importation into Canada of "Death Race", a coin-in-the-slot electronic game destined for arcades and fairgrounds, the object of which is to drive a simulated vehicle in such a way as to "kill" as many pedestrians as possible in a 60-second period.
The pedestrians, depicted by small blips on a screen, weave about, and when one is hit a loud scream is heard. A player scoring 1-3 points is designated as a skeleton chaser. If he scores between four and ten points he is a bone cracker, and a score of between 11 and 20 points makes him a gremlin hunter. A score of 21 points or more makes the player an "expert driver".
To my mind, such games have absolutely no redeeming value, and their entry into Canada should be barred. We are living in an era when the younger generation is subject to all sorts of perverse influences: violence on television, and child pornography in books and magazines. Presently the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is looking into this very matter. To allow yet another corrupting factor seems foolish at best.
At the age of 16 or so, when a young person finally gets his driver's licence and sits behind the steering wheel of a car, he should be doing so with a keen sense of responsibility. However, if part of his practice driving time has been spent at the wheels or controls of a machine such as "death race" and knocking down as many pedestrians as possible, what sort of responsible attitude can be expected?
Safety authorities and psychologists in both Canada and the United States are very concerned about this game. Clearly they are worried about the psychological impact that such macabre games will have on impressionable minds. A psychologist with the American National Safety Council, in expressing his concern about this game, stated; "Nearly 9,000

pedestrians were killed on our roads last year". That is no joke. We can get a comparable figure for the number of pedestrians killed in Canada last year. I am sure all but a very small percentage of the people playing this game would not jump in their cars and take off after pedestrians on the street; but perhaps one in a thousand or one in a million would. How can we do anything but share this person's concern? The carnage on our roads already is staggering. How do we know that such games as "Death Race" will not impress some unbalanced individuals, if they can be called that, to try their so-called skills on an actual highway?
In my attempts to stir the government to take action, under Standing Order 43 I proposed a motion on March 24, 1977. I urged the then minister of industry, trade and commerce to take steps to prevent the importation of the game at that time. In a motion to follow this up, I wrote a letter to the minister asking him to outline the steps available to him and the country to prohibit entry of the game. The minister's reply was most disheartening. He informed me that the only course available to ban the game at that time was if he could use the Export and Import Permits Act. However, the act allows for only the prohibition of such articles entering our country as those which are subject to government controls in the country of export. Because there is no ban or prohibition on the use of "Death Race" in the United States, under the present act the minister was powerless.
It seems quite incomprehensible that Canada's decision about banning a certain article should be dependent upon a foreign government's treatment of the same article. Upon learning of the restrictions in connection with the Export and Import Permits Act, the Canada Safety Council similarly was disturbed. Mr. Rick Green, the editor of Safety Canada, stated the following:
It seems almost unbelievable that, to get this item removed from the arcades and fairgrounds in Canada to avoid the risk of influencing that marginal personality who just might be influenced, we must first hope a foreign-if friendly-government takes some action.
My luck was not better with the then minister of finance who suggested that action to ban the game was possible under section (c) of the Customs Tariff Act. Amendments of this kind could be proposed by the government only at the time of a budget. This meant that a year or more could pass before the government could make such amendments to the act in order to stop this game from entering Canada. Other federal departments were just as unhelpful. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated that it could not act because the machine was not being offered for sale to a private individual. The Customs and Excise Branch of the Department of National Revenue indicated that it could stop entry of the game only if it was directed to do so by another department. Discouraged by this game of musical chairs with various government departments, finally I decided to pursue the matter on my own in the form of a private members bill.
Since I first raised the issue in the House of Commons, almost an entire year has elapsed, and already the game has entered Canada, along with games similar to it. The game is reported to be in operation in most major Canadian cities. I
March 14, 1978

have seen its operation in Edmonton, as well as here in Ottawa. While we may not be able to prevent the use of this game in Canada, we can and should take action to prevent any further importation of games such as "Death Race". In order for this game to be removed from the Canadian market, perhaps a retroactive law should be put in place to compensate individuals who have already imported it.
My concern is shared by a good number of Canadians. Editorials condemning the game have appeared in a number of newspapers across Canada. The municipality of Guelph, Ontario, has decided to pass a bylaw banning the game from that city. Also a private member's bill was introduced by Mr. Gordon Taylor, a member of the Alberta legislative assembly. His bill is similar in nature to the one I am introducing today. It provides for an amendment to the provincial amusements act, which would provide the provincial government with the authority to censor games such as those that entertain by simulating the killing of human beings. In addition, the Canada Safety Council has given its full support to my efforts in this area.
I have never been one to seek government action or regulation, unless I thought it was very necessary. However, in this case I feel it is very much in the public interest to ban the importation of such games as "Death Race". There are other examples of such games, and I chose to use this one. I ask all hon. members to join with me in supporting this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to involve myself in this debate on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand). The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) is to be commended for bringing forward this area of concern. More and more Canadians are asking themselves about the influence of various items on the younger elements of our society. These items are put before them through various types of marketing devices such as television and others.
In fairness, it is important to put on record some of the concerns which we have regarding this particular bill and its ability to do the job the hon. member for Wetaskiwin would like to see it do. I am sure many other hon. members would support him in the general thrust of his bill.
The bill, entitled " Act to Amend the Customs Tariff' has as its purpose-and I quote from its explanatory note:
... to prevent the importation into Canada of slot machines such as "Death Race" in which the object is to drive a simulated vehicle so as to "kill" as many pedestrians as possible in a given time period.
This bill opens up some very broad avenues of discussion at this time. I am sure that many members of the House share the view of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin that games of violence in general are reprehensible. In fact I think the whole idea of such games is abhorrent to many of us, probably to most of us, but I wonder if the hon. member is approaching the
Games of Violence
problem in the proper fashion by presenting the bill he has placed before the House.
Careful consideration of the bill reveals a very important limitation in it, namely, that it deals only with products such as the "Death Race" game which are imported into Canada, and not with those games which might be manufactured in this country. In other words, if the bill were to become law, there would be nothing to prevent manufacturers outside Canada from setting up shop in this country and manufacturing the products within our own territory.
At the same time, the bill attempts to deal with a problem which is considerably larger in scope than a few children's games. What we are dealing with here is the problem of violence in our society, and what we as a government can and should do about it.
Various people have said that the games are a hazard to our society and that they should be banned on that basis. We have heard this comment made about a number of games at different times. This might lead a person to assume that perhaps this should be done under the Hazardous Products Act administered by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Perhaps I should outline briefly for hon. members the history and purpose of this legislation. The act came into force on June 27, 1969, and it was intended to deal with what might be referred to, in general terms, as consumer goods.
The act makes specific mention of such product categories as those designed for household, garden or personal use, for use in sports or recreational activities, or for use by children. It also mentions, without reference to end use, poisonous, toxic, flammable, explosive and corrosive products. However, it excludes from its purview food, drugs, cosmetics, pest control products, radioactive materials and explosives within the meaning of the Explosives Act.
Under the act, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) is empowered to require disclosure of information in the possession of the manufacturer of any product within its purview respecting the product's nature and composition.
On the advice of the minister, the governor in council may include in the schedule to the act any such product where he is satisfied that it is, or is likely to be, a danger to the health or safety of Canadians.
It is unlawful to advertise, sell or import into Canada a product included in Part I of the schedule of the Hazardous Products Act. It is, moreover, unlawful to advertise, sell or import into Canada a product included in Part II of the schedule, except as authorized by regulations.
The Hazardous Products Act has teeth. An offence is punishable on summary conviction by a fine of $1,000, imprisonment up to six months, or both, or as an indictable offence by imprisonment for up to two years.
Inspectors with powers of search and seizure are designated under the act. A hazardous products inspector may enter, at any time and any place where he reasonably believes a hazard-

March 14, 1978
Games of Violence
ous product, as defined under Part I and Part II of the act, is manufactured, prepared, preserved, sold or stored for sale.
The inspector may examine the product, take samples, and examine any records, books or other documents believed to contain information relevant to the enforcement of the act. Products found to be in contravention of the act or its regulations may be seized immediately. Perhaps, then, superficially, we might say this situation of apparently violent children's games could be covered by the existing law. Certainly we have the Hazardous Products Act, but it covers physical, not mental hazards, what might be said to be danger to life and limb situations. The item itself must be a hazard.
The Hazardous Products Act does not provide for banning products based on their offensiveness to good taste or because of a possible psychological influence on public driving habits or other behaviour. The applicability of federal legislation in that general area, such as that dealing with obscenity, is doubtful in this case.
I think, however, that in this case, Mr. Speaker, the problem may be solved by negotiation and voluntary limits imposed by the companies involved. Many product problems are very specific and are resolved on a voluntary basis by discussion with manufacturers. By way of example, information came to hand from a physician that a certain exercise cycle on the market was not equipped with a chain guard, and has caused injuries. On being advised of the problem by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the company took immediate corrective action. If there had been a widespread problem in the product area, more clout probably would have been required and action would have been taken to bring the product under the purview of the Hazardous Products Act. Appropriate mandatory engineering standards would have been established.
Although there are some who would not agree, every effort is made to take a reasonable approach in the administration of the act. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs weighs all factors carefully before items are included in the schedule of the Hazardous Products Act.
This is of particular significance in determining the implementation dates for bans or regulations. The type and level of hazard and its consequence are normally examined in the light of product utility, economic impact on an industry, and possible effects on the consumer market place. We must make rational choices based upon full and realistic accounting of the consequences of our decision-the costs, social and otherwise, as well as the benefits. Any decisions must be based on reason, not on the fashion of the moment. They must be able to withstand time. They must be made on lasting human values.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, I think we can say that in this matter industry should recognize its responsibility here in how it structures these games. Where it is an electronic game, such as the TV war games on sale now, the moving target does not necessarily have to be a representation of a human being. It could be something else-a dot or an object of some sort moving across the screen. In this way, I think industry could still allow children the enjoyment of such a game of skill, and

it would not have any negative elements attached to it, because these games do teach certain skills and, I think, have their usefulness. Some psychologists would agree that a certain amount of co-ordination is involved in these games, as well as a certain amount of judgmental skill in visual and manual operations. It would become, then, a question of shifting emphasis and not playing up the killing aspect of these types of games. Rather, the same sort of technique would be used to a useful effect.
I realize, of course, that it could be argued by manufacturers that these types of killing games, if I can refer to them as such, are precisely what the public wants. If they were to eliminate the human figures and substitute them with dots and various moving objects, nobody would want to buy them any more. That argument probably would be put forward. However, let me submit that if this were the case, what we would have would be clear evidence of a social problem. This would be of such magnitude, I think, that certainly stop-gap measures would be no way of trying to handle the situation. Merely taking a few games off the market would not deal with the root problem, which seems to be an obvious need on the part of people for this kind of excitement and stimulation.
This takes us into the much broader areas I mentioned earlier, the current values we are all having to deal with in our modern society and the problem we are having with violence in particular. These are very complex philosophical issues.
For example, it is still very questionable whether violence on television actually leads to violence in the real world. The same could be said of the types of games we are dealing with here. Is there, for example, a direct relationship in a child's mind between the game he or she is playing and the world outside the child's door?
We might use the game of chess as an example of what 1 mean here. In chess we are in a sense wiping out pieces or taking them out of play. Nobody, however, really relates this kind of action to killing, nor is it referred to as being violent in any way. Yet chess actually evolved as a war game.
By the same token it could be argued that these types of games-and violence on television, for example-serve as a kind of outlet for any tendency people may have toward violence. This could be said, just as some people argue that certain types of literature and magazines are outlets for other types of frustration. The games, then, just might be a way of sublimating some people's desires to kill people by eliminating a dot on a screen.
This is not to say that I and other members of this House are coming to the defence of these types of games. As I mentioned earlier, my natural reaction is to want to see an immediate end to the kind of game which has as its objective the killing of simulated human beings over a given time period.
What I am suggesting, however, is that merely from a practical point of view the problem we are dealing with is really too complex to be dealt with by a piece of legislation which attacks only one small aspect of violence. It might even
March 14, 1978

be said that no matter how much you legislate against this sort of thing, you will never really eliminate it entirely.
While I sympathize with the intent of the hon. member's bill-and I think that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin has put before the House a concern which does merit more discussion-I suggest to him that the benefit of the fact that it has come before the House today and the discussion we are having in this private members' hour will hopefully lead to more concerted attention to an area which 1 know has many ifs and buts with regard to any action which might be taken. However, this is an area of increasing concern to Canadian society generally.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for very long on this matter because I, for one, feel that this bill should proceed. At the beginning-and at the end, which will come very shortly-I want to congratulate the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) for bringing this matter forward. From time to time matters come before this House which are, if one can categorize them or classify them, totally without partisanship. They are matters to which all good and honest thinking members who have the concern of their constituencies and the country as a whole at heart want to give substantial consideration.
The essence of this bill has been made clear by the two previous speakers. I need not refer to it again. The concerns raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Martin) are perhaps valid, but I am more concerned about the injuries and difficulties this kind of imported game can create for our youth and, indeed, even for persons of more adult years who have aberrations and who find pleasure in considering the possibility of the death of other individuals.
These possibilities are of too great a concern to reject this bill merely because there are difficulties vis-a-vis importing or manufacturing in this country. I suggest that if nothing else this bill deals with the importing of this particular kind of game, and the hon. member has afforded this House the opportunity to state once and for all very clearly to those persons outside as well as inside this country that we will not permit this kind of thing. That surely is an indication to a manufacturer in this country of our intention and of our endeavour to prevent this kind of thing being promulgated.
I suggest we should not reject this proposal simply because it deals only with part of the problem. Well meaning members in this House wish to give a clear indication of their abhorrence of this type of misuse of violence. In my view it is as abhorrent as the misuse or abuse of sex or any other kind of human act which our constituents from time to time consult us about, suggesting that somehow it should be legislated against.
I agree with the parliamentary secretary that there is difficulty in legislating morality and in eliminating completely certain acts and misconduct. All of us agree that there are many things against which we have already legislated in the Criminal Code. However, we all agree that we have not
Games of Violence
eliminated them. If we were to say that simply because we cannot eliminate an act we therefore must not consider legislating against it, this House would have to close its doors tomorrow because, as much as we legislate, there will be those who will attempt to find loopholes. There will be those who disregard the law, but I think all of us have to exercise a certain optimism and suggest that there are certain things that are right, and if they are right, their abuse is wrong, and that we want to indicate to the well meaning citizens of this country that we will legislate in order to indicate what is right and what is wrong in the common mind of the country. I reject the concept that because something cannot be eliminated there should be no legislation.
I do not concede that the legislation referred to by the parliamentary secretary necessarily deals with the issue which has been raised by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. It is true that we have legislation dealing with hazardous products, but I find it very difficult to define the kind of game the hon. member has brought to our attention as a hazardous product per se. It could conceivably be described as a hand-eye co-ordination game, something which assists. The hon. member who has brought this matter forward found it difficult to find any socially redeeming factor in it.
If one looks at it very coldly and clinically, it may be that it is one of the more advanced electronic games in terms of hand-eye co-ordination, but beyond that there are no social values. We must be mindful of that, and we must be on guard to ensure that we do not allow these social values to be eroded in the name of, in this instance, hand-eye co-ordination skills.
I said I would not speak for long, Mr. Speaker, I have put on the record that I support the motion of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. I said at the beginning that I compliment him for bringing this bill forward. I do so again and resume my seat.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say a few words to suggest that we are in favour of this bill and at the same time to congratulate the mover of the bill now before us. As I understand, the purpose of this bill is to prevent the importation into Canada of slot machines such as "Death Race". When you examine that, you wonder what idea the designer had in mind when he created the game. It seems at first that it was perhaps with the idea of developing skill in young players, which would be somewhat formative. When you consider the game as such it is certainly not formative as it is built. It is of rather sadistic inspiration and I wonder whether its designer wanted to develop skill in young players instead of the human beings he put in his game. Had he put any other obstacle-bowling pins, flags or something else-it seems to me this would have been a lot more formative. The fact that a youth says "I am going to kill such or such fellow" has a bad influence on his mind. It is precisely the spirit of the game that is bad. The people who are put there could be hit. This remains in the youth's imagination while any
3764

March 14, 1978
Games of Violence
physical obstacle would have made it a quite inoffensive game in my opinion. That is probably why this bill is important today although, as the minister's secretary suggested, somewhat restricted when dealing only with importation. It does not deal with toys that could be manufactured in this country.
A foreign manufacturer could easily circumvent customs by setting up a small industry in this country to manufacture the same game. I think that if we refer this bill to committee-and I hope it will be referred-a provision will have to be added to it to include all games which could also be manufactured in this country. You can try controlling imports or imposing fines all you want, but I think this must be stopped in its tracks so no industrialist will be tempted to market such a game if he knows that in Canada, for example, it is impossible to do so and the fine would not be, if he manages to circumvent customs, $2 or $3 but high enough to deter him. In those cases, I think that only money can deter a promoter of such games.
Mr. Speaker, we were asked to be brief. I hope there will be co-operation today so this bill can be referred to committee for in-depth study and become a law which will provide further protection for our young people.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to discuss this bill briefly. Like other hon. members, I would first congratulate the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), and also the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) who has a bill on this subject. I was so concerned about this issue myself that I responded to the large amount of mail I received when this started to come into Canada by asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to take action and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) to stop it at the border. We do not need to import violence and ugliness from the United States. We can import their beauty and their creativity but we must stop importing their violence and the worst aspects of the great American society.
It has been said that truth is beauty and beauty is truth. Conversely, this ugliness, this violence and this sadism must be the biggest and most horrendous deception ever practised on our contemporary society.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, constituted by this parliament, is trying to find ways to prevent pornography entering this country. The material that is allowed to come in, despite the law, is beyond belief. I could not believe the evidence give to us by the witnesses. I did not imagine the extent of this type of violence.
First of all, we use our children for this so-called art, this pornography that is created and sold at great profit by organized crime, almost 100 per cent so in the United States. We have seen the routes of entry which are used. I can only wonder at the motive and kind of mind that created this so-called game. It has always been known that games for children are a process of education and a process of establishing roles. Unfortunately, too many roles were created by games. The one role we do not need in society is the indoctri-

nation of children to violence. We use blocks to teach them to build, Scrabble to teach them to spell and plastiscene to help them create sculpures. If the TV electronic devices want to help create useful eye-hand co-ordination, the tennis game is good enough. Why is it necessary to teach children by playing the "Death Race" game to aim at human beings and kill them?
In recent years we have seen our children grow up in a "do your own thing" society where all persons must express themselves. The children of the Spock era were told that if they smashed windows they were expressing themselves. That was in the '40s and late, '50s and those children expressed themselves in more and more violent ways by the time they reached their teens or twenties.
We still think that is the kind of society we want. In the '50s and, '60s some children were not told the difference between right and wrong. Nobody taught them that difference. As a result, some of them grew up almost without that knowledge and became psychopaths. It was a very serious time when children were not told about religious concepts, for instance. Some parents said that could wait until they were 18. Now we find ourselves in a society where we are importing games of violence.
I congratulate all hon. members who move in any way to stop the import of dangerous toys into Canada or prevent them being created in Canada. It does not matter where it is created-it is a dangerous toy and, like pornography, does not improve the fabric or the quality of life.
We have become desensitized in our society by violence. We had the Viet Nam war brought into our living rooms in the grossest detail. Perhaps during the second world war if television had been available there might have been many lives spared the early shock and today we might have been less violent. However, that is only a guess. Maybe we would have been more violent. It is possible we would have started sooner in viewing violence in our living rooms while eating breakfast, lunch and dinner.
This is a bill I would like to endorse. It is time we stopped all this pollution of the mind and the spirit, particularly of young children and adolescents, but as well of society as a whole.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief this afternoon. However, I want to say at the outset that personally I would see no difficulty in having the hon. member's bill go forward to committee for further study.
Concerning the subject matter of the bill I would like to draw attention to a few of the problems I see with it. This may be helpful to the hon. member and the House. The purpose of the hon. member's bill is to prevent the importation into Canada of slot machines and games such as "Death Race". I believe we are all aware that the object of that game is to drive
March 14, 1978

a simulated vehicle so as to kill as many pedestrians as possible within a given period of time.
This bill, C-232, seeks to amend the Customs Tariff. I might state that prohibited items under the Customs Tariff Act are determined by section 14 of that act, which in turn is referable to Schedule "C". By item 99201-1 of Schedule "C" the following categories are identified, amongst others, as prohibited goods:
Books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable or seditious, or of an immoral or indecent character.
It could be stated fairly that item 99201-1 of Schedule "C" is perhaps broad enough as presently framed to include within its ambit representations of an immoral or indecent character such as are described as being employed in the electronic game of violence known as "Death Race". I have canvassed some opinions to that extent and the game falls within those objects defined as prohibited goods. Thus, the provisions contained in Bill C-232 would be somewhat superfluous and unnecessary. Anyone asked the basic question whether running down and killing pedestrians in a game was a representation of an indecent or immoral character would undoubtedly answer yes.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What about American television shows? They have a lot of depictions.


Roger Carl Young: There are probably some Canadian television shows which have the same depictions.
The definitional questions are important. My hon. friend refers to the method for barring coin-operated mechanical or electronic games simulating acts of crime or violence on the part of the player. I am sure we have all grown up with penny arcades and slot machine games. I see him smiling. Perhaps he as well as I spent part of our youth inspecting the inner reaches of penny arcades.
I am wondering if it is fair to say that such a definition would necessarily also exclude importation of coin-operated hunting games where one practises the hunting of bears. Shortly after the last war there was a game which sent torpedoes out of what looked like a submarine capsule into "enemy" ships. Things like that were quite common in the '50s and '60s and might also be included as games of violence. With the definition as broad as the hon. member has drafted it we would probably run the risk of outlawing many games which a large percentage of the general public consider as having some elements of violence attached to them but not really being of the kind which they would necessarily want to ban or bar.
I believe my friend the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Martin) pointed out this bill covers only the importation of such games into the country from outside. Even with the passage of such a bill we would still be left with the possibility of having such games actually manufactured in this country. In that respect Bill C-232 would have no influence upon the situation.
This brings me to my major and final point, Mr. Speaker. If our purpose is truly to curb the anti-social psychological
Games of Violence
effects on our youth of games such as "Death Race", then perhaps a more appropriate form of amendment would be in terms of our general law concerning obscenity. These matters are scheduled for consideration at the uniform law conference which is to be convened later this summer. One of the proposals which is actively being considered at present is an amendment to section 159(8) of the Criminal Code. This section defines obscenity. The consideration expected to be given to an amendment to section 159(8) would deal with a proposal to eliminate the necessary nexus or connection between sex and crime or cruelty and violence. These proposals would hopefully make the undue exploitation of crime, cruelty, or violence per se tantamount to obscenity.
I might mention, as perhaps the hon. member is aware, that the justice and legal affairs committee, as mentioned by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), is presently studying the matters of pornography and obscenity. At the moment we are looking at the definitions. We may very well come up with suggestions which would be of assistance to the hon. member's purpose in redefining such matters as obscenity. I looked at a draft report this afternoon and I believe there is room for including something in the report of the justice and legal affairs committee which would be of assistance to the hon. member. I suggest to him that he might check with the justice critic of his party and join us on that committee as a representative of his party and attend the meetings. If it is not too late we might be able to incorporate some of his views into that report. We are at the draft stage at this time and it will be a few days before that report is given final consideration. It would go back to the full committee for final drafting and I am sure that the hon. member will be welcome to attend there.
I just wanted to draw hon. members' attention to some of the definitional problems and problems of scope which we have in dealing with this issue. I have sympathy for the hon. member's point and the reasons for bringing forward this bill. In my opinion, such games as "Death Race" one could say are scandalous and scurrilous. They are of an immoral nature or indecent character. My fear, and I am sure it is shared by the hon. member, is that by allowing such games into the country we allow the minds of our children to be conditioned to the fact that it is possible to drive a car erratically or in such a fashion as to run down people willy-nilly and actually kill them. That might be fantasy; it might be make-believe in terms of the game. But I do not like to see a situation where young people, or anyone for that matter, can so condition themselves to the operation of a game that at some time in the future when they would actually be driving a car they would carry out the same kind of an act which at one time was only a game. That is a horrible idea.
I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter forward. Perhaps we should go forward to committee and give it further study there.
3766

March 14, 1978
Games of Violence


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to talk on the bill this afternoon. However, after hearing some of the remarks of my colleagues, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), I thought I should add a few words.
Looking at the bill in the narrow sense, it has much to commend it. The game known as "Death Race" is to be abhorred. As a new parent, I would hate to think of my child participating in or deriving any pleasure from it. In that sense, I completely agree with the sentiments of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). He has done the House a service by bringing the issue forward for debate this afternoon.
One problem when discussing the banning of a game such as "Death Race" is that we open ourselves up to serious criticism about the civil liberties of society. The fact that someone enjoys the game called "Death Race", which others may feel is obscence, perverse or twisted, is in no way a reason for society to condemn that game. That is what bothers me about this bill.
The Conservative party, of which the hon. member is a prominent member, has made a lot of hay in the last few years to the effect that governments intrude too much in the lives of individual Canadians. However, we have here a private member's bill which would, in a sense, eliminate the option of some people enjoying a particular game. It does not matter how abhorrent we may feel it or how much effect it would have upon the person enjoying it. If someone wants to play poker, enjoy horse racing, bet on horses or even play the game of "Death Race"-and I hate to put them all in the same category-it would be unfair that the government or parliament should limit the choice of individual Canadians.
If we are talking "Death Race", we should also talk about other forms of subliminal advertising such as we see in consumer advertising over television. I am not an expert on that subject. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming), who is in the chamber this afternoon, is an expert on broadcasting. I am sure he would have something to say on subliminal advertising.
When you talk about banning and the psychological ramifications and implications of banning something such as "Death Race", you have to deal with a lot of other questions in a broader scope. Take for example some of the brainwashing or subliminal techniques employed by religious groups.
In most of the big cities, such as on Yonge Street in Toronto, you have the so-called religious freaks who panhandle. They try to lure young kids who are perhaps a little mixed up into their religious sect. One group in particular that comes to mind is the Moonies. We have a heard a lot about the Moonies and how very responsible people meet someone on Yonge Street, for example on a Friday night, and ask them to get together for a coffee. They are a little bit down. The Moonies start talking about their philosohy, whatever it is. My reading of the subject is that these people are hooked very quickly.

It has been alleged that Moonies use techniques akin to the brainwashing used in the Korean War. Should we as a society outlaw the Moonies? I have received a lot of correspondence, believe it or not, from the hon. member's province of Alberta. I cannot remember the name of the church that was recently burned down on Avenue Road in Toronto. I believe it is the Church of Scientology. The children of many Albertans have been taken into that sect.
I do not know whether society should make rules and regulations to cover every aspect of human behaviour. An individual has certain inalienable rights. He should have free choice as to what he wants to do. Hopefully parents raise their children, in such a way that they will realize that "Death Race" is not a good thing and that it has a bad effect. But really, it is up to the individual to choose.
I am not trying to throw in a red herring, but prostitution is illegal under the Criminal Code. We have prostitution in all our major cities. What has been the effect of banning prostitution? It is still with us. Perhaps I should not be making the case that every city has a sin-strip or red light district. However, there are people in society who express themselves in what we might call abnormal behaviour. This is something not generally followed by all members of society. As long as these people are not infringing upon the rights of others, I cannot see why this parliament should pass laws to ban a particular game, for example.
There are other comments I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, but there are members who wish to speak before six o'clock.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak more in terms of speaking to other members of the House. I strongly support the intent of this bill and commend the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) for bringing it to the attention of hon. members. This is a very serious problem. We are increasingly seeing activities, games and so on being put before young people which indicate to them that the use of violence can be effective. We should reject that concept.
As there has been such strong support from members on both sides, including two parliamentary secretaries and other members, I hope there will be agreement to let the bill go to committee where it can be effectively studied and amended in accordance with some of the good suggestions made here, rather than talked out. I hope government members will allow that to happen. That seems to be the prime purpose of the introduction of the bill by the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I support the bill. Let's send it to committee.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, obviously I do not want to be the spoil sport. Like all hon. members of this House, I extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) for bringing forward this bill. As my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
March 14, 1978

(Mr. Young), said, the hon. member has perhaps raised a much broader issue than he realizes. It might be a good idea, in concert with other hon. members who have bills of a similar nature, such as those dealing with pornography, to combine them and bring forward more broad legislation that the government can discuss and take to the justice committee.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin is concerned, particularly for young people. It is obvious there are more than just hockey players in his area. The legislation he proposes, although well intentioned, is clearly insufficient to cover all aspects of this problem. If there is a need to prohibit games such as this, careful consideration must be given to drafting a more comprehensive piece of legislation.
Schedule "C" of the Customs Tariff can be effectively used to prohibit the importation of goods into Canada. As indicated in the explanatory note to the bill, section 14 of the Customs Tariff provided that goods enumerated in Schedule "C" are prohibited importation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-26, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Post Office Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to open the debate on second reading of Bill C-26. This bill contains important provisions which, when the legislation is enacted, will help Canada and the services responsible for security to better solve the serious problems they now face. I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions of this bill have been and still are the subject of many comments. I would first like to note that this bill is temporary since it provides for the bill itself and its effect to expire one year after the McDonald Commission submits its report and recommendations.
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, in my comments tonight I would like to emphasize two major points, that is the need for this legislation and the powers it gives to the police and security service. In this regard, I hope hon. members will clearly understand that there is a real need for this legislation and that the additional help it will give to the police and security service is not excessive. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne), will be able to support directly this bill and I await impatiently his comments.

Mr. Speaker, in proposing the legislation in special circumstances of the interception of first class mail, Bill C-26 addresses itself to two serious problems affecting Canadians today. The first is the use of the mails for the transmission of narcotics. The second is the use of the mails to support activities which are detrimental to national security. I wish to speak to each of these areas since the requirements they demand for government action establish the need for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, drug addiction in Canada continues to be a subject of national concern and a serious problem. When it studied this problem in 1969, the LeDain Commission estimated that there were about 50,000 drug users in Canada as well as 15,000 regular addicts. The figures that I have been given show that in 1975, which is the last year for which we have precise figures, 13,927 heroin addicts were known to the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs. Moreover, 6,517 of them lived in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the number of these drug addicts is increasing. From 1969 to 1974, the number of known heroin addicts increased for the whole country from 2,714 to 16,000 or 20,000, and in British Columbia alone, from 1,874 to 6,517, according to present estimates.

The cost reflected in these statistics across the spectrum of victims, from society as a whole to the addicts themselves, is enormous. In the lower mainland of British Columbia where the most detailed analysis has been made it is estimated that between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of property conversion crimes such as robbery, burglary and shoplifting are heroin-related. In 1975, for example, heroin users committed at least 53 per cent of all serious robbery offences. Since 1965, crimes against property have risen by 190 per cent, crimes against persons by 108 per cent and the over-all crime rate by 186 per cent. Prostitution is also often heroin-related in that there is a direct correlation between prices charged by prostitutes and the price of a cap of heroin. Not surprisingly, heroin has precipitated an increase in the extent of underworld violence, including the possession of firearms and homicide. In this latter regard there were some 443 narcotic-related deaths in Canada between 1969 and 1974.
These figures mirror only one facet of the total cost. Federal and provincial governments are obliged to spend great amounts of time and money on treatment, law enforcement

March 14, 1978
Criminal Code
and other programs. As recently as January 18, 1978, four federal ministers in conjunction with ministers from British Columbia established a federal-provincial strategy committee to co-ordinate a program to deal more effectively with heroin abuses and illicit drug trafficking in British Columbia. I do not wish to imply that the interests of these ministers were restricted to one area of the country. The meeting in January was held to discuss recommendations by a special federal-provincial committee set up early in 1977 to develop a plan of attack on the serious heroin problem in Canada as a whole.
The first of the recommendations agreed to at the meeting in January called for "a balanced approach of supply and demand reduction, that is, cutting the availability of heroin on the street while at the same time reducing the number of addicts." This, I suggest, is the central aspect of hard drug addiction. I have noted, Mr. Speaker, that the number of known addicts is increasing year by year. At the same time, the amount of heroin seized by the RCMP is declining year by year. The facts of those seizures are as follows: in 1969-1970, 37.9 pounds; in 1970-71, 58.4 pounds; in 1971-72, 195 pounds; in 1972-73, 165.1 pounds; in 1973-74, 77.8 pounds; in 197475, 30.5 pounds; in 1975-76, 36.3 pounds; and in 1976-77, 17.6 pounds. Against these seizures, the estimated annual consumption of heroin in British Columbia alone is 365 pounds per year.
There is, I think, Mr. Speaker, a certain inevitability in the conclusion which must be drawn from the statistics I have just given. The numbers of known addicts, especially heroin addicts, is increasing while the amount of heroin seized is decreasing. Despite the efforts of law enforcement officials to seal off avenues of entry for narcotics, they are still getting into the country. 1 suggest that one way, possibly the major way, in which our growing addict population is being serviced is through that open conduit of the mails.
All members will recall, I believe, public statements by the commissioner of the RCMP on how this system works. [Translation]
For instance, in Bangkok, Thailand, one gram of 100 per cent pure heroin sells for $4 to $6. This quantity is then sent by first class mail to Canada. When he receives that gram of heroin, the trafficker adds to it a substance like lactose to make 16 grams. So, from one gram he gets 16 grams that contain about 5 per cent heroin, and that is the quality of heroin presently sold in Canada. Those 16 grams are then used to make 228 capsules that sells for about $50 apiece in Canada. So you realize by a simple calculation that the initial $4 to $6 investment yields a profit of about $1 1,400 for the trafficker. One pound of heroin would yield almost a quarter of a million dollars. This represents for the potential trafficker a very profitable business that can be conducted through the mail. The heroin market, which represents some $225 million a year, is the fifth largest industry in British Columbia at

present, coming behind forestry, mining, tourism and farming. You can realize how serious is this problem.
In British Columbia, one pound of heroin is worth almost $1 million because of the demand. At the national level, the price and market value of heroin are twice as much.

As to the incidence of such use of the mails, the commissioner also informed the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of one case involving approximately 100 first class mail envelopes containing heroin. But the full extent of the use of the mails to transmit drugs undoubtedly goes well beyond that particular incident. The mails are being used, among other means, to service a growing addict population in Canada. This mails conduit is mostly from offshore, and I believe we have an obligation to stop it.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 would not only authorize the opening of first class mail related to the drug trafficking I just mentioned, but it also would grant similar authority as concerns national security matters.

In regard to national security, I think it is worth repeating an observation made by the Mackenzie Royal Commission on Security in 1969. Those commissioners noted that the state has a responsibility:
To protect its secrets from espionage, its information from unauthorized disclosure, its institutions from subversion and its policies from clandestine influence-
The Commission's report went on:
There has been no period in history when attempts at activities of these kinds have not been undertaken. Such attempts-successful or unsuccessful-are taking place now and will undoubtedly continue to take place in one form or another as long as international relationships are based on the existence of nation states. In order to carry out its responsibilities, the state must make arrangements to determine the nature and extent of activities of this kind which exist at any given time, and to take such preventative or defensive measures as may be possible and appropriate.
The provisions of the bill relating to national security concerns are intended to provide such preventive or defensive measures. No one would suggest that the proposed measures themselves are an absolute requirement for the protection of our sovereignty, not any more than those measures relating to drugs are going to solve the whole drug problem in Canada. But they are important in accomplishing these ends.
Canada, and I have said this often, has the most secure civil liberties of any nation in the world. The reason for this is largely that Canadians have been vigilant in their protection. The 11 jurisdictions in Canada, including the provinces and the federal government, have given the issue of civil liberties within their own jurisdictions their attention and the healthy competition between them has incited each to adopt measures that have promoted those liberties. There is a recognition as well that our adoption of British parliamentary institutions as models for our own democratic process gave us a head start.
But those civil liberties will only remain as long as our sovereignty is maintained, as long as those institutions are
March 14, 1978

permitted to function, and Canadians feel secure and protected from activities that are against their interests and those of their country.
Much publicity has been given to the use of the mails for communications purposes by the Japanese Red Army Terrorist Toshio Omura in Toronto, and the RCM Police interception of the mail as a means of neutralizing the threat posed by this dangerous individual. Despite the inadequacies of some reporting of testimony given relating to this incident, I am convinced that thoughtful consideration of the record before the present commission of inquiry headed by Justice McDonald will indeed demonstrate the importance of mail interception in the resolution of this matter.
It is difficult for me to concede, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians as a whole would argue that the private communications of a man such as Omura should remain sacrosanct. Omura is one of the most infamous terrorists in the world today and his record of misdeeds makes appalling reading-hijackings in his country and other terrorist actrocities-world wide. The logic that men such as he, once having gained access to Canada, are free through first class mail communications to hatch plots for violence here or elsewhere escapes me completely.
The same is true in respect of other acts of subversion, especially espionage. I think there is little value in dwelling on the details of espionage techniques used by such agents. What is clear is that such techniques do indeed involve the use of the mails for safe passage of communications. The activities of espionage agents are inimical to our well being, to our national interest, to our national security, and I think there is no obligation on our part to facilitate or make easy their unacceptable behaviour in Canada. Indeed, I firmly believe that we would be seriously remiss in the discharge of our duty as parliamentarians if we failed to make life as difficult as possible for such persons. That is what the security provisions of this bill intend.
Finally, in respect of the security issue, 1 think it is important to realize that both the Franks Commission in the United Kingdom in 1957 and the Australian Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security in 1977 agreed on the need to allow their respective national security organizations to intercept and open mail under warrant. I believe we are on firm ground in this matter and that nothing we are proposing in this bill is inconsistent with democratic principles as we understand them in this country.
I would like now to turn to two other aspects related to Bill C-26: the procedure for the issuance of warrants both for the interception of mail in respect of narcotics trafficking and security related activities, and the reporting requirements to parliament embodied in the bill.
In respect of warrants to intercept the mails to prevent offences against the Narcotics and Food and Drugs Acts, the procedures are similar to those now in place respecting the interception of electronic communications. First, approval for seeking a mail intercept warrant must be obtained from the superiors of the peace officer or public officer involved in the investigation. Second, a peace officer or public officer then
Criminal Code
submits an application for a warrant in writing to the Solicitor General of Canada, or an agent specifically designated by the Solicitor General to receive and review such applications. Accompanying the application will be an affidavit containing information pertinent to the investigation. The peace officer will be required to swear to the authenticity of the information contained in the affidavit. Third, once the Solicitor General or his agent approves the application, it is presented to a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction for the area. If the judge is satisfied that issuance of a warrant would be in the best interests of the administration of justice, and that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, the judge may then issue a warrant.
In matters of national security, warrants authorizing the interception of first class mail will be issued only by the Solicitor General of Canada. Applications for a warrant will be presented to the Solicitor General by the director general of the security service who will be required to swear to the authenticity of the evidence provided. If the Solicitor General is satisfied by the evidence that an interception is necessary for the prevention or detection of subversive activity directed against Canada, he may then issue the warrant. The nature of subversive activities is defined under section 16(2) of the Official Secrets Act. That definition is quite evident in itself and is quite wide in its application.
The reporting procedures on the use of the provisions of this legislation are identical to those laid out in the Protection of Privacy Act and section 16 of the Official Secrets Act.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat in French my remarks dealing with the procedure for the issuance of warrants. In respect of warrants to intercept the mails in order to prevent offences against the Narcotics and Food and Drugs Acts, the procedures are similar to those now in place respecting the interception of electronic communications. First, approval for seeking a mail intercept warrant must be obtained from the superiors of the peace officer or public officer involved in the investigation. Second, a peace officer or public officer then submits an application for a warrant in writing to the Solicitor General of Canada, or an agent specifically designated by the Solicitor General to receive and review such applications. Accompanying the application will be an affidavit containing information pertinent to the investigation. Third, once the Solicitor General or his agent, approves the application, it is presented to a judge of the Superior Court of Criminal Jurisdiction for the area. If the judge is satisfied that issuance of a warrant would be in the best interests of the administration of justice, and that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, the judge may then issue a warrant.
In matters of national security, warrants authorizing the interception of first class mail will be issued only by the Solicitor General of Canada. Applications for a warrant will be presented to the Solicitor General by the director general of

March 14, 1978
Criminal Code
the security service who will be required to swear to the authenticity of the evidence provided. If the Solicitor General is satisfied by the evidence that an interception is necessary for the prevention or detection of subversive activity directed against Canada, he may then issue the warrant. The reporting procedures on the use of the provisions of this legislation are identical to those laid out in the Protection of Privacy Act and section 16 of the Official Secrets Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that all the facts that justify the introduction of such a legislation have been submitted to Parliament. I hope therefore that all members will give to this matter their close attention and will pass this bill without delay.

The subject matter of this legislation has received wide publicity and public consideration to date. I am very interested in hearing comments by hon. members opposite, as well as members from my own party, in terms of their own views with reference to this legislation. Simply, I wish to reiterate my conviction that the facts I have recited, and those which have been made public, justify the introduction and swift passage of this legislation. I know hon. members are interested in providing that swift passage. Indeed, to date there has been a great deal of public debate on this issue. We are ready now to proceed to action.
Hon. members are well aware that committee deliberations are really the forum in which these measures can be more fundamentally debated. Second reading can be expedited through promptly dealing with the major issues, after the necessary partisanship which accompanies these debates. In my address I have steered clear of partisan debate. We are dealing with a fundamental piece of legislation which is required now. Initially I suggested that it is of limited duration. Clause 17 of the bill provides that the effect of this legislation ceases to apply one year after the McDonald Commission has made its report and recommendations.
I am sure this debate will be a very interesting one. It will be non-partisan in nature, knowing the hon. members opposite who have indicated an interest in participating. I followed this bill with a great deal of interest first as postmaster general and now as the responsible minister. 1 assure hon. members that considerable care has been provided in the drafting of its provisions. I can vouch for the fact that the Attorney General of Canada has used nothing but the most expert draftsmanship in preparing this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Undoubtedly the provisions of this bill will meet with the approval of hon. members opposite. This bill has been tabled for some time now. First reading was given on February 7, which was more than a month ago. To date I have not received any indication from the opposition parties as to any objection they have to any of the provisions contained in this bill. Although there have been a number of public comments made generally, I have not seen anything which attacks any of

the fundamental provisions presented in this bill. I am looking forward to this debate and the great deal of co-operation which will be forthcoming from hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Bill C-26 which is legislation that would make legal the interception and opening of mail in two general areas. The first of these is the criminal area, in which the bill purports to assist in the battle against drug traffic. The second area relates to national security, wherein the bill purports to assist in the prevention or detection of subversive activities.
This second reading debate upon which we embark tonight is generally regarded as a debate in principle, and I think it is incumbent upon me at the outset of my remarks to make very clear the principle which we as the Official Opposition support. We support in principle the legal interception of mail in special specified circumstances, given adequate safeguards and given the situation where the more normal, acceptable and traditional methods of law enforcement have proven ineffective. Therefore, we support Bill C-26 in principle. In our view it meets most of these requirements. We do not anticipate a prolonged second reading debate, but I think contributions might be made from all corners of the House.
I agree with the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) that it is important this legislation reach its proper forum which, in my view, is the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
In enunciating the principle contained in the legislation i referred to the legal interception of mail. There is nothing much that is new about that. Indeed, I am informed that most countries in the western world have legislation of this nature. In England, for example, the legal interception of mail was recorded as long ago as 1663. In the same country we can find statutes permitting this interception that are over 200 years old, and those statutes relate to interception as a means of attacking serious crime and as a means for the preservation of the safety of the state.
In talking about the principle of the bill, I also referred to special and specified circumstances and to the necessary, proper safeguards. The interception of mail or of any form of communication is inherently objectionable-surely few of us will disagree with that-and it is objectionable for three reasons. The first is that the power to intercept is in the hands of the state and its officials and it is exercised secretly; the extent and the purpose of the use of the power is not publicly known. Second, the uncontrolled use of this power by the government might be an unnecessary interference with the private rights of a country's citizens. Third, the powers can be exercised without an opportunity for protest or objection. Therefore, the power to intercept a communication must never be a general power. It must be carefully restricted, it must be applicable to well defined circumstances, it must be the subject of special safeguards.
March 14, 1978

It is almost trite for me to say that this legislation infringes on the basic freedom of the individual, but there is a corollary: that freedom is of precious little value if the individual is the victim of the law breaker or the subversive. Indeed, in terms of national security, when that is under attack and no adequate defence is available, that basic freedom has the potential of becoming meaningless by its elimination.
However, on balance what I really seek is the assurance that there will be strict observance of the purposes to which the interception of mail should be directed or confined, and I look to the government, through its Solicitor General, for that assurance. I do not look to the law enforcement agencies of this country. I do not look to the security service officials. I look to the Solicitor General and the government that he represents to assure me that proper safeguards are in place and are working. I look to him to assure me that the power is restricted and used appropriately; and I look to the Solicitor General to assure me that the power is not to be used as a matter of routine and as simply a substitute for the conventional law enforcement measures that are our tradition.
Acknowledging that the reality of our times is that crime and subversive activity do occur in Canada, and further acknowledging that our law enforcement and security services must contend with these threats, we look to the Solicitor General and the government for a final assurance. Can they assure us that it is necessary to compromise further the fundamental right of privacy in order to protect us effectively from the threats of crime and subversion?
There is no doubt that the Solicitor General and the government would give these assurances that I seek. The question is not whether they will give them but rather how valid are they once given. Because this is a government which gives assurances at any time, in any place, about anything. We have had assurances in the House that there were no illegal or irregular security service activities. How quickly that proved wrong! We have had assurances in the House that these incidents amounted to one or two in number and were isolated. How quickly that proved wrong! We have had assurances that the McDonald Royal Commission was going to solve all these problems, but once the commission was constituted events alone overtook it and left it far behind. We have had assurances that no members of parliament were subjected to electronic surveillance. There are many in the House and in this country that doubt that assurance. Most recently we have had an assurance about the extreme sensitivity of a particular top secret document, and yet there are widely circulated reports, which are uncontradicted, that some 58 copies of that so-called top secret, sensitive document have been distributed around this capital.
Let us be more relevant. Let us talk about assurances on mail opening, which is the subject matter of this bill. In July 1975, in the House, the then solicitor general, now Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), assured us that first class mail cannot be opened. The then postmaster general, Bryce Mackasey, in 1975 gave the same assurance in the House.
Criminal Code
The present Solicitor General in his former role as postmaster general said the same thing in the House of Commons last November, only to be contradicted moments later by the then solicitor general, who got his news from the CBC. On November 9 the present Solicitor General told the House that he had checked with the Post Office's security and investigation officers. He assured us that there was no problem, but the director of the security intelligence branch of that department told the McDonald Commission that he knew about these instances in or about mid-October.
Why have all the assurances proved to be so false and so hollow? If one were a cynic, one would have to say that the motive for giving that type of assurance was simply to protect the political skin of he and they who gave it. That would be if one were cynical. If one were generous, one would say that these assurances which have been so false and so hollow were given to allay the suspicion and cynicism of Canadians. However, the result has been just exactly the opposite.
The bumbling, stumbling, fumbling and heavy-handed ineptitude of this government has been the very food for the cancer which has caused the suspicion and cynicism not just of members of this House but of Canadians everywhere. How did we get there? Where did this ineptitude come from? I think I know. It comes from the extraordinary and remarkable doctrine of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) regarding ministerial responsibility. I am not sure 1 can put it as succinctly as he can, but I can paraphrase. The Prime Minister gathers his cabinet around him and gives them the following marching orders: "For heaven's sake, do not inform yourself about what is going on in your department. Above all, do not ask the right questions of your departmental officials. Cloud yourself and shroud yourself in ignorance, because as long as you can survive without a criminal charge being brought against you, we will all be all right". That is the doctrine, and that is the feed and the fodder for the cynicism and suspicion which is abounding in this country.
In this atmosphere along comes Bill C-26, to permit the legal interception of mail. The Solicitor General knows full well that the reaction is cynicism and suspicion. There has been a virtual litany of editorial comments, and I will quickly quote a few. "It," meaning this legislation, "is at best premature. It is also opportunistic, threatening and profoundly distressing". Another editorial: "To legalize the opening of mail is an act of contempt remarkable even by the generous standard of Pierre Trudeau". Another one: "A piece of tough anti-crime legislation that will be popular at election time". Another one: "A rush to amend a law that has not been enforced". "Retroactive sanction of illegal activities". The editorials go on and on.
This is the atmosphere in which this House and a diligent, hard working Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs must deal with this extremely important legislation. Who is to blame? It is not the opposition or Canadians from coast to coast. Those who are to blame sit on the government benches opposite, those whose irresponsibility is remarkable

and third, we have the Mackenzie Royal Commission recommendation that is now nine years old.
In face of all this, what do we have? We have the then solicitor general in 1975, now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), replying to questions put to him in this House about RCMP difficulties in dealing with narcotics traffickers because of the law prohibiting the opening of first class mail. On that day, July 23, 1975, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) put the following question:
Does the minister not feel there should be an amendment to the effect that, while the privacy of the mail should be protected, this kind of traffic should not in any way be condoned by the failure of parliament to act?
The then solicitor general replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is true that from to time the RCMP have indicated a concern over this. Sometimes they have felt that narcotics were being brought into the country in first class mail ... in those cases they have dealt with the matter by following the mail to its source. But they have not made a big issue of it and as far as I know they have not recommended that we change the first class mail system. However, I will check with the force to find out what their exact recommendations are.
How typical that is of the ineptitude and incompetence of the series of solicitors general we have had. It is a perfect example of the incompetence of this parade of solicitors general.
Let us move now to the principal actor in this farce, the right hon. Prime Minister, that great pursuer of subversives, that great defender of law and order, that great enemy of the criminal and the subversive whose diligence in these matters increases in direct proportion to the proximity of a general election. The curtain lifts with the Prime Minister at centre stage at his press conference on November 18, when he said: we had caught a Japanese red army terrorist by opening his mail. Not by intercepting it, Mr. Speaker. The then solicitor general was very careful never to mention in this House that they had opened any mail, but merely intercepted it. Despite what the solicitor general told us earlier this evening, the truth was that the RCMP had indeed uncovered this terrorist-and they are to be commended-because they used legal and effective police methods that are their heritage and their tradition. I say again, they should be commended for it.
Let no one doubt, however, despite what the solicitor general told us this evening, what the evidence before the McDonald Commission clearly was. It was not about the opening and examination of the content of any mail. As far as I know, the only content of mail was an application to the University of Toronto and that had nothing to do with the uncovering and deportation of the Red Army terrorist. Yet the Prime Minister at the press conference said:
But when you catch a terrorist because you have opened an envelope, I don't think the bulk of the Canadian people would think that even if it was technically a crime, it would be something that should bring the RCMP people to jail.
What nonsense. What a disservice to the RCMP. How misleading to the country are statements such as that. That was not his best line on the subject, Mr. Speaker, and it was not his best line on that day. Listen to this one. It was a big
Criminal Code
moment. Referring to the opening of mail the Prime Minister of this country said:
If they can catch a terrorist or hijacker or kidnapper once out of five, to me that is a pretty good average.
There are two things in that statement. First, you open the mail to catch terrorists, hijackers and kidnappers; and second, one out of five, or 20 per cent, is a pretty good conviction rate.
Let us go to the first point, the Prime Minister's position that mail should be opened to catch hijackers, terrorists or kidnappers, and let us relate that to this bill. Terrorists may be caught because the Official Secrets Act is now applicable to the Post Office Act. I agree with the Prime Minister. But he did not say anything about drugs or about trading in narcotics or heroin, which is the subject matter of this bill. In terms of criminal activity there is not one word in this bill about hijackers or kidnappers. This bill, according to the solicitor general, is, and I quote:
... the production or the emanation of a long process of analysis and a sequel to the privacy legislation.
It has absolutely nothing to do with hijackers' activities. The only criminal offence dealt with, and indeed it is a very serious one, is drug trafficking. The privacy legislation deals with all kinds of serious offences-intimidation, forgery, hijacking, kidnapping, extortion, fraud on the public, use of the mails to defraud, fraudulent stock exchange transactions, murder. This is the production or emanation of a long process of analysis? Garbage.
What about letter bombs, Mr. Speaker? If a letter bomb was directed to a zealous Crown attorney in an attempt to assassinate him, there is nothing in this legislation to protect him. What about hardcore pornography which has been the subject matter of weeks and hours of study in this parliament by a very diligent committee? There is not one word about pornography. This is the emanation of a long process of analysis? The only criminal activity dealt with is drug trafficking. I agree with it.
The Solicitor General tonight talked about crimes attributed to the use of heroin and other drugs, prostitution, murder and the increase of known addicts since 1965. My question to him is, what has he been doing about it? He has known about it since 1965. What has he been doing? Nothing. Hon. members should check the amendments to see how much legislation has dealt with the fight or the war against hard drugs. What cowards this government has been in that war.
The inclusion of the provisions to open mail legally in an attempt to fight drug trafficking was probably a last minute idea of someone to give some popular appeal to this legislation. If I were cynical that is the only conclusion I could really draw. What is the distinction between those offences subject to legal interception by electronic means and those offences subject to legal interception by the opening of the mail?
Let me come to the Prime Minister's second point, Mr. Speaker. His target of 20 per cent, a one in five success rate, is not acceptable. It is not even high enough to be considered

March 14, 1978
Criminal Code
mediocre. With respect to activity against subversives, one does not look to arrest rates as a measurement of success. I acknowledge that. There is less stress on the need for convictions in anti-subversive activity. The concern is to safeguard the state and to keep it informed about the activities of those acting against its national security. There have been 65 openings of mail apparently since 1970. The only success trotted out by the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General is the Japanese Red Army terrorists. What a hollow example that has proved to be.
Let us look at the criminal side of things. Twenty per cent is ridiculously low in terms of an arrest rate. In a four-year period in the United Kingdom there was a 57 per cent arrest rate as a result of telephone taps alone. In terms of matters wherein there were major customs frauds, the interceptions resulted in an 80 per cent arrest rate. But to the Prime Minister one in five, a 20 per cent rate, is good. I ask the Solicitor General to consider most seriously, with respect to criminal activities that the government include a provision that there be a good reason, not a probability, to conclude that an interception of mail would result in an arrest.
Moving on to the security side of things, the Post Office Act is now subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act. Providing this legislation is successfully concluded, mail may be opened legally to prevent or to detect subversive activity. We support that. The Official Secrets Act is not being amended. We may not debate it. There is no opportunity to review its provisions or to discuss them. Many Canadians and many of my colleagues in this House are concerned about vagueness in the bill. Many think there should be a review. The Solicitor General laughs, sir. I do not think there is anything funny about the Official Secrets Act. I think it is a very serious matter. I dare say that the committee might think it is serious in spite of, not because of, the Solicitor General. But with this government everything is secret.
That act gives sole discretion to the Solicitor General and inevitably it will lead to suspicion. The mere fact that the Solicitor General is a politician may lead to suspicion. The report to parliament is one page long. There is no provision in the Official Secrets Act that mail opening is not to become a routine matter. Therefore, in addition to suggesting that there should be a review of the Official Secrets Act, my main concern is this. Given a situation where everything is up to the Solicitor General's discretion, who is watching the Solicitor General? No one that I know of in this House wants to become privy to genuinely secret material, but our experience with this unhappy parade of solicitors general is that they have never taken to inform themselves. Why, sir? Because of the Prime Minister's extraordinary doctrine of ministerial irresponsibility; and secondly, because no one was watching the solicitor general. He was accountable to no one and is accountable to no one under the Official Secrets Act.
There are a host of other questions to be asked and the proper forum is in the standing committee. One may ask why are telegrams and cables not dealt with? One might ask who are the Solicitor General's agents authorized to apply for mail

opening warrants? Are they the provincial attorneys general? Are they all police officers? What will the monitoring system be? Monthly, quarterly, yearly? There is no indication. How many people will have access to this confidential information? There is a factor here, sir. Those 58 reports floating around Ottawa were not seen by 58 people. One has to multiply 58 by a factor, the factor being the number of pairs of eyes that have had access to those documents. What will the access to this material be? Will there be specific reports of interception of the mail to and from lawyers, their families, their employees and associates? No provision is made for that. Why not separate warrants for each individual whose mail is to be opened? Is there to be a uniform and elaborate system for keeping records? These are questions that should be properly dealt with in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
In the last parliament, the twenty-ninth parliament, a similar matter, the Protection of Privacy Act, went to that committee. The resulting legislation was good legislation as a result of the evidence adduced before it and the diligence and integrity of the members who contributed to the hearings of that committee. One must hope this legislation will achieve the same result.
In conclusion, I repeat again that we support in principle the legal interception of mail in special and specified circumstances provided there are adequate safeguards and provided also that the usual and customary methods of law enforcement have proved ineffective. In supporting it, I say to the Solicitor General that he and the government he represents have sorely tested-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has appeared late on the scene. I would not expect him to be cynical and suspicious in the face of this legislation. His insensitivity to that portfolio of government that demands sensitivity, that of the Solicitor General, is a fact of life far beyond the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He has proved that time and time again.
I say to the Solicitor General through you, sir, that he has sorely tested the Canadian people. Because this legislation has been brought forward in an atmosphere of cynicism and suspicion and the fault lies only with this Solicitor General and this government.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I listened most carefully to the remarks of my good friend from Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis). Without any doubt he is becoming the Cicero of the Conservative party.


Mr. Friesen:: We have Cicero, you have the sissies.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Someone says that they have the Cicero and we have the sissies. We will see how they vote on the bill. Then we will know who has the Cicero and who the sissies.
March 14, 1978

If I had any doubt whatsoever, the eloquence of the honourable member for Perth-Wilmot convinced me with regard to the right course of action to take in connection with this legislation. I hope it has convinced a few people on the other side of the House, because I understand there are a number on the government side who not only have severe reservations but may very well vote against the legislation. The reasons advanced by the honourable member for Perth-Wilmot are excellent reasons, not for supporting this bill in principle, but for voting against this bill in principle and voting against it on second reading.
Any fair examination of the record to date-and we heard the record read to us eloquently by the hon. member I referred to-clearly shows that if there is a danger in the legislation, it is to advance any further discretion to the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais). That is exactly what this bill does.
I want to commence my remarks by reading an editorial from the Globe and Mail which sums up the position that responsible members of this House must take. It is their editorial of January 30, 1978. I quote:
The interception of private mail by the police is threatening, not because we ourselves may fear the opening of our own mail, but because it is threatening in principle. The police have as great a duty to obey the law as has any private citizen. The law binds all men. This principle can be circumvented-but it cannot be obscured-by the granting of special legal privileges to the police. Such privileges exist, but they have a tentative existence; they cannot be granted wholesale or be permitted to take root. A privilege granted one day can far too easily be perceived the next day as a duty.
That has been the history of all the legislation passed in this House since I have come here. I refer to the electronics legislation and what we now have before us, the mail legislation. We have heard the argument about the Red terrorists captured allegedly as a result of opening the mail. The popular little number of narcotics has been specifically placed in the bill to catch the public eye and public support. As a result of this, we know that this bill is the most politically inspired piece of legislation to come forward in this session of parliament.
This bill is not designed to catch narcotics traffickers, but to delude the public and get a few extra votes. It will not do that. We are not going to let the cynicism and dishonesty of this government, in particular the cynicism of the Solicitor General, obscure the real reasons for this bill and the effect it will have.
We are not purists. In proper circumstances and at appropriate times it is not wrong for the mail to be opened with regard to certain specific offences, but only under circumstances where permission is granted by judicial warrant, where the person is specified and the particular piece of mail is specified. However, what we have before us is a shotgun approach to the subject of mail opening.
Were it only those provisions which dealt with specific offences under the Code, such as narcotics and food and drug control, and included were the protections of civil liberties, the notification of the individual, the judicial warrant and the specificity which is absent in the bill, I could agree with the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot that the bill could merit
Criminal Code
support in principle. However, that is not what we have before us.
The smallest clause in the bill is the most dangerous. If you read the bill quickly, you might miss it. I refer to Section 43 of the Post Office Act, printed on page 17 of the bill. It reads:
Notwithstanding anything in any other Act or law, nothing is liable to demand, seizure or detention while in the course of post except under the authority of a warrant issued pursuant to section 16 of the Official Secrets Act-
If you kept reading, you might miss something. You have to look at the Official Secrets Act to understand what that really means. Under the section referred to the in the Official Secrets Act, the Solicitor General of Canada may issue a warrant authorizing the interception or seizure of any communication for the prevention or detection of subversive activity. The bill goes on to define subversive activity. This is important. Subclause (c) reads:
-activities directed toward accomplishing governmental change within Canada or elsewhere by force or violence or any criminal means:
I emphasize "or any criminal means". This legislation gives to the Solicitor General an unbridled discretion to issue a warrant in determining which group he considers to be subversive, and any group can be subversive if they are suspected of using any criminal means.
Let me give the Solicitor General some examples of groups which could now become subject to the opening of mail at the hon. gentleman's discretion-and I am sure he will use that discretion in the broadest way he can, to judge by his record to date. Take, for example, one group which appears to be unpopular at the moment, the Greenpeace organization. The government recently made it an offence for anyone to go on the ice within half a mile of the seal herd. To do so carries a penalty under the criminal law. It would probably be a popular thing for the minister in present circumstances to issue warrants permitting all the mail of Greenpeace to be opened. That is just one example. I could mention many other groups, native groups, anti-poverty groups and so on.
In order to protect freedom, Mr. Speaker, you have to protect unpopular groups from attack by governments, and this bill is clearly an attack on the capacity of such groups to function in a normal political way.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Gilbert:: When he is finished.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I see the Solicitor General rising in his place. No doubt he wants to protest that the bill does not say this, or else he wants to claim that he would not exercise his discretion against such organizations.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Read section 16(2) of the Official Secrets Act.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is what I am reading from. I would direct the Solicitor General to that section and ask him to read it and check the record of the government in applying the laws which

March 14, 1978
Criminal Code
parliament in its wisdom has passed. Surely the mail opening operation "Cathedral" is a classic example of the abuse of power by either the government or the police, or both combination. Yet today we are being asked to confirm the illegalities which took place and, in effect, to congratulate those who decided to break the law.
The section dealing with the Official Secrets Act is one of the most heinous pieces of legislation and one of the most severe violations of the liberties we have a right to expect as Canadians that I have seen come before the House since taking my seat here in 1972.1 expect that in another five years we shall see members jumping up and apologizing because they have voted in favour of the mail bill. But by then it will be too late. The time to oppose this bill is now, not when our liberties have been lost.
We have heard some interesting argument as to the amount of evidence which has been before the McDonald Commission and the Keable Inquiry. The Solicitor General had something quite interesting to say about that. When some bright press reporter suggested this bill was premature, he defended it by saying-and I am quoting from the Vancouver Sun of February 18, 1978:
Governments can't stop operating and can't stop taking executive decisions because commissions are sitting.
I put it to the Solicitor General that when opposition members asked questions about what was going on before those commissions, the government ceased to function. It ceased to answer questions. It did absolutely nothing except stonewall the opposition. But when people suggest the minister should wait and see what Mr. McDonald recommends, we get the answer that the government cannot cease operating. It is a cynical, blatant, dishonest grab for votes, that is what it is, and it is not going to catch a single drug trafficker.
Look at the record on drug trafficking. There are many things the government could have done. There are many things it could do. One of them would be to institute a decent compulsory treatment program for heroin addicts. Another would be to set up registration procedures along lines which have been so successful around the world. But what has been the response of the government? It is: Let's open their mail!


Mr. Benjamin:: Very therapeutic!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I would be happy to put my seat on the line on the basis that the Solicitor General confirm that he is able to cut 10 per cent of the addiction in British Columbia as a result of opening mail. I do not think he can reduce any of the addiction by opening mail. What a silly argument in justification of this bill. That is why the comments of the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot were so apropos when he noted that the section applied only to narcotics, to drug addiction and that other offences such as kidnapping, murder and conspiracy to murder, rape and certain other offences under the Code did not appeal to the Solicitor General. No, this sounded like the one which would catch the eye of the public, the one he could cash in on best at election time.
We have come a long way in this country from the tradition of the liberty of the subject, from the concept that in a free society there should be some right to privacy somewhere. It is pretty well established that our telephone communications are not likely to be private, and now the Solicitor General is moving into the area of the mails.
I do not know whether the hon. gentleman really understands what he is doing. I say this to members of the government: if you keep this up, you will change the whole character of the country; you will change the traditions which people have for so long enjoyed in western society. This is a dangerous government, Mr. Speaker. It is a dangerous government and a desperate government which would take this particular measure as a quick vote-getting gimmick to try to perpetuate itself in office. I do not believe the people of Canada will fall for this legislation. I believe they will see it for what it is, phony from the word "Go". I hate to try to give lessons to an eminent lawyer like the Solicitor General on the subject of the rule of law-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would not hire him, especially if I were innocent!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -but those of us who have had a little training in the law ought, perhaps, to return to law school again to study that principle, that the rule of law is for you and for me and for the police and for everyone. But when the police violate the law, as they have done with regard to mail in a massive way, not a single charge is laid against them.
I am not suggesting those police officers should go to jail. What I am suggesting is that the law should apply to all of us equally. To react to a fairly massive violation of the privacy of the mail with a bill to legalize it gives us on this side a good understanding of where the sensibilities of the Solicitor General lie on the subject of the rule of law. The difficulty for the present Solicitor General, as for his two predecessors in office, lies in his inability to distinguish between the interest of the Liberal party and the interest of Canada. They think they are one and the same. They have been in office so long it has now become impossible for them to distinguish between those two things. But they are different. They are very different. We are again about to embark upon a serious erosion of the rights we have come to enjoy because of tough forebears, including those who went out in world war two and died on the beaches of Dieppe to maintain freedom in Canada. I am sick and tired of watching this government squander these rights and freedoms every time it thinks it can get a quick vote through a piece of legislation.
How many convictions have we seen as a result of the opening of mail, based on the evidence before the Keable or McDonald inquiries? I suggest we have seen none, as far as I know, and that is on 65 openings. There have been many more openings and there may have been the odd conviction, but we do not know. However, does that justify this piece of legisla-

March 14, 1978

tion which will mean that a wide cross section of people will have their mail opened? I think not.
We are entering a dangerous period in our history. If we had any reservations about whether the Solicitor General should have discretion under the Official Secrets Act, and how the Solicitor General and the government should act, surely these reservations were resolved by the evidence before the Keable Inquiry.
The evidence before that inquiry was that on January 9, 1973 an illegal break in of the PQ was inspired, not by the RCMP, but by the Privy Council office. One Liberal government decided to attack a Liberal opposition in the province of Quebec and use the full force of the law in order to do it. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, would you trust a government or a Solicitor General like this with the discretion to determine which groups of Canadians shall be subject to having their mail opened? That is what we are being asked to do in this bill.
We have evidence that the New Democratic Party of British Columbia was placed under surveillance by an RCMP agent. I do not know whether there was any involvement of the government or the Solicitor General, and we may not know unless there is an inquiry into that. How far can we trust a government and how far can we trust a solicitor general with that lack of sensitivity about what is dissent and what is subversion? This is a government that is ready to attack any person or organization that attacks it, and to use the full force of the law in order to do so. For us in this House to sit here and reward that kind of government with this kind of legislation is unthinkable.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, first I must thank the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) who has made a stirring plea against the bill, and the spokesman for the Progressive Conservatives who delivered a masterly speech against the bill. I do not know but I think his thoughts were stronger than his voice since he ended his comments by saying he was going to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 now under consideration is aimed at giving additional powers to the Solicitor General and the police to enable them to control drug traffic and subversive activities but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, it seriously infringes on one of the last strongholds of our civil liberties, that is the secrecy of mail. Through that bill, the government wants to legalize quickly what the RCMP has been doing for more than 40 years, that is to intercept and open the mail of individuals. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a statement last month which I translated from English to French and which was reported in the February 11 issue of the Montreal Star. May I be allowed to quote his statement: Like several ministers, I was not aware that illegal activities had occurred. Now we want to make them legal. He was referring of course to mail opening.
Mr. Speaker, those stories are hard to swallow. Indeed, for more than forty years the police have been illegally opening
Criminal Code
the mail of individuals and yet government authorities have the gall to say they were not aware of that kind of crime. What is to be concluded? I leave it to every knowledgeable Canadian to draw his or her own conclusion.
I would like to point out to the House that in addition to attempting to legalize a practice which already exists, no other argument or justification has been offered to us by the government. What evidence justifies the need for such powers, even if they are subject to controls? Legislation such as Bill C-26 can easily snowball and open the door to other intrusions on our basic liberties and rights.
It is reassuring, Mr. Speaker, to see that as concerns narcotics and drugs, the legislation leaves it to the judiciary to issue warrants to intercept mail on the understanding that the RCMP must have documented proof to convince the judge of the need for such police action. However, these guarantees become void in cases where the RCMP would require a warrant urgently.
Clause 178.28(2) of this bill reads as follows:
(2) Where the judge to whom an application is made pursuant to subsection (1) is satisfied that the urgency of the situation requires that interception or seizure of matter in the course of post commence before a warrant could, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under section 178.25, he may, on such terms and conditions, if any, as he considers advisable, issue a warrant in writing for a period of up to thirty-six hours.
This clause would allow the RCMP to obtain a warrant immediately without further ado. Why such a provision? We all know that drug trafficking by mail is only done on a small scale and most often in isolated cases. The RCMP itself often mentions the example of drugs sent to convicts. It seems to me that traffickers know safer and certainly quicker means than the Canadian mails to distribute their goods, since we all know that the postal service is very slow, as can vouch the unemployed who have not received their cheques these last few weeks. Moreover, the Post Office Act and the Narcotic Control Act already contain provisions in this regard. As concerns national security and subversive activities, which are the major concerns of the government, the Solicitor General would have all the authority needed without having to resort to the judiciary. The concept of national security may well become ambiguous. The Keable and McDonald inquiries have indeed shown repeatedly that the RCMP's judgment could sometimes be rather faltering. In view of the constant refusal on the part of the Solicitor General to hand over documents to the commissions I have just mentioned, we have no access to a fair and objective review of the government's actions even if in the case of the warrants issued by the courts, the Solicitor General will have to submit a detailed report as mentioned in clause 178, paragraph 34 and that, only at the end of each year.
How shall we know if the government is not abusing all the privileges vested upon it by the act? Will an eventual weak government use it in the future to spy on honest people who have every right to the confidential character of their mail? Many people will tell you that we are one of the rare countries

March 14, 1978
Criminal Code
in the world where there mail interception has not yet been made legal. This is precisely one of the reasons why we are rather reluctant to give these powers to the government and this is why this act is no matter for rejoicing.
Not having any forceful arguments to offer this House, the government is introducing this bill as temporary. Yet, in the past, interim bills have had a distinct tendency to become permanent. This is what gives me reason to doubt that the government will repeal this act, whatever the recommendations of the McDonald Commission report may be.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote from an article published in the Edmonton Journal on February 13 which stated the following:
The act regarding electronic surveillance passed in 1974 limited the scope of these operations to inquiries on specific crimes. These operations were limited to a 30 day period and the individual concerned had to be notified after 90 days. Some four years later, the list of crimes was extended, electronic surveillance was authorized for periods of up to 90 days, permission was granted to delay the notification for up to three years and evidence based on illegal eavesdropping was made admissible in court. Now the government intends to extend these powers to mail opening. Can we ask ourselves how long it will take before the restrictions set on mail opening also disappear?
Already the bill we have before us even goes a bit further and gives the judge the right to extend the warrants upon request from the Solicitor General, for a period of up to three years. Mr. Speaker, when in front of such a bill the government can't manage to bring forth any convincing argument, and above all, when it does not seek alternative solutions, Canadians, through their representatives, have the right to ask for iron-clad guarantees. Yet such guarantees are virtually non-existent in Bill C-26. This bill is also untimely because the McDonald Commission is presently studying that issue and should make a report on it. This bill is also arbitrary in giving so much power to policemen and the Solicitor General without too many guarantees for individuals.
To legalize the opening of mail is to take away from the citizens of a community one of the only forms of communication that still come under the seal of confidentiality. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its present form, mainly because it does not provide adequate guarantees. Mail being the last bastion of our privacy we are rightly entitled to ask ourselves what will be the next step.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill C-26 introduced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Post Office Act. I will try to do so in the simplest, most logical, passionless way because this bill is too important to be used as a political instrument. That is why I would like to deal with Bill C-26 introduced today for second reading. The purpose of this bill is to give, under certain conditions, law enforcement agencies the right to open first class mail when they have reason to believe

that this would help the authorities to prevent criminal acts or apprehend their perpetrators.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to regulate freedom without eliminating it and to help neutralize certain elements whose objective seems to be to create disorder.

I am new to the Postmaster General's portfolio, but as a former mayor of Quebec City for 12 years I am not new to what constitutes sound government in the context of law and objections by the civil liberties group notwithstanding. 1 believe that Bill C-26 is a wise and necessary bill, and it will serve the best interests of the people of Canada as a whole. Furthermore, I am convinced that the built-in safeguards contained in the bill eliminate any perceived or imagined threats to the vast majority of law-abiding citizens who use the mails.
When meeting people, 1 am often asked: Is this bill really necessary? If it becomes law, what will it accomplish? All I can say is that if the legal opening of only one letter prevents only one serious crime against the state or an individual, it will have justified its existence on the statute books. If it prevents only one person from being drawn into the clutches of those who undermine the stability of our society by the veil of trafficking in drugs that is so widespread today, it will have served its purpose.
[ Translation]
In the 12 years during which I was the mayor of Quebec City, I saw perhaps more than anyone else the dangers relating to drug trafficking, the international ramifications of which are facilitated in this country by the maritime and air routes converging particularly toward Montreal and Vancouver.

Bill C-26 is designed, among other things, to make this drug trafficking a lot less profitable, and certainly a lot more dangerous than it is now for drug peddlers. Also, with a bill directed only at those who oppose the forces of law and order in Canada, what does an honest person have to fear? To think his or her letters to friends and family will be scrutinized by the police is just nonsense.
1 should like to refer, in addition, to the illegal narcotics trade, to aeroplane highjackings, bombings, assassinations, civil insurrection, and so on. These things could happen. Let us not be too naive. Why not prevent them now? This bill might help.

One must confess, Mr. Speaker, that we in Canada have been privileged with respect to criminal acts. Perhaps because of this privileged situation some Canadians could hesitate to give their support to this legislation but one should not be naive to the point of being led to believe that subversive or revolutionary forces have never been or are not at work to undermine or overthrow the democratic system in Canada or still that some criminals are not taking advantage of the great freedoms that exist in Canada.
March 14, 1978



Think about it seriously, Mr. Speaker. Is there any law-abiding citizen of Canada who would seriously argue that these dangers should be allowed to exist on the grounds that a first class letter must, under all and any circumstances, be protected by a seal of inviolable privacy? I cannot believe so, especially if the contents were known to the police. The danger I have just mentioned could be swiftly countered.

Canada is one of the only countries in the world, if not the only one, where a person is guilty of an offence any person who-and this also applies to the highest authorities-plunders, tampers, intercepts mail. This has provided criminals, and more particularly drug traffickers, with an impenetrable screen of protection, allowing them to use the mails as a messenger service without any fear of ever being caught. In Canada, at the present time, drug trafficking is done largely through the mails. One ounce of heroin is worth $2,000 and is easily hidden in an envelope.
Is there need to list all the terrible cases of drug victims? How many lives, reputations, fortunes, families have been destroyed by the evil of drugs. Hundreds! And some people would hesitate to give the police a minimum of discretion to fight those unscrupulous drug traffickers and to protect thousands of young Canadians against the pushers who only want to make a fast buck. All you need to do is to ask a city policeman to accompany him on his rounds on a weekend. You would realize that very often, the policeman is quite powerless because of laws which, in many cases, give much more leeway to the criminal than to the peace officer. Yet some are shocked by a legislation which makes it legal, under specific and closely controlled conditions, to open mail when there are reasons to believe that someone is going to commit a criminal offence or endanger the security of the state! Unthinkable!
Granted, there have been some allegations to the effect that the RCMP, albeit with the highest of motives, has for some time opened letters either being sent or received by persons suspected of criminal or subversive activities: but as far as the public, both law abiding and criminal, has been concerned, the mail system in Canada was safe from prying eyes, is safe and will be safe.
In Canada we already have legal search and wiretapping legislation. I doubt if any reasonable person would contend that the police forces in Canada should be deprived of the right to obtain warrants to search premises where there is good reason to suspect that criminal activities are taking place, or where stolen goods, arms, or ammunition are being stored. Search warrants and legal wiretapping have thus become a perfectly acceptable arm of law enforcement in this country as far as the vast majority of Canadians are concerned.
Criminal Code

The search through a person's home or office constitutes, in the strictest sense of the word, an invasion of privacy. Electronic surveillance of telephone conversations is also an invasion of privacy. Yet these two activities are now considered by most people, and with very good reasons, as necessary means to safeguard law and order in Canada.
Why is it, therefore, that the mail of criminals or saboteurs is so sacred that it precludes any surveillance aimed at enforcing the law?

I referred earlier to the built-in safeguards of Bill C-26. I think it is a wise and necessary bill, but I wish to be perfectly clear on one important point, and that is that the bill will not permit the indiscriminate opening of first class mail. [Translation]
I mentioned a while ago the safeguards which are part and parcel of this bill: the opening of the mail will have to be authorized by a warrant from a judge. The judge will ascertain what exactly the police are looking for and why the particular piece of mail has to be opened. This is a wise and necessary bill which determines under what conditions mail may be opened. [English]
It is important to understand that mail opening will have to be authorized by a warrant from a judge, that there will have to be an inquiry to ascertain exactly what the police are looking for, what they want, and why it is necessary that the letter or letters in question should be opened.
Bill C-26 seeks to ensure that the best interests of the country can be served legally, and not under the cover of some clandestine operation. The opening of mail would be subject in principle to the same legislation as that governing wiretapping. I have heard of no abuses on that score. I expect none in the opening of mail. Anyway, it will be the responsibility of the government to ensure that there will be no abuses, although it is my opinion that the way the bill is worded, none would be possible if all its provisions are strictly adhered to.
In the case of wiretapping, the person whose phone has been tapped must be so informed within 90 days. Similar provisions are contained in the bill to legalize the opening by police of first class mail. Thus, this exercise would not be carried out under an all-embracing cloak of secrecy. Where longer term surveillance than 90 days in deemed advisable, such extension may be obtained only on the presentation to a judge of an application personally signed by the Solicitor General of Canada.

One more thing in conclusion: Bill C-26 is only temporary. It will cease to be in force one year after the tabling in the House of the final report prepared by the commissioners appointed under Part I of the Inquiries Act, better known as the McDonald Royal Commission. In the course of that year,

March 14, 1978
Criminal Code
the House may consider the possibility of maintaining, amending or replacing the legislation.
In my opinion, this legislation is necessary and important. Moreover, I believe most Canadians, if they are well informed on the matter, will themselves also find it important and necessary for the protection of their liberty against every kind of abuses. For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope this legislation will be adopted by all parties as quickly as possible.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on Bill C-26, I would like to take the opportunity to commend the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) on the manner in which he represented our party in opening the debate. The reason I say that is that in the period of time I have been here I have heard many fine presentations and lively debates, but this subject matter goes very deeply into the depth of the Canadian soul, and the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot achieved a fine balance in his presentation. The sincerity with which he presented the case was recognized by every member of the House, and tonight I felt honoured to be a colleague of his.
The opening of mail has been going on for some time. What we are doing in this bill is to make legal that which has been done illegally before. The atmosphere in which this bill is being debated is one of suspicion on the part of many Canadians and members of the opposition of the motives of this government. The reason I say that is that in the decade that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been leader of this government, he has acquired the reputation throughout Canada of being soft on law and order. Regardless of where I go, when I speak to colleagues of mine I find they get the same feedback, that Canadians feel the Prime Minister has been soft on those who break our laws. In fact this is a permissive society, and the Prime Minister has been in the vanguard in the creation of our permissive society. The blame for a great part of the difficulties which our society is experiencing today, the pervading cynicism and the disregard for law and order, must be placed at the doorstep of the Prime Minister. It is in that atmosphere, including the events of the last six months, that this bill is now debated.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise two matters concerning smoke detectors used in homes. The first is an appeal to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to remove the 5 per cent federal sales tax valued at about $1 for each detector sold. The second is to raise concerns about the adequacy of the information and warnings given to home owners with respect to detectors that use small amounts of radioactive material for their operation.
Smoke detectors should be encouraged for every home. I back the use of smoke detectors. They are not unreasonably priced. They are lifesaving devices. They give early warning of smoke or fire. Indeed, they are mandatory under the national building code for new housing, and some municipal jurisdictions are considering making them mandatory in all existing housing. I am informed that the Ontario government makes smoke detectors and fire detectors mandatory in all Ontario housing for families and senior citizens across the province. The housing minister for Ontario has reported that of 64 fires in Ontario Housing Corporation units smoke detectors gave the initial warning in 54 cases, or over 80 per cent of the situations. He estimates that they possibly saved lives in 24 fires. Hundreds of thousands of smoke detectors are now in use, and I support the initiatives which have been taken so far.
I believe the federal government should now associate itself with this means of lifesaving and property saving by withdrawing its 5 per cent federal sales tax. This is what was asked for, for example, by Mr. Norman Rockall, a public spirited resident of Scarborough, who is leading a drive to have detectors installed in all Metro homes and, indeed, across Canada. Removing the federal sales tax is something the Government of Canada can do to match the fact that new federally assisted housing units must be protected by these devices. I made this request to the Minister of Finance in a letter dated February 7. I have also asked the province of Ontario to consider removing its provincial sales tax of 7 per cent levied on the retailed price, and valued at about $2.50 or $3 for an average unit. I hope my hon. colleagues will support these endeavours.
The second matter is the question of information concerning the safety of the popular ionization type detector. This ionization type, which is one of several, uses Americium 241, a highly active radioactive material which is part of the waste product from the nuclear cycle. Americium 241 is used in quantities so small as to constitute virtually no hazard, according to the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada, which is the regulatory body. The hazard is no greater, for example, than that associated with a television set.
My research on the subject with the Atomic Energy Control Board somewhat re-assures me that in Canada, in contrast with the situation in the United States, all purchasers must be given warning of the presence of radioactive material and that they are also given some minimum instructions for disposal of used detectors. My concern, however, is about the inadequacy

March 14, 1978

of consumer education provided in this situation, the inadequacy of the information given at the point of purchase and the inadequate instructions concerning disposal.
This is the warning I found on the inside of a model 1 recently examined, and I quote:
Caution: Radioactive material,
0.9 microcuries Americium 241. Disposal by return to supplier or as directed by the Atomic Energy Control Board, Ottawa.
A notice like this raises as many questions as answers, and I was therefore pleased that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), in response to my question in the House last week, agreed to cause a review of AECB regulations relating to smoke detectors.
Here are some of the questions I think need answering: First, why are commercial procedures dealing with the use of ionization type detectors more rigorous than in the case of homes? Why must each commercial installation be approved and the facilities licensed?
Second, now that the radiation health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare no longer tests prototypes of home models pending the function being transferred to the Atomic Energy Control Board under new legislation, who is testing models for safety under all conditions?
Third, what tests have been done in Canada with the ionization models, under conditions of fire?
Fourth, what right, if any, does a supplier or retail store have to refuse to accept a detector for disposal if it is returned to the supplier for that purpose? Can the supplier charge the home owner for disposal? What instructions have suppliers been given re disposal procedures?
Fifth, what guidance does AECB, in fact, give home owners who ask for directions for disposal purposes? What is the cost, if any, for disposal through the AECB?
Sixth, where, in fact, are used smoke detectors disposed of in Canada, if and when disposal directions are followed?
Finally, why is the caution sign placed inside the detector case or housing? Should it not be a requirement that the caution be put on the outside so it can be seen at the point of purchase, thus allowing the customer to make a choice among models? Should the caution not also be placed inside-


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


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of responding to the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), who has shown a great interest in this subject and considerable concern. I am not sure that in the short time 1 have this evening I will be able to answer all the questions he has put before us. If I cannot cover them all I can assure him that my department will be very pleased to provide the answers to anything that I do not cover this evening.
Adjournment Debate
The inspection, labelling and disposal of ionization-type smoke detectors has been reviewed with the responsible authority, the Atomic Energy Control Board, which regulates these devices under the terms of the Atomic Energy Control Act and regulations as regards prescribed substances. The purpose of the legislation and the board's work is the protection of the health and safety of the public.
The criteria with respect to the minute quantities of radioactive material included in smoke detectors manufactured or imported and sold in Canada cover normal operations as well as abnormal circumstances. A simple example of this is that, in order to minimize the chance of access to the tiny radioactive source they contain, the devices must be resistant to tampering with ordinary household tools. Perhaps that helps to answer one of the hon. member's questions.
Ionization-type smoke detectors are regulated through the AECB's radioisotope licensing process, which ensures that all criteria are met. I realize how little time I have, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I could go on to say that with regard to labelling a radiation warning label is required to be fixed to the protective housing for the minute radioactive source within this type of smoke detector. This is to indicate to anyone who sees it that penetration of the labelled barrier would result in close proximity to radioactive material. I have been assured that there is no health hazard.
From the point of view of public health and safety there should be no concern whatsoever as there is no significant hazard from AECB approved smoke detectors. However, it may be appropriate that external labelling is worth considering from the standpoint of accurate and fair marketing practices, in the interests of informing the consumer at the point of purchase and at the time of purchase. This would be a matter for consideration by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and was referred to in my answer to the hon. member in the House very recently when I said I would raise this matter with my colleague-


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


INDUSTRY-PLASTICS-SUGGESTION INDUSTRY BE EXEMPTED FROM TARIFF CUTS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, on December 8 last I asked a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) concerning the GATT negotiations that are currently in progress in Geneva, Switzerland. Specifically, I asked the minister if he would seek an exemption for Canada's plastics industry from the general reduction in tariffs being sought by some GATT member countries.
The minister replied that Canada hopes to deal on a sector basis with non-ferrous metals at the meetings, and he said that that might well include plastics. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer was not good enough. Given the delicate balance in our plastics industry and the fact that time is running out on the GATT talks, we can only trust that it is not

March 14, 1978
Adjournment Debate
too late for the government to make a more positive effort in this area.
The inclusion by the minister of the words "hope" and "might" in his reply only reinforces the fears in our plastics industry that the government is not pressing their case forcefully enough in Geneva. Their fears are well founded, Mr. Speaker. If certain GATT member countries get their way and the tariffs on manufactured plastic products are removed or even reduced by as much as 25 per cent, the Canadian plastics industry will be forced out of both the international and domestic markets. Not only will they become non-competitive in the world marketplace for plastic products, but countries like the United States will be able to sell their products in Canada at a cheaper price than we would be able to produce the same articles.
It must be remembered that Canada imports more manufactured plastic products per capita than any other country in the world. We import more than the United States, which has ten times our population. We are trying to overcome that imbalance in plastics products trade, but we need more time.
When Canada first ventured into the plastics industry we had to import virtually our entire requirement for raw plastics from the United States. These raw plastics included polypropylene, polystyrene and polyethylene. When I first spoke out on this problem in December 1973, Canada produced only a fraction of our needs for these raw plastics, and we did not produce any polypropylene at all. In 1973 we imported more than 70 million pounds of that particular plastic.
Our main problem is that raw plastics are a by-product of the petrochemical industry, and we in Canada do not have a petrochemical industry of any real consequence. So we lose on two counts. We lose the jobs which would be created by such an industry, and we lose the opportunity to manufacture our own needs in raw plastics. In short, Mr. Speaker, right now our plastics industry is at the mercy of countries that do have a petrochemical industry sufficient for their own needs and are also able to export the product.
We have been caught on a third count, Mr. Speaker. When the demand for plastic products began to skyrocket a few years ago, the cost of raw plastics also experienced a rise. In 1973 the cost to our manufacturers of U.S.-produced plastics rose by as much as 40 per cent, and it has continued to rise since that time. Here again, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to offset that by expanding our petrochemical industry, but it will be several years before it will come close to meeting our demands for plastic.
To give some idea of the importance of our plastic industry, Mr. Speaker, there are over 1,400 plastics processors in Canada, with plants in 125 federal ridings, and employing over 45,000 people. Capital investment in the plastics industry in Canada is in excess of $3 billion. Three billion more dollars are being invested which will double our processing capacity and create more than 25,000 high quality jobs.

It must not be overlooked, Mr. Speaker, that many other industries hiring many thousands of people depend to some extent on the plastics industry. These jobs, both the direct employment in the plastics industry and the indirect employment in other industries, are in grave peril unless Canada can convince our GATT partners that the tariffs must remain in place for the plastics trade at least for a few more years.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the government is very sensitive to the claims of the hon. member. However, certain specific details should be given with regard to the plastics industry. The plastic goods consumption in Canada covers a vast array of goods and materials, which follow fairly closely the trends registered in the United States.
Because it is not profitable to produce a large number of materials from plastics, and other products, consumption being limited, it is no wonder plastic imports can represent as much as 25 per cent of the Canadian demand. However, Canadian exports amount to about 10 per cent of the local consumption. The industry is at a disadvantage with regard to exports and the competition from imports, because there is an insufficient supply of plastics in Canada; in addition, the cost of components is high as tariffs apply to most of them; and finally, because of the limited production of each article as the demand is poor for most of those goods. Those problems could be solved largely by establishing important new plastics ring plants in Canada, by access to foreign markets, and by increased productivity through greater production.
The government is working in conjunction with the industry itself on those three points, precisely to find favourable solutions. As for the GATT negotiations, the numerous representations made by the industry and individual companies have contributed much by giving the government all the available information on the problems and the possibilities for the industry that could stem from multilateral trade negotiations.
However, it would be contrary to the public interest to divulge the details of the Canadian position at those negotiations.


TRANSPORT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REDUCE AIRLINE DISASTERS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when speaking yesterday on Bill C-4,to amend the Aeronautics Act, I pointed out that flight engineers on Boeing 727 aircraft in Canada were not properly licensed by the Ministry of Transport. A Government of Canada memorandum, signed by the acting regional controller, civil aviation, to the director general of civil aviation in Ottawa, points out and I quote:
March 14, 1978


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. member would have the wisdom to ascertain the irresponsible remarks he made yesterday during the debate on Bill C-4 regarding the illegality of Air Canada's Boeing 747 flights. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, he is raising the matter again, and he is now implying that most of our airlines are flying illegally. [English]
Maybe the hon. member has taken note of the declaration by Air Canada today denying categorically that it is flying its Boeing 727 aircraft illegally. The national carrier states that its second officers fulfil the requirements which must be met by flight engineers. Further, the airlines flight training program for 727 crews meets all the requirements of the Ministry of Transport as well as the specifications of the manufacturer.
The vice-president of flight operations of Air Canada, Captain Charles Simpson, is cited as saying that he has been assured by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) that all our second officers meet the necessary qualifications, having completed the approved MOT course. Air Canada's cockpit crew for the 727 include a captain, first officer and second officer. Yesterday, before the speech by the hon. member, Air Canada received formal notice from the Department of Transport confirming the competency of its 727 crews.

March 14, 1978
Adjournment Debate

As for Mirabel, Mr. Speaker, it seems that the hon. member is looking for all kinds of pretexts to criticize this terrific endeavour by the Ministry of Transport. It is true that Mirabel is now experiencing some operational deficits, but I think it is logical to plan the development of our airports for the years to come and for their eventual use. Mirabel, as I said, is a terrific endeavour, one of the better designed international airports in its category and one that is most adapted to our environment, and I think this endeavour is extremely important for the future not only of Quebec, because the hon. member seems truly upset that this airport is in Quebec, not only of the Quebec transport industry, Mr. Speaker, but of the entire Canadian transport industry.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to caution the hon. member not to generalize and create false impressions about aviation safety in Canada. As the minister said in the House, most air carriers are very responsible and respectable and meet, indeed surpass, regulation requirements. They, with Transport Canada, strive together to maintain a remarkable record in aviation safety although, as I said at the start, no one is complacent about this record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:28 p.m.

Wednesday, March 15, 1978