1967-11-15

NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the House has received from the chief electoral officer certificate of the election and return of Hon. Robert L. Stanfield, for the electoral district of Colchester-Hants.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield, member for the electoral district of Colchester-Hants, introduced by Hon. Michael Starr and Hon. Theogene Ricard.

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have already congratulated my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition on his accession to the leadership of his party, and I should like to congratulate him today on his election to the House of Commons and the taking of his seat in this chamber. In offering congratulations, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could call attention to the fact that he is succeeding in Colchester-Hants a member of quiet sincerity and friendly disposition who had won the affection of all members of this house who knew him.
It is interesting, at least it was interesting to me during the deep research I have conducted on this subject in the last few hours, to realize that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is the third member of his party who has held this post in the last 30 years who had previously served as premier of his province. I can assure the hon. gentleman of my design and my desire to co-operate with him in every possible way, as of course should be the case between two men who are endeavouring to serve the country in the two most important positions in the House of Commons.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that I do not include in that offer of co-operation the realization of the hon. gentleman's announced patriotic duty to bring about without delay a general election. I consider it my patriotic duty to save the country from a general election for as long as possible, though I do not expect any co-operation from the other side of that high endeavour.
The hon. gentleman assured Canadians the other night in a television broadcast that, among other things, he was anxious to make parliament work more effectively. I look forward to working with him in every way I can in the achievement of this important goal. There are other ways in which, subject to our different parliamentary and party responsibilities, I know we will be able to collaborate; but whether in collaboration or in criticism, in approval or in disapproval, I know the hon. gentleman who has now taken his seat is actuated, as I hope and believe we all are in this house, only by a desire and a resolve to serve Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, we on this side convey to him our best wishes as he takes on new and important responsibilities in this house.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party would like to associate themselves with the comments of the right hon. Prime Minister in extending a welcome to the Leader of the Opposition. I want to assure him that those around him are not as blue as they appear at the moment.


Mr. MacEwan:: You can say that again.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I also want to tell him that his very easy admission to this house is not to be taken as a precedent, and that we will endeavour to make his next entry into the house more difficult. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic party had two reasons for hoping that the Leader of the Opposition would enter the house quickly. The first is that we feel that in our parliamentary system it is much more expedient to have the leaders of the political parties in the
November 15, 1967

Welcome to New Leader of Opposition house taking part in public debate and expressing the views of their party on important public issues. The second reason is that with the closing of coal mines and steel plants in Nova Scotia we thought it would be better to get him out of the province before he wrecked the joint.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Just as happened with Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We thought it would be preferable to get the hon. gentleman into the House of Commons where the only thing he could wreck would be the Tory party; and in that endeavour he will have our wholehearted co-operation. He cannot expect any help from the government, because they are busy wrecking the economy of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In a more serious vein, I wish to extend on behalf of our group our heartiest congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition on his election as leader of his party, and to welcome him to the House of Commons. If I might add a personal note, I had the privilege of working with him at one or two federal-provincial conferences. I know him to be a man of high dedication, good judgment and sound common sense. As Leader of the Opposition he takes on a heavy responsibility. From his past record and from my brief association with him I am convinced that he will discharge his responsibilities in a manner which will bring credit to himself, distinction to his party and benefit to the people of Canada.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party would not miss the opportunity to add a few words of welcome to those addressed by the right hon. Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to whom we should like to say that we have followed attentively the evolution of his party, particularly the selection made the supporters of a democratic government in his riding.
We most sincerely congratulate the new Leader of the Opposition and wish him to work with all the parties in the house for the future of Canada, which means that we assume the opposition will work seriously

and constructively, not negatively. On the other hand, our party will always stand ready to co-operate with the other parties toward the objective of all Canadians, that is the progress of the country through ever more advanced, ever more sincere legislation for the economic development of the country.
I trust that the new Leader of the Opposition will bring to this parliament a constructive factor, and I am sure that if we all work hand in hand in the house, we shall succeed in an action not likely to destroy Canadian unity but to make it stronger still.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, as yesterday we joined in words of good wishes to the hon. member for Ontario, so today we join in welcoming the Leader of the Opposition as he takes his seat in the House of Commons. We as parliamentarians have a common responsibility and face a tremendous challenge. To the extent that we can work together in the interest of the nation and the solution of its problems, this responsibility rests on us all. If the Leader of the Opposition can use his influence to give direction, and if he can point the way for the leaders of his party to play a constructive role in this house, then to that extent we shall be in his debt. In this way we join in the expressions of welcome to him this afternoon.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I need hardly tell you, and through you the members of this house, what a privilege it is for me to take my seat today as a member of the House of Commons. Though I have been accustomed to sitting in a legislature or parliament of somewhat greater antiquity, nevertheless I am aware of my great privilege in being finally in this house.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
It would be a privilege in any circumstances; it is a tremendous pleasure for me to enter this chamber as the Leader of the Opposition under your Speakership, sir; to sit in a chamber presided over by a Speaker of such tact, humour and firmness. I think a member of an opposition is always aware of the importance of the Speaker and my first duty is to pay my respects to you, sir, as I now do, and to assure you that I will always wish to co-operate and do nothing to increase
November 15, 1967

your difficulties, since I appreciate very much the privilege of sitting in this chamber with you in the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his very friendly and kind welcome to me today. I wish to thank him in particular for the kind remarks he made about my predecessor in Colchester-Hants, a very gallant Canadian who has done so much to serve his country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course it remains to be seen what service he has rendered his country in this instance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I assure the Prime Minister that it will certainly be my endeavour, and I am sure the endeavour of the opposition, to assist in the operation of the house and in forwarding the business of the country.
I am fully aware of the importance of the position I now hold as Leader of the Opposition. I think a good opposition is essential to good government, and if by being a good opposition we incidentally improve the government in the process, this will be something in which we and the Canadian people alike will rejoice. More seriously, we have a heavy responsibility on our side of the house and we shall do our best to discharge it properly.
I wish to express my appreciation also to the leaders of the other parties who have welcomed me here this afternoon. I should like to say a word particularly to the leader of the New Democratic party about his reference to the many services I have performed in Nova Scotia. He omitted, however, to refer to one service which I often claim to have performed in Nova Scotia. I was a little surprised that when referring to my wrecking activities he did not refer to the manner in which we had succeeded in wrecking his party in that province.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, of all the
problems that concern our country, the one that goes deepest is that of unity.
As I take my seat in this house for the first time as leader of a great party, I must say 27053-272
Questions
that my presence here would be a great disappointment to me if I did not succeed in doing my share toward building a united Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the government established a policy to resettle Arab refugees in Canada?
2.	If so, how many Arab refugees have come to Canada under the scheme?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of External Affairs and Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


HOUSING PROGRAM FOR INDIANS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Since the inauguration of the housing program for Canada's Indian population, how much of the $112,000,000 has been expended?
2.	How many houses have been completed?
3.	How many houses are under construction?
4.	Where are they located?
5.	How many houses have been built for Indians living off the reserves and where are they located?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: November 15, 1967
Questions
a house constructed, purchase an existing house, or purchase a house constructed by a developer. As of September 30, 1967, 85 Indians have been approved for assistance under the "off-reserve housing program". Statistics are not available on the choice of house the Indian has or will select. All houses selected must have Central Mortgage and Housing approval. Indians qualifying for off reserve assistance are located as follows: Maritime region, 4; Quebec region, 2; Ontario region, 14; Manitoba region, 21; Saskatchewan region, 13; Alberta region, 4; B.C. and Yukon region, 27.


CANADIAN PAVILION AT EXPO
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	What Is to become of the Canadian pavilion at "Expo 67" after the exhibition closes?
2.	Specifically, what plans does the government have for Katimavik?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1 and 2. Negotiations, which are taking place between the city of Montreal and the government of Canada for the disposition of the Canadian pavilion, including Katimavik, have not yet been concluded.


ROLLED STEEL IMPORTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What was the total value of rolled steel imported into Canada in 1966, from what countries was it imported and in what dollar volume in each case?
2.	What was the amount of rolled steel imported into each province of Canada in 1966, by dollar volume?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secreiary io Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. The total value of rolled steel imported into Canada in 1966 was $207,000,000 of which $48,402,000 was material of a class or kind not made in Canada, and $29,000,000 represented importation in rolled form of ingots sent to the United States for purposes of conversion.
Details by country and dollar value for each of the countries for the 55 classes of rolled steel imported into Canada in 1966 may be found on pages 128 to 134 (commodity classes 444-05 to 447-99) of the December 1966 issue of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics publication, "Imports by Commodities", catalogue number 65-007, which is available in any public library or the library of parliament.

2.	The amount of rolled steel imported into each province of Canada in 1966, by dollar volume is as follows:-
Newfoundland	$ 1,184,944
Nova Scotia	3,292,297
Prince Edward Island	583
New Brunswick	2,937,537
Quebec	82,600,677
Ontario	85,260,221
Manitoba	2,566,586
Saskatchewan	260,794
Alberta	1,383,060
British Columbia	28,243,601
Yukon	889
Total	$207,731,189


RECIPROCAL PENSION PLAN, CANADA-FRANCE
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Since May 30, 1966, the date of answers to similar questions, have there been further discussions between the government of Canada and the government of France concerning the possibility of a reciprocal agreement with respect to the Canada Pension Plan and corresponding legislation in France?
2.	If so, what conclusions have been reached?
3.	If no conclusions have yet been reached, are such discussions continuing and will a report on such discussions be made to the House of Commons at an early date?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No.
2.	See answer to 1 above.
3.	If some type of mutually satisfactory reciprocal arrangement can be worked out, further discussions will be undertaken. Information would be made available to the House of Commons at the appropriate time.


CITIZENSHIP COURTS
Mr. Hales: 1.	Where are the courts of Canadian citizenship located?
2.	Who is the president of each court?
3.	What is the age of each president?
4.	Is there a statutory retirement age for these presidents?
5.	Are any presidents being retired within the next six months?
6.	If so, what are their names?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1,	2 and 3
November 15, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	4301
	Questions	Age of presiding
Location	Name of presiding officer	officerHalifax	Mrs. Allie Ahern	64Moncton	K. B. Carson, Esq.	64Montreal	R. Deguire, Esq.	63Ottawa	J. A. Dawson, Esq.	68Toronto	W. M. Cory, Esq.	71Toronto	K. L. McKenzie, Esq.	60Hamilton	R. H. Tugman, Esq.	64London	C. C. Calder, Esq.	57Sudbury	O. J. Godin, Esq.	56Winnipeg	Vacant	Regina	B. Korchinski, Esq.	61Edmonton	O. W. Allen, Esq.	56Calgary	V. A. Cooney, Esq.	59Vancouver	E. V. Chown, Esq.	704.	No. Appointments are made by the governor in council pursuant to the Citizenship Act. Some have been at pleasure, some for fixed terms.5.	Yes.6.	(a) R. H. Tugman, on April 5, 1968. (b) W. M. Cory, on March 31, 1968. (c) E. V. Chown, on August 14, 1968.


WHEAT EXPORTS
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	How many bushels of wheat were exported from Canada in July, 1966; August, 1966; September, 1966; and October, 1966?
2.	How many bushels of wheat were exported from Canada in July, 1967; August, 1967; September, 1967; and October, 1967?
3.	How many dollars subsidy has been paid by the government out of the Canadian treasury in reference to any wheat sold below the minimum floor price contained in the new international wheat agreement?
September, 1966; and October, 1966 is shown in the attached table.
2.	Export statistics for September, 1967 and October, 1967 are not yet available. The number of bushels of wheat exported from Canada in July, 1967 and preliminary statistics for August, 1967 are shown in the attached table.
Nil. Month	1966	1967
	(Bushels)	(Bushels)
July	56,027,820	42,960,260August	68,096,911	25,038,808*September	59,081,615	N.A.October	45,578,813	N.A.
* Preliminary N.A.-Not available


FINAL EXPO DEFICIT
Robert Henry Winters: The reply to this starred question involves quite a few figures, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder if the hon. member would be willing to have the answer taken as read and allow it to be printed in Hansard* 1 2!


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Mr. Woolliams:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer above referred to is as follows:]
1.	The number of bushels of wheat exported from Canada in July, 1966; August, 1966;
27053-272i


Mr. Harkness: 1.	What has been determined as the final deficit for Expo '67?
2.	What is the amount of this which is to be borne by the federal treasury?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. The final net cost for Expo '67 has net yet been determined in that it will take some weeks before the financial accounts can be finalized.
2.	The federal treasury will bear 50 per cent of this net cost.

November 15, 1967
Questions


HABITAT '67 AT EXPO
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the final cost of Habitat '67 and was this cost shared by the government of Canada, the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal, or was It the sole responsibility of the government of Canada?
2.	What is the estimated salvage value of Habitat '67?
3.	What was the total revenue received in leases and rentals for space provided during the period that Expo '67 was in operation?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. The final cost of Habitat '67 will be $22,669,350. Habitat '67 is an asset owned by the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition, whose ownership is 50 per cent with the government of Canada, 37J per cent with the province of Quebec and 12J per cent with the city of Montreal.
2.	The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition's approved budget includes an estimated asset value for Habitat '67 of $7,447,740.
3.	The total revenue received in leases and rentals for space in Habitat '67 during the period that Expo was in operation was $287,800. Twenty six units were used for exhibit purposes for which no revenue was received.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS- LOOSE LEAF BINDERS
Mr. Smith: 1.	How many loose leaf binders were circulated by the Company of Young Canadians for the purpose of keeping records of their activities?
2.	What was the cost per binder?
3.	What was the total cost?
4.	Was consideration given to spending this money for the purpose of purchasing school books for children in deprived areas of northern Canada?


Mr. John R. Maiheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows:
1.	Four hundred and fifty loose leaf binders have been distributed.
2.	Cost per binder (with printing), $1.27.
3.	Total cost, $571.50.
4.	No.
[Mr. Cantin.l


ENGINEERING STUDY, GEORGIAN BAY SHIP CANAL
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	When was the last engineering survey made of the feasibility of a Georgian bay ship canal, and by whom?
2.	Would the government consider instituting a new study to bring up to date the engineering aspects and financial estimates of such a ship canal?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1. In 1904-08 by the Department of Public Works.
2. The information presently available to the department does not justify a new study.


STEVEN TRUSCOTT-PAROLE RECOMMENDATION
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has the government, or any minister thereof, since the date on which the Supreme Court of Canada gave its answers to the question put to it concerning the case of Steven Truscott, considered recommending that Steven Truscott be granted a parole?
2.	If so, what has been the result of such consideration?
3.	If a decision to recommend a parole has not yet been made, is the matter now under consideration?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: The
parole regulations provide that in a case of this kind no parole may be granted without the approval of the governor in council on the recommendation of the National Parole Board. The regulations further provide that the board shall not recommend a parole to the governor in council until at least ten years of the term of imprisonment has been served.
The eligibility date for consideration of parole in this case will be in June, 1969. Action by the government or any minister thereof is governed by the parole regulations.


CENTENNIAL MEDALS
Mr. Brand: 1.	How many centennial medals have been awarded to civilians?
2.	How many of these recipients are women?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. The awarding of the centennial medal is in progress; many nominations have yet to be received and considered.
2. See answer to 1.
November 15, 1967


NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSING
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	In each of the years from 1957 to 1967, what amounts were expended on the Northumberland strait crossing project?
2.	How many contracts have been let for construction of highway approaches on (a) the New Brunswick, and (b) the P.E.I. side of the Northumberland strait crossing project, and what is the amount of each contract?
3.	What is the total length of highway to be constructed in each province under such contracts?
4.	What is the length of new railway line constructed on the New Brunswick side of the crossing?
5.	What was the total cost of this rail line construction?


George James McIlraith: 1. 1957-58, Nil; 1958-59, $347,603; 1959-60, $154,091; 1960-61, $8,040; 1961-62, $9,141; 1962-63, $49,296; 1963-64, $499,796; 1964-65, $1,239,077; 1965-66, $1,650,001; 196667, $4,317,352.
2.	(a) Two: Highway approach and railway grade, $1,696,660.00; Murray Corner Road, overpass construction, $219,366.50. (b) Three: Approach grade, $1,149,483.00; Seven Mile Bay road, overpass construction, $192,093.60; Albany interchange construction, $799,742.50.
3.	New Brunswick:	4.53 miles and the
Murray Corner road overpass. Prince Edward Island: 3.95 miles and the Seven Mile Bay road overpass and the Albany interchange.
4.	4.98 miles.
5.	$883,936.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that question 599 standing in my name be dropped for redrafting.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Rynard: 1.	What was the total cost of grants and benefits given to heads of states and other dignitaries of countries visiting Canada during centennial year?
2.	What are the names of the countries and the amounts of grants and/or benefits each received?
3.	What are the names of the countries listed as being underdeveloped?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have permission of the house to have question No. 197 called.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


LAND EXPROPRIATIONS, NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Caouelle: Since 1927, how much has the federal government spent each year on the expropriation of land and property for the purposes of the national capital (a) on the Ontario side (b) on the Quebec side?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minisler of Public
Works): It is impossible to answer this question in the form asked, as it is not clear what is meant by the expression "expropriation of land and property for the purposes of the national capital". However, it is possible to give the information as to the total value of lands and property expropriated by the National Capital Commission and by its predecessor, the Federal District Commission, from 1927 to date.
Prior to the year 1962 the National Capital Commission and its predecessor only expropriated land for its purposes as laid down in the National Capital Act. Since that time the commission has also expropriated land for other federal government departments and agencies.
If this is the information desired, I would ask that the question be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that the question to which the hon. minister has referred be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monieifh (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the house leader whether he would give consideration to having the resolutions under the forthcoming supplementary budget and the previous budget discussed at the same time. The minister said that he would take this into consideration. I should like to ask him whether he has had an opportunity to do that.

November 15, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have considered this matter and have had an opportunity to speak to the Minister of Finance, but we have not concluded any arrangement as yet. As soon as an arrangement is made I shall be glad to notify the house.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has he received a telegram from the steel workers local in Sydney, Nova Scotia, asking the government to state clearly what financial assistance it is prepared to give in conjunction with the government of Nova Scotia for the purpose of guaranteeing the continuance of the steel plant at Sydney beyond April, 1968? In view of the fact that the Hawker Siddeley company and the government of Nova Scotia are now engaged in negotiations, it would seem important that the government should now make some statement in this regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, discussions regarding Dosco are going on with the government of Nova Scotia. The premier of the province will be in Ottawa tomorrow. The discussions will be continued with him in respect of all aspects of this very difficult and serious problem. As soon as there is something to announce with regard to a federal decision on this matter I shall be glad to announce it in the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether there has been any exchange of correspondence between himself and the premier of Nova Scotia concerning what financial commitment the federal government is prepared to make; and would the Prime Minister be prepared to have the correspondence tabled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there have been letters and communications on all aspects of the problem, as well as individual telephone conversations and oral discussions. I would prefer to make a decision in respect of what can be tabled with regard to the communications as soon as we have completed the discussions.



EXPO '67

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO DISPOSITION OF ASSETS On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Did the Canadian government officially promise the city of Montreal to pay its share of the cost of a permanent exhibition that will be worthy of the prestige gained by "Man and his World"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, discussions among the Minister of Trade and Commerce representing the federal government, the provincial government and the municipality with regard to the disposition of Expo property and assets are going on. As soon as these discussions have been completed an announcement will be made by the minister in the house.



INQUIRY AS TO DISPOSITION OF CANADIAN INDIAN PAVILION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the force will be considered by the security council prior to the termination date of December 26. Until we know what decision the security council takes it is not possible to say what course we will follow.']
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he inform the house whether the Canadian Indian pavilion at Expo has been offered to or accepted by the city of Montreal? If so, will it be maintained in its present condition and on the present site?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the city of Montreal, in the person of the mayor of Montreal, has indicated an interest in acquiring the building but no decision has been taken as yet.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the present mandate for the UN peacekeeping force in Cyprus is about to expire, is it the intention of the government to renew Canada's contribution for a further period of time?
November 15, 1967	COMMONS


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the force will be considered by the security council prior to the termination date of December 26. Until we know what decision the security council takes it is not possible to say what course we will follow.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Now that the right hon. gentleman has had an opportunity to study the recent statement of the directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about the Secretary of State's reference to its management, what has been the response of the right hon. gentleman to the statement, and does the board continue to enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, public broadcasting, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as the instrument of public broadcasting, receives and will continue to receive the confidence of the government. In so far as the particular statement is concerned, if I have anything to say about it I will say it when I make my contribution to the debate on the broadcasting bill.


Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: May
I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister in a position now to say when he will announce the appointment of the new president and executive vice president of the C.B.C.?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be in a better position to do that once the broadcasting legislation is in effect.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister advise the house when he expects to announce the reduction in the spending estimates for 1967-68 which he has said he intends to make?
DEBATES	4305
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement both about the spending in this fiscal year and our plans for next year when I make the statement I promised to make in the house when I bring down my supplementary financial measures.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that when speaking in New York last night the minister said that the economy measures he is adopting at present should have been introduced in 1965, could he advise the house why there has been this two year delay?


Mitchell William Sharp: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that in New York.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WHEAT-POSSIBLE SALES RESULTING FROM WHEAT BOARD ACTIVITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Reports of a speech prepared for delivery by the minister to the Saskatchewan wheat pool in Regina indicate that officials of the Canadian Wheat Board have visited Brazil, Lebanon, Morocco, the Philippines, Venezuela and Taiwan. Have any sales of wheat resulted from these visits?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, this is part of the board's program of pursuing every possible market. The officials of the Canadian Wheat Board have visited other countries. I mentioned those named in order to illustrate the work the board is doing. They have been making sales. Sales are being made on a day to day basis to these countries and others.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question which is supplementary to my original question. Since my information would lead me to believe no sales have been made, would the minister be prepared to indicate to the house the amount of grain which has been sold?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given to question No. 569, to the effect that no subsidy in fact has been paid in respect of any sales; and in view of the fact that exports dropped

November 15, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry from 68 million bushels to 25 million bushels in August, is there any firm contract now with new customers in respect of Canadian wheat which has been made by the Canadian Wheat Board which the minister can report today?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, there are no firm contracts, but we are selling on a continuing basis. As I informed hon. members earlier, our negotiators are in Canton today. I believe they arrived there yesterday, to resume negotiations for a further contract with the Chinese. We are pursuing all other marketing opportunities.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF BONUS AND OVERDUE INTEREST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he now in a position to report to the house with regard to the negotiations with the United States concerning payment of the $12 million for early completion of the Duncan dam and the interest on the overdue payment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On November 9 the congress of the United States passed the appropriation bill containing authorization for the payment to Canada of the amount owing under the Columbia river treaty since July 31 for flood control benefits arising from the operation of Duncan dam. The usual constitutional and procedural steps are now under way in order to permit payment of this amount to the government of Canada as trustee for the province of British Columbia. The payment will therefore be received in the near future.
As to the claim for interest on the overdue payment, this aspect is being actively discussed with the United States authorities through our ambassador in Washington. The federal and provincial authorities are consulting with one another with regard to this question.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour who reports to this house on
[Mr. Woolliams.l
behalf of the unemployment insurance commission. Will the minister use his good office to suggest to the acting head of that commission that communications could be improved between its offices and the offices of the manpower division? I ask this question because recently there has been a division between these offices and the lack of reasonable communication is causing much confusion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his representation.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he is now in a position to answer the question I asked him some time ago regarding the allegation of air pollution in Sudbury, at which time he undertook to make an investigation and advise the house?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I
thought it was well known in the house that air pollution falls under the responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who undertook to make an investigation and give a reply. If hon. gentlemen can sort out their respective jurisdictions perhaps we could have an answer from one of them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources assumed jurisdiction on an earlier occasion, will he now surrender it back to his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order that I might get an answer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that at the moment I may have to engage in another transfer of responsibility. This matter is capable of being handled under the Ontario air pollution act. However, if my hon. friend is satisfied I will try to get him an answer.
November 15, 1967



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and relates to difficulties which have arisen in the port of Montreal. Has he received a telegram from international longshoremens' association locals in that area complaining that the Picard recommendations are being only partially implemented by the employers, and suggesting that Judge Lippe or some other suitable person be appointed as administrator? Has the minister received such a telegram, and what action does the government intend to take in this regard?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I not only received that particular telegram but I also received a telegram from the shipping federation, which has thrown the ball the other way. Both sides seem to have difficulties, as I mentioned the other day, in fitting all the recommendations and conclusions in the Picard report into the collective agreements signed some months ago. It is true the suggestion has been made that an administrator be appointed, but the government has no authority to make such an appointment. The government cannot appoint such an arbitrator. The parties themselves might perhaps appoint an administrator if they were both agreed. After there has been an exchange of ideas between parties, and with their consent, my department or perhaps I personally could participate. I cannot give a definite answer as to what actually is happening today or whether a solution is in sight.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that in this instance both the employers and the employees seem to be agreed that an administrator should be appointed, and have suggested Mr. Justice Lippe, will the minister consider bringing both parties together to see whether such an administrator can be appointed in order to prevent any further dislocation in shipping?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: My office was in communication with both sides yesterday, and we are awaiting their replies.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the steps taken by the Vatican state to be admitted to the United Nations, does the Canadian government intend to support or oppose that membership bid?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any confirmation of the fact that the Vatican state had submitted a request for membership to the United Nations. In any event, I will investigate the matter and I will be very happy to report later to the hon. member, if need be.


Maurice Allard: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In this connection, is it the intention of the government to accredit an ambassador to the Vatican state?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the second question is not of immediate urgency.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on housing for the part time Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Danforth knows that I have sought his co-operation by asking him to refer to ministers by their proper titles or portfolios. Perhaps this is not a matter of such great consequence, but I do feel that the proprieties of the house require that ministers be identified in this way.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, of course I appreciate your-


An hon. Member:: Ask your question.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members opposite will be quiet I should like to address you as to the responsibility-


An hon. Member:: You are very sensitive.

November 15. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Reid Scott: You are the sensitive people, not me. In view of the difficulty in the last few weeks of obtaining a firm statement from the minister regarding housing policy, perhaps I may address this question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the minister's answer yesterday to the hon. member for Gaspe, will the Prime Minister consider referring this very severe problem in respect of housing to the appropriate committee of this house in order that it may be convened during this session? This would provide an opportunity for members of all parties to consider this extremely serious problem, in respect of which this government has not been able to come up with an answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows there will be a very important housing conference in a few weeks. I will be glad to discuss his particular suggestion with the Minister of Labour.


Reid Scott: Since the Prime Minister has referred to this important housing conference will he now indicate that all material will be made available to members of the house as well as to members of the press? Will he also indicate whether any decision has been made in respect of allowing representatives of opposition parties to be present at least as observers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Having regard to the latter part of the question, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as public sessions are involved I am sure members of the opposition will be welcome. So far as documentation is concerned, I think there is a good deal to be said for making at least some of the papers produced by both the federal and provincial governments, providing the latter are agreeable, available to the public before the convention opens.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the persistent refusal of the government, and particularly the minister in charge of housing, to convene the committee on housing, urban development and public works in order to deal with stagnation in housing in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Russell Keays: I raise this question of privilege because of the government's assurance that in setting up standing committees the work of parliament would be expedited and would form an integral part of the operations of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was generous enough to give me advance notice of his proposed question of privilege. I indicated to him that I have serious reservations as to whether this is a question of privilege. If the hon. member will consult the authorities, particularly Beauchesne, he will recognize that a question of privilege is one which affects a member's personal position as a member and one which attacks his personal reputation. I fail to see how the reputation of the hon. member for Gaspe is affected by the fact that a committee is or is not called.
I bring this to his attention, but at the same time I do not want to prevent him from expressing his views, which he may want to do. However, this should be done as quickly as possible.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, the present situation is one which warrants the attention of the government. The reason for my question of privilege is that too many Canadians are being deprived of proper shelter. If this matter cannot be put in the form of a question of privilege I intend to place a motion on the order paper, and at that time will ask the co-operation of the Prime Minister to see that this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he has found the correct solution to the problem, and that the placing of a motion on the order paper would be an excellent way of bringing the matter to the attention of the house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the President of the Privy Council based on a statement made yesterday by the Minister of Finance with regard to the treatment of foreign investment. Unfortunately the minister is not here to deny it. My question is as follows. Can the President of the Privy Council say when the long awaited report of his task force, which is investigating the effects of foreign investment, will be published; and, whether, when this report is ready, it will be made available to parliament before the government gives its official approval.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think I said on another occasion that the task force is
November 15, 1967



preparing certain studies tor the government. Once the government has had a chance to consider them, it may or may not decide to publish a white paper on the subject. However, I think it most unlikely that the report of the task force would be made public.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as house leader. Considering that two general elections have been held since the Canada Elections Act was considered by the standing committee on privileges and elections, will the minister advise the house whether it is intended to have this act referred to the committee at an early date lest the unexpected event overtake the unrevised statute?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is expected that the report will be sent to the standing committee at an early date, and ample opportunity will be given for discussion.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to the question asked earlier by the hon. member for Queens. I am not sure whether it should be addressed to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. Is the government preparing draft legislation based upon the report of the royal commission on election expenses, so it can be submitted to the committee of the house on privileges and elections, as well as the report itself?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be our intention to send the report to the committee.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I wish to direct to the Minister of Indian Affairs
Inquiries of the Ministry and Northern Development in connection with the setting up of the committee on Indian Affairs. The minister indicated this would be done, and informed us that he had discussed it with the chairman of the committee. Can he tell the house when this will be done?


Arthur Laing: Not
today, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, but, in his absence, I would like to direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether the Canadian government will participate in the loan made by the British government to save the pound sterling, and to what extent and under what conditions will Canada participate in this loan floated by Great Britain?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that this question is of such scope that it can hardly be put on the orders of the day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This loan is now being floated and will be approved very soon. There are, in fact, several countries, and France is one of them, who have already indicated their contribution, and I was wondering if the Canadian government would participate in this operation to save the pound sterling through this loan of $250 million. That is what I wanted to know from the Prime Minister.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and it arises out of a question asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Lapointe having to do with whether Canada had offered a loan to Britain. Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether, in view of the current financial crisis in this country, Great Britain has offered a loan to us?

November 15, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: May I
put a question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General?
The minister is aware that next week, in Montreal, the Estates General of French Canada are meeting. In view of recent events and of recent discussions in Quebec on constitutional questions, could the minister reconsider and send as observers to these meetings some members of his government in order to be informed of the important questions which will be dealt with.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the minister involved has never been invited to send members of the government to these meetings. Personally, I hope these meetings will be most fruitful and will enable the province of Quebec and French Canadians to define as much as possible their thinking on the constitutional question.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
If the minister has not been invited to send members of the government, would he agree that members of his party attend these sessions as observers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It arises out of a C.B.C. television program last night which showed that strange and Satanic weapons, chemicals and vehicles were being developed in the United States for crowd and riot control, and in which the suggestion was made that some were being sold to Canada. Can the hon. gentleman say whether these weapons are being bought by the R.C.M.P.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REPORTED PURCHASE OF OTTAWA VALLEY FARM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General whether he is in a position to end what is described in today's press as the deep secret or mystery of the purchase by the R.C.M.P. of a large farm in the Ottawa valley?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is posed in such a way that it is impossible for the Chair to determine whether this is a matter of national importance and immediate urgency. I suspect that it might very well wait for a while before being answered.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I raised a question which I think is not only important but urgent, one which demands some answer to satisfy the public with regard to an hour long program last night which had somewhat horrifying implications.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was under the impression that perhaps the hon. member might want to put that question on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Manpower and Immigration indicated that he might be in a position today to answer my question relating to the program to bring handicapped refugees to Canada. If he is in a position to do so, will he also perhaps give the reason British Columbia is not participating in that program? Is the minister able to reply to my question now?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I am aware that British Columbia has refused to co-operate, but it did not give us any reasons for turning down the proposal.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could state the reasons at ten o'clock.



EMBARGO ON EXPORT OF CHAROLAIS CATTLE TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is
November 15, 1967	COMMONS
addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it his intention to remove at an early date the embargo placed on the export of Charolais cattle to the United States?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, we are watching that situation very carefully. Of course we want to do what is in the best interests of Canadian livestock breeders and operators, and I may have something further to say at a later date.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can he tell the house whether the translation of the Woods commission report has been concluded, and when this report will be filed in the house?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the translation has not yet been completed. We are trying to hurry it as much as possible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the report is available will it be referred as soon as possible to the standing committee on veterans affairs?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. This is a matter which will have to be decided when I receive the report.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question in connection with receipts for charitable donations. Acknowledging that recent amendments to the Income Tax Act have placed an unduly heavy burden on his department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put the question directly?


Harold Raymond Ballard: -would the minister consider extending the deadline for registration of charitable organizations from December 31, 1967 to December 31, 1968?
DEBATES	4311
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made a representation to the minister. If he wishes he may place the question on the order paper.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pennell for the second reading of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, this bill introduced by the hon. Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Pennell), on behalf of the government, is intended to abolish, for a period of five years, the death penalty for murderers, except in the case of murder of police officers, prison guards and other employees of the same category, acting in the course of their duties.
The said bill, if passed and put into force, could remain the law of the land if, within five years, the House of Commons and the Senate request it by resolution.
To my mind, the government is bringing down undesirable legislation, because the question has already been decided by the house last year and nothing, no major event, has happened since, likely to alter the situation. The valuable time of this parliament should rather be spent in finding quickly an efficient remedy to poverty, unemployment, inflation, to the most disquieting increase in the cost of living, and to increasing productivity.
As a matter of fact, in the spring of 1966, the House of Commons voted down 179 to 74, an amendment to a bill similar to the one now before us, also seeking the abolition of capital punishment except in cases of murder of policemen and prison guards.
Why does the government so soon renew the attempt after the house has taken a position so obvious and so decisive?
Is the present government mocking the democratic decision of the representatives of the Canadian people? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are discovering such an autocratic government.
On the very principle of retention or abolition of capital punishment, on April 5, 1966,
4312	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence the House of Commons made a definite decision, at least for the duration of this twenty-seventh parliament, for the retention of capital punishment by a vote of 143 to 112.
In spite of this clear majority decision, the government, within a few months and under the same parliament, submits anew the same subject matter of an amendment that was voted down by a solid majority of 105 votes.
Does the government consider hon. members of this house so fickle as to change their opinion from one season to another? I think the present government, Mr. Speaker, is wavering in irresponsibility and equivocation. Furthermore, the present government makes a mockery of existing legislation and of the views of the majority of the members elected by the Canadian people since they have commuted to life imprisonment all death sentences that were brought before them since April 1966. That is contempt of parliament, arrogance and faint-heartedness.
If the government wants all Canadians to respect the law as it stands today, let it set the example. That is the price we must pay to obtain better results in establishing public peace and order.
I am convinced that hon. members are consistent and that this bill will be defeated. If such a question must be brought up again for consideration, I feel that it should be dealt with by a future parliament. Then, the whole principle of abolition or retention of the death penalty, in every case, can be dealt with.
Everyone in this house knows that I favour retention of the death penalty. Indeed, on page 1748 and following of Hansard for May 30, 1958, as well as on page 3271 and following of Hansard for March 28, 1966, one can read the arguments I put forward and still uphold for the retention of the death penalty to serve as an efficient deterrent of capital murder, as an appropriate punishment, as a protection for the prison administration, as a means of eliminating as much as possible the increase in professional criminals, and as an example.
In my statement of March 28, 1966, I disclosed to the house the results of a survey I made in the riding of Sherbrooke, and the conclusions arrived at after consulting the members of the junior chamber of commerce of Sherbrooke. In the first case, 88 per cent of the replies favoured retention. In the second instance, 73 per cent of the members of the junior chamber of commerce of Sherbrooke opposed abolition of the death penalty.

DEBATES	November 15, 1967
I can tell the house that since March 28, 1966, the same views are being held and the great majority of my electors object, like I do, to any amendment to the Criminal Code on this important point.
Besides, the bill introduced by the Solicitor General proves unsatisfactory and contradictory in several respects. I shall point out a few of them.
The bill retains hanging merely with a view to protecting prison guards and police officers, as a deterrent of capital murder. It is a clear admission that capital punishment helps to restrain murderers. Now, if hanging is still a great deterrent of murders in the case of prison guards and police officers, it remains so just as much in the case of other citizens.
Those exceptions made for two groups of citizens, in the performance of their duties, imply a discriminatory attitude towards other human lives. As far as I know, we all have equal rights to live and to have our life protected.
Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Solicitor General, accompanied by a guard, should visit a penitentiary and that two prisoners would kill them both. In one case, the criminal would be hanged because he would have killed the guard, while the other would be spared because he would have killed the Solicitor General. Mr. Speaker, I have too much respect for the life of the hon. Solicitor General whom I consider as useful to society as that guard. That is why I cannot accept such an imbroglio. Furthermore, let us be more logical. Why should we give more protection to prison guards and police officers? These people are professionals; they are often armed and protected from murderers, while the great majority of citizens who are quietly attending to their business do not expect to be killed and would deserve as much protection, if not more.
Statistics show that, since 1945, in Canada, out of about 250 capital murders, only four guards in federal penitentiaries were murdered and only 19 police officers have suffered the same fate, that is hardly 9 per cent of victims.
What does the government do, through the medium of its bill, to prevent murderers from killing other citizens, representing 89 per cent of the victims since 1945, such as bank employees and the innocent victims of jealousy and revenge? What is the government doing also to protect judges, lawyers, court officials and private detectives?
November 15, 1967

It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is an incoherent text which does not even call into question again the basic principles of the matter under consideration.
I ask hon. members to do as I am doing, to kill this bill right now and to hold it up to ridicule.
It will have shown once more that the present government is a past master at wavering, equivocating and fumbling.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to insist on the obvious contradictions of some hon. members of the house, particularly the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who sits on the government side.
I read again, in the official report of the house, the position he took in 1966 on this important issue. I noted on page 1060, where he expressed very vigorously and with much conviction, on February 10, 1966, his first views on this important question of the maintenance or abolition of capital punishment. As shown on pages 1060 and 1061, he said:
-I respectfully submit that the prospective debate on capital punishment should be delayed as much as possible because I think the time is not ripe for such a debate, for the following reasons:
-among various reasons, he said that:
-from 1961 to 1965, there was, in the province of Quebec, an average of 57 murders per year, that is 28 per cent more during the period when the new government mitigated the penalty by commuting death sentences.
The stand taken by the hon. member for Lotbiniere is very clear. He said in the house that day that it was not the moment to deal with this question in view of the increase in the number of crimes committed between 1961 and 1965 which, incidentally, is still rising.
Moreover, on March 24, 1966, in his great speech on the main motion, the hon. member for Lotbiniere denied the federal cabinet the right to commute death sentences. He advanced many arguments in favour of the maintenance of capital punishment.
I wish to refer the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the other hon. members to the eloquent plea he addressed to the house on that occasion.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Now, how come the hon. member for Lotbiniere has changed his mind this year? Does he want to back up this government, who takes the members of this house for changelings, for reintroducing a specific
DEBATES	4313
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence issue which was rejected last year by a significant majority, namely, 105 votes. Does this government expect the same members to change their mind, when called upon to vote on the same issue, the same principle?
Well, I did find one changeling in the house, namely, the hon. member for Lotbiniere. To this effect, I would refer you to the vote taken on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Montreal-Cartier (Mr. Klein). As a matter of fact, this amendment called for the withdrawal of the main motion, that is, to retain the death penalty only when the victims were jail guards or police officers.
We see on page 3910 of Hansard that the hon. member for Lotbiniere voted against that amendment. He now says that he will support a motion on the same subject matter brought forward by his government. This is a glaring contradiction, unworthy of hon. members of this house who, from one week to the other, want to change their minds about such basic and important matters.
I understand that, this year, the motion is brought forward by the government of which he is a member-there is probably some partisanship involved-while last year, it was moved by several members of the government and opposition who were asking for a free vote. But this year, the motion is brought forward by the government itself and we see the hon. member for Lotbiniere change his mind. This is unfortunately what we call partisanship when such an important issue is involved.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this amendment of the hon. member for Cartier, we notice that nine ministers, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) have voted against the amendment that contains essentially the motion introduced by this government and the Prime Minister.
Well, let us be logical at least if we want the Canadian people to believe that their representatives are consequential and logical, specially on such important matters. And I notice in this vote taken on this amendment in 1966 which is substantially the same as the government motion, that nine ministers and the Prime Minister have voted against it, that is, to maintain total capital punishment, without any exception.
Well, how can the hon. Prime Minister and these nine ministers, after hardly a few months, vote quite logically and decently for a motion they defeated last year on an
November 15, 19G7
4314	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence amendment that is in substance exactly the same?
We notice also that the hon. Registrar General (Mr. Turner) shows an attitude somewhat more logical than the hon. member for Lotbiniere, because last year, in 1966, the hon. Registrar General had voted for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cartier. He had voted for the retention of capital punishment only for the murderers of prison guards and policemen. This week, he has indicated that he would vote for the motion introduced by the government of which he is a supporter. Here at least is a logical man. In fact, he is more logical than his leader, the right hon. Prime Minister, who voted against the amendment.
The right hon. Prime Minister, through his cabinet, is going to vote for something which he condemned last year. This is known as tergiversation, a policy of procrastination on the part of the present government which has an effect not only on this most important moral and social question, but on all sectors of the Canadian economy.
I shall conclude here my brief remarks. I urge all the hon. members whose name appears in Hansard, who voted last year on the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) and rejected it as being unacceptable, in accordance with their conscience and because they believed it necessary to retain capital punishment in Canada for the various reasons that were given, to behave in a way that is logical, and seemly and shows that they are aware of their responsibilities. Therefore, I invite the hon. members on the government side as well as on the opposition side, who voted against that amendment last year, to vote the same way, so that the Canadian people may realize that we, the legislators, are not weathercocks, people who say one thing today and who will say the opposite tomorrow. The Canadian people must be conscious of the fact that when their legislators rise to speak in this house, they do so with a sense of responsibility, after thoughtful, consideration and not on the spur of the moment, liable to change their mind the following week, and that when we vote on a question we do so knowledgeably, conscientiously and permanently.


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the problem of abolition I wish first to congratulate sincerely those who have spoken in this debate so far. I am sure they were sincere in their remarks.

I concur in the statement of the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford) when he acknowledged that the death penalty is a deterrent. I know that some retentionists will lift their eyebrows at that statement. The death penalty was and is a deterrent. At the same time we must not forget to take into consideration what criminologists, sociologists and royal commissions which have been engaged in a full-time study of this problem have said. They agree that life imprisonment is as great a deterrent as capital punishment.


Reid Scott: Hear, hear.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that no matter how we feel individually as members of this house we ought to take into consideration the findings of those who have studied this matter and who have given their full time to that study? In other words, let us take a little advice from those who have made a full-time study of the question of capital punishment. I do not think that I know more than any other member of the house, be he a retentionist or abolitionist. I feel that I am an average man.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he be kind enough to tell us what he understands by life imprisonment?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: So far as I am concerned we must leave that definition to the bill in its final form.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Can the hon. member not give a definition?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I think we should leave that matter to the decision of those who know how best to deal with it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Oh, yes.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Personally, I have tried to look at this entire question logically and I am willing to take the advice of those who know what this matter is about. Surely not one member of the house, including the hon. member who just asked the question, thinks he knows more about this subject than those criminologists who day in and day out, 365 days of the year, deal with these people. Surely they know more about the subject than hon. members who make 20 minute speeches about it in the House of Commons. Certainly they know more. Let us take their advice and let us give this bill a chance.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member ought to give us a definition.
November 15, 1967

[DOT] (4:00 p.iri.)


John Maxwell Roxburgh: An abolitionist does not become an abolitionist overnight. Let us be honest about this. Abolitionists have formed their views gradually over the years after searching their hearts and looking into this matter. Possibly they were retentionists before they did so. Last night the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alken-brack), I believe it was, told the house that in the first two years of abolition in Great Britain the murder rate had risen. I am sorry the hon. member is not in the house at the present time but 1 should like to point out for the benefit of those who are in the house that right here in Canada in 1958 and 1959 33 people were murdered compared with 19 people in the two previous years, an increase of about 8 per cent. This only goes to illustrate that sound judgment on any matter cannot be made on the basis of short-term statistics. This is why the Solicitor General has asked that the abolition of the death penalty be given a five-year test period.
Like many other straight abolitionists I am not satisfied with the bill as it is. But I honestly feel it is a forward step. As an abolitionist I would like to have seen these reservations left out. Incidentally, most of us have been members of this house for a considerable period now and I think we would all agree that without doubt one of the finest pleas for abolition this parliament has ever heard was that made by the Solicitor General the other day. In the course of his speech he pointed out that the reservation affecting police officers and others in similar position would, if nothing else, give moral support to the men and women engaged in law enforcement, people who, by the way, are doing a terrific job for us in Canada.
Realizing there are many who wish to speak and that time is limited I should like to deal with three points before I sit down. First, can something be done for the convict and for society by imposing life imprisonment rather than capital punishment? It seems to me this is a most important consideration. I want my retentionist friends to search their souls. Is capital punishment fair to people in all walks of life?
I could go into many individual cases which might throw light on whether a person serving a life sentence can be of value to society. I will confine my examples to two prominent cases that everyone knows about. Consider the case of Robert Stroud, the celebrated bird man of Alcatraz who became a
DEBATES	4315
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence world authority on birds. The work this man did in the little time and space available to him was something out of this world. Then there is Nathan Leopold who as an 18-year old Chicago youth figured in one of the most bizarre murders in legal history. Yet this man, now released from detention, is working on research into diseases in South America on behalf of the United States government, and if his work ends as expected it will mean the saving of thousands of lives.
However, what concerns me more is the question whether capital punishment is fair and just to people in all walks of life. Sing Sing has become quite a name. Louis E. Laws of that prison, who has escorted some 150 men and women to the death chamber, has said: "All were poor; most were friendless." Clinton P. Duffy of San Quentin hated the death penalty because, he said: "It hits the little man who is poor, poor not only in material possessions, but in background, education and mental capacity."
Recently, prison director Alexander of the United States criticized capital punishment on the grounds of its failure as a deterrent, the possibility of false conviction, and the fact that a capital punishment sentence is applied more easily to penniless convicts than to those with sufficient funds to carry them through the necessary appeals and legal manoeuvres. He went on to say that a grossly disproportionate number of minority and poverty stricken groups were victims of the death sentence.
We in this parliament represent all the people. Let retentionists not forget that they too represent the little man as well as the fellow who has some money in his pocket. Indeed, they represent a good many more poor people than they do people with sufficient money in their pockets to enable them to get clear away from the death sentence.
I realize there are very few hon. members present on the benches opposite. They were all here earlier to hear their new leader. I never saw such a group. Very few of them have showed up across the way until the new Leader of the Opposition came along, and I only hope-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: All right. I will continue. I see that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams)-I almost said "Bull River"-has just come in. During his remarks he spoke highly of our courts of justice, and, indeed, I believe we have some of the finest in the world. But I should like to ask him this
November 15, 1967
4316	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence question. How does he explain the fact that people with money have a much better chance of escaping execution than those without money? There is no argument against that.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
There is a saying that the rich man may find it pretty difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven, but there are far fewer rich men who ever enter the execution chamber. I ask hon. members to think of the little man who elected them to represent him. Think about him when he comes before the courts without any money. I know of one case where the prosecution spent $40,000 and the little man, the defendant, had one lawyer and about $1,800 or $2,000 for his defence. That is justice in our courts. To my way of thinking this points out a very grave weakness in the administration of the justice in democratic countries. No matter how we may look at it, the little man with no money is left holding the bag, whether it is his neck that is at stake or whether he may be facing a period of time in jail.
Many years ago Thomas Jefferson said, "I shall ask for the abolition of the punishment of death until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me." This brings me to my third point, that the possibility of a mistake is always present. Michigan Senator Philip A. Hart pointed out in a recent speech before the senate that error in court proceedings is not an extreme rarity. He went on to point out that during the period 1889 to 1927 of 406 persons sent to Sing Sing for execution 50 were found, upon reconsideration, to have been sentenced in error. Yet we are told that there is no chance of an error in our courts. Here is proof. It bears repeating, and I am going to repeat it, that out of 406 persons sent to Sing Sing for execution 50 were found, upon reconsideration, to have been sentenced in error. I know the retentionists will say, that the 50 got off but the very fact that such error could happen leaves one with a feeling that some of the remaining 356 might very easily have been innocent also.
None of us wants to face death, but to have the noose put around your neck or walk into the gas chamber must be an awful death. I think I can take as much as any man. I have gone through a lot in life, but I think this would be one of the hardest deaths Jack Roxburgh could face.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that practically all the democratic countries of Europe, except France, Spain and the Iron


Curtain countries, have abolished the death penalty. Mississippi has not abolished it. I say to hon. members opposite who I person-naly know are retentionists, are you putting yourselves in the same class as the people of Mississippi who are a disgrace to the United States? Are you putting yourself in that class? If you vote for the retention of the death penalty in this country you will certainly be doing that. Rather than an eye for an eye or a life for a life, let us pass this bill, and give it force for a five-year period. What is to be lost by giving it a five-year trial? I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hales:: Would the hon. member for Norfolk permit a question?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I guess I pretty well have to in deference to my hon. friend from Wellington South.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Is the hon. member for Norfolk going to vote for the bill, knowing full well that the bill does not spell out what life imprisonment means?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Very definitely. I have no hesitation whatever. I can just imagine what might happen if a case came before my hon. friend if he were in the government, because I know him well enough. We do change sides from time to time, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that the opposition feel they are going to be the government pretty soon. This is what we hear from them. My hon. friend will most likely be minister of industry in such a new government. I know that if he were sitting on a case, knowing there is so much difference between cases, he would realize you cannot make one judgment for everything. That is not democracy. I think that answers the hon. member's question.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, for the fourth consecutive day, we are considering this Bill C-168 which allows us to discuss a subject which has been considered and voted on a year and a half ago. And since only a few people are affected by this bill, I am led to believe that it is one of those bills which the government chooses to introduce in order to distract parliament's attention from the true problems which, in my opinion, are the following: the government financial crisis, the housing shortage and increasing unemployment.
And, while honest Canadians, millions of unemployed across the country wonder what the future has in store for them we, the
November 15, 1967

representatives, discuss a bill which will ensure a wonderful future to a few gangsters. [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
And this bill is summed up in the explanatory note to section 2:
The purpose of this bill is to confine the imposition of the death penalty in relation to murder to the murder of police officers and others employed for the maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of their duties, and to the murder of prison guards and other officers or permanent employees of prisons, acting in the course of their duties, for an experimental period of five years.
Supposing that the bill is passed, what effect will it have on the peace-loving people of this country? What will be its influence under the present government? The bill says: "for an experimental period of five years". Whose lives will be spared during this trial period? How will this period be conducted?
Since there has been no hanging in Canada ever since the Liberal government came to office, that is since 1962, in what category can we put the last four years? How can we consider a period where the sentences are commuted by the government? Can the cabinet take upon itself to ignore the instructions of parliament and the sentences meted out by our courts? We know that, at the end of February 1966, twenty death sentences had been commuted by the cabinet and it was only the beginning, since the Department of Justice has another list, as evidenced by page 8336 of Hansard of October 5, 1966. To another question which I put, namely No. 1929:
Are there any persons, at the present time, considered by the Department of Justice as "condemned to death" and being held in Canadian prisons?
Hon. Lucien Cardin, then minister of justice, answered yes to my question.
Here is the second part of my question and I quote:
If so (a) what is the number, by province (b) on what date is each such person expected to be executed?
This is the reply I got:
As of September 6, 1966 the answers are: (a) Quebec 9. (b) The dates presently set by the Courts for execution are: September 23, 1966 (1 person); September 30, 1966 (3 persons); October 14, 1966 (1 person); December 9, 1966 (1 person); December 16, 1966 (2 persons); January 13, 1967 (1 person);
Since that list was published, the matter of executions has never come up and the minister of justice of that time chose to hand in his resignation.
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
This bill proposes something rather strange, that is to restrict capital punishment. It is a rather strange proposal in my opinion, since that punishment has been non existent for four years. How come, within the present legislation, gangsters who have murdered police officers, have never been put to death? The answer to that question perhaps lies with the R.C.M.P. as we learn from a report in 1'Action, a Quebec newspaper, of January 18, 1966, under the heading:
"Crime syndicates are developing rapidly in Canada for three reasons", which I take the liberty to quote:
According to R.C.M.P. report, crime syndicates in Canada related to the American mafia are developing rapidly because of political corruption, fear and inadequately applied laws.
The report goes on to say that to continue to prosper, organized bands of criminals must have two assets: inadequate application of laws resulting partly from the division of jurisdiction between the federal, provincial and municipal governments, and protection against trials and interventions.
"To secure such an immunity, they have to pay bribes to persons having a certain authority in the police, municipal administrations and to politicians."
Mr. Speaker, I think that this article is self-explanatory, and I still say that this bill will deprive the people of their rights. It might be true that police officers are in danger and that their life is at stake sometimes, but that is debatable if one considers that other people are in danger, such as clerks in stores and watchmen in some buildings. Those people are all the more in danger because they lack the training and the weapons of the police officers to protect themselves.
I submit that the proposal to retain the death penalty only for the murderers of police and law officers and prison guards is a strange one and that, if unfortunately it were adopted, it would give dubious results.
Several factors make it impossible to appraise a human being. It is unfortunate that in order to manage to save a few heads, the government had to decide in favour of classifying the victims. Why put more emphasis on punishing the murderer of a bachelor police officer and consider the killing of a head of family as a second degree murder? How can one ignore the murder of an irreplaceable mother and think only of protecting a prison guard who can be replaced at any time on the mere recommendation of a political organizer?
If the bill under consideration were to be passed, what treatment would be meted out to those who take pleasure in planting bombs
November 15, 1967
4318	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence and committing mass murders? In addition, I cannot find anything either in the bill regarding the punishment provided for someone who would blow up a plane, for instance, with its 50 or 100 passengers.
Imagine a revolution during which hundreds of persons would be killed. On the basis of the present bill, it is clear that the murderers would simply be imprisoned, but it would merely take the arrival of a Castro to open all the prisons and all those murderers would be decorated and treated as heroes. The murder, as provided in this bill, would be a capital murder inasmuch as the corpse would meet the requirements of the classifiers.
As the manager of a business during many years, I have sent to the slaughter-house several heads of cattle. There is a scale of grades in such a business. If you send a steer to the slaughter-house, for example, it will be graded choice No. 1 or choice No. 2. There is the first grade, medium grade and commercial grade. In the case of fresh pork, it will be graded A, B or C and downgraded if it is too fatty. However, in the case of human beings, the law simplifies this classification, in the sense that the ordinary citizen is excluded, and only those who wear a policeman's badge, a tin star, as they say, before the massacre, are being considered.
The list of people for whom this bill provides protection is too short, I think, and this makes it unacceDtable. I know that several members are of the same opinion.
On looking over Hansard of Friday, November 10, on page 4163, we find that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) suggested a longer list. Since he has no family, this member, in his eloquent appeal for additional protection, has thought of his spiritual leader, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson). He also suggested another name, that is, our national father, the governor general.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I will support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere on condition that he add to his amendment the names of my wife and my six children, as well as that of the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roland Godin: I think that, to be fair to the people of Montreal, who have their own tastes and cannot care less about federal


politics-I speak here for 70 per cent of the people of Montreal who never vote-we would have to add another name, that of the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Drapeau.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roland Godin: I shall vote against this bill because I also know the views of the voters in my constituency. During the winter of 1966, I held a sort of referendum in my riding on the retention of capital punishment. Out of 3,125 replies received at that time in answer to my questionnaire, 2,978 supported the retention of capital punishment whereas 147 were against it. I am preciously keeping all these letters which bear the signature and address of every citizen who has made it his duty to express an opinion.
Now, the percentage of those who favour retaining capital punishment is possibly higher in Portneuf than in other ridings of the country and I think there are three reasons for that.
First, there is envy. The workers, the taxpayers in the constituency of Portneuf are envious of the royal treatment given to bandits in penitentiaries, because where former inmates come back to see us, they explain how they are fed and we realize that 60 per cent of the population of the country cannot afford such food and such menus.
The citizens of Portneuf are envious also of the long holidays of various duration given to certain bandits on the Florida or California coasts.
The second reason, Mr. Speaker, is that the people of Portneuf have a long memory and here, the motto of Quebec "Je me souviens" takes another meaning. The citizens of Portneuf remember that in the Quebec area several young boys were strangled by a former inmate who had been sentenced to life imprisonment but who was liberated through certain influences. The people of my area also remember that the same prisoner escaped from jail in Quebec city, carrying the governor of the jail on his back.
These citizens also realize, Mr. Speaker, that the endless succession of trials held for those people, those individuals, those bandits, those murderers who normally should have been hanged a long time ago, is very costly for them.
The third reason, Mr. Speaker, is that Portneuf is situated on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, behind the constituency of Lotbiniere. Now, being situated behind the constituency of Lotbiniere does not prevent
November 15, 1967

Portneuf from being the most beautiful riding in the country and one of the most picturesque areas of the globe since we have the river, plains and mountains.
But, precisely, because it is situated behind the constituency of Lotbiniere, each time the citizens of Portneuf look to the other shore of the St. Lawrence they see the forests of Lotbiniere which were once changed into burial grounds. Every time we go to the south shore, when travelling to the Beauce or the Eastern Townships, we sometimes go to Sherbrooke because it is also a beautiful spot. It is also absolutely necessary to cross the riding of Lotbiniere. Well, every time we travel on those roads, we cannot help but think that we are driving on corpses. No mistake is possible: several miles of roads in the riding of Lotbiniere have already been paved with corpses.
All these events, Mr. Speaker, have contributed to enlighten my constituents who are extremely dissatisfied with the attitude of the present government in the last five years as regards the death penalty.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, for three days, some members have been plucking at our heartstrings by harping on the cruelty of it all. Well, I say to them that if it is cruel to execute a murderer, why not close all the prisons? Indeed, I feel that it is just as cruel to lock somebody up for the rest of his life. And what about this bill in regard to the financial crisis of the government?
Interesting figures are indeed given in this regard on page 2760 of the official report of March 16, 1966. It is expensive to keep a criminal in prison. I should like to quote some figures. As hon. members know, family allowances have remained the same for the last twenty years, but the cost of keeping a prisoner has increased in proportion to the rising cost of living.
In 1962-63, for instance, as is shown on page 2760 of the French version of the official report of March 16, 1966, it cost $2,572.65 to keep a single prisoner in minimum security institutions; in 1964-65, it cost $3,019.92.
Mr. Speaker, that means that one single prisoner costs more per day to the government than the monthly family allowances. Indeed, considering the fact that in our ridings widows and needy mothers, under our present welfare system, must be content with an allowance of $5.50 per day for a family of six, while the amount spent in our penal
Division
institutions is $8.00 per day for each prisoner, it is obvious that the country cannot afford to finance a collection of bandits.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), that the debate be adjourned immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. Godin. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those against the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the motion is lost.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. Your Honour will have noted that I abstained from voting. I did so upon the ground that I believe myself to have an interest in the subject matter of the bill, not a financial interest but one affecting the ethics of my profession which prevents me from recording my vote on any aspect of this matter.
I am still an active participant in my firm's practice of law in the Yukon. At the moment a member of my firm is engaged in the defence in two separate cases of individuals who have been charged with capital murder. Hon. members will readily understand my position if a conviction or convictions results and capital punishment was eventually retained by one vote. A serious conflict would immediately arise.
I therefore do not consider it proper for me to participate in any vote at any stage of the proceedings on this bill while my firm is engaged as I have described. Had I considered myself free to vote on the final determination of this matter, Mr. Speaker, I would vote for the retention of capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready to vote on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members realize that we need unanimous consent to proceed and that at least one hon. member has called it five o'clock.


Michael Starr: Who is that?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has identified himself. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.
November 15, 1967

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of including in its Centennial projects the formation of a training service for Canadian youths aged between 15 and 20 years under the responsibility of the Canadian Forces; this service to be on a voluntary basis and allow the youths to spend two or three months a year in various camps or military institutions throughout the country, alternating their stay from one year to the next in different regions of Canada; the whole project to be organized in co-operation with the Departments of Education of the various provinces and enable the teachers to join the Canadian Forces for the same period so that they might take an active part in this program; and such service to be one factor in uniting young Canadians who, through it, would learn to know each other better and to know their country, and develop a better spirit of discipline and citizenship, all within the framework of a program of physical and linguistic education.
He said: Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes that will follow, we will have a debate which, in my opinion, may be somewhat more constructive than the one we have had for the last few days, at least it will be a debate that will make us look forward, since it concerns the Canadian youth.
Mr. Speaker, on two previous occasions, 1 introduced in the house a motion with a view of creating a compulsory training service for Canadian youths aged between 18 and 21 years of age.
Some members of this house may wonder why this year I have changed my project to make it voluntary and applicable only during the school holidays period.
For a very simple reason, Mr. Speaker. I realize more and more the advantages such a service of military training would have for our youth. I have also realized, however, that because of many sociological, political and economic factors, such a service, were it to be compulsory, could not be expected to be established within a short period of time.
I have therefore arrived at a compromise and I hope that all members of this house will support my proposal today, since it is urgent to provide our young people with a complementary educational and training sys-

Centennial Youth Summer Program tern which will, in my opinion, meet a growing need.
Our young people themselves suffer and, without realizing it, blame society which fails to provide them with all the means they need to develop in the twentieth century.
As a matter of fact, the development of our educational system and the great need of skills in this spatial and electronic era result in the production of specialists, but more and more formal education and the moulding of the character of the individual are overlooked.
Of course, I know, and Your Honour also, that the government is seeking now much more to find means of reducing its expenses than to introduce legislation aiming at increasing the taxpayers' burden.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that priorities must be exercised, and I for one believe that tomorrow's generation should have priority nowadays.
Obviously, there is no question of asking the government, at the present time to spend millions of dollars at once, but to suggest that an exhaustive study be undertaken, whether directly by the staff of the department or through referral of the matter to the national defence committee, with respect to the advantages of such a project and on its social and economic implications.
Mr. Speaker, very few will deny the benefits of a stay of a few months or of a few years in a military institution or in our armed forces. Many hon. members have known military life personally and now acknowledge that they derived significant benefits from it.
Most of us know our cadet corps, our militia units, our active units, our military colleges, etc., which are all permament testimonials to what military training brings to young people and to the fact that it gives them the opportunity to support one another in an environment where authority is recognized by everyone and, especially, appreciated because it is respected and undisputed.
In this motion, Mr. Speaker, I only propose, in fact, the establishment of a civic training program, which is more than is now offered through cadet corps, and that could be done through a reorientation of the present program of cadet corps with the possibility of increasing their number considerably during the holidays while extending a little the training period during that time.
November 15, 1967


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available I can only say in general terms that I congratulate the hon. member for directing the attention of the house to an important, timely and perhaps timeless matter. It is not only in our own time that the youthful generation is disquieted about those of us who are of riper years, as the prayer book puts it. It is not only now that the young have called their elders "squares'1, or whatever the modern jargon of the day happened to be.
Having made that general and sound sociological observation, I think we do live in an age when there is an excessive restlessness among our youth which we disregard at our peril. It behooves all public people at all levels of government to note carefully the way in which their institutions take note of what is sometimes called the generational revolt.
We live in an age of restlessness and protest; we live in an age when people, both young and old, are more mobile than ever before. I am attracted by the suggestion that we should find some means whereby groups of young people might move from one part of the country to another. I am attracted by the idea that in the process of living together there could be a greater facility and felicity developed in the two languages of this country. This development is something to be desired. Some of us in our mid-forties may not become proficient bilingually before we reach our mid-fifties, although we might try, but I think the people in younger groups might succeed and any attempt in this regard would be a notable, and perhaps noble, service on the part of the government.
I cannot comment on the details of the hon. member's program. I am not a military expert and I do not know what would be the demands of such a program upon the existing institutions. Nor do I know the problems which might be presented to the military establishment in training of a group which would be at best, quasi-militaristic. This problem would require a good deal more consideration.
November 15, 1967

Centennial Youth Summer Program
The suggestion that emphasis be placed upon training in language and in physical education is one that I heartily commend. Being neither an outstanding physical specimen of manhood nor an outstanding linguist I can say that had a program like this been in effect 20 or 30 years ago things might have been better from a personal standpoint. In a more serious vein, I believe this is the kind of thing we should be thinking of more often in this legislative chamber, particularly when very often we seem bound to become a mill for grinding out a lot of legislation, some of which is pretty tedious and much of which is controversial. We should take a look at some of those things which are more fundamental to the over-all life process and look at some of the values of this society we seek to serve rather than concentrate merely on the mechanics of existing institutions of that society. To this extent I should like to commend the hon. member for bringing our attention to this matter of importance.
I have seen a few proposals like this in recent years and I think this is altogether wholesome and good. If this can be done through the existing Department of National Defence, with co-operation from the departments of education, it is a splendid idea. If it does no more than bring about a greater degree of co-operation among provincial departments of education this would be a very favourable step. We suffer greatly from too much differentiation from province to province in the field of education. There are far too many tight little empires built in departments of education all across the land, and I believe our young people are suffering as a consequence. In a highly mobile society such as ours this should be looked at in a corrective way. Therefore I should like to commend the hon. member for his thoughtful contribution on a very important matter.


Mr. Jean Berger (Monlmagny-LTslef):: Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances, I would have been most happy today to join with my colleague for Beauhamois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), not only to support, but also to promote his very interesting motion.
Unfortunately, we all know what sad fate is in store for motions of this type under the obsolete rules of the house. In spite of my personal feelings expressed on other occasions with regard to the practice of killing

bills, to my regret, I must use up the last remaining minutes to congratulate my colleague for Beauharnois-Salaberry and ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ca-dieux)-who, I noticed, has listened very carefully to my colleague's suggestions, even though we will not have much success today -to see to it that his department which is under such a competent and able management-and I congratulate the minister on his recent appointment-take it upon itself to introduce a bill which would then be much more acceptable.
Far from me, Mr. Speaker, the thought of creating a tide of marked militarism, something about which many of our compatriots are always suspicious and rightly so. I have taken due note of the principle laid down in the motion, that service would be on a voluntary basis. Having had the opportunity of witnessing the efficiency of summer holiday training of cadets, for instance at the Farn-harm camp in the eastern townships, I can only agree that our youth is greatly lacking in the spirit of discipline, of order and ef respect for the established authority, at every level.
They no longer believe in anything, or anybody, follow any instructions, wherever they come from. The spirit of unconditional freedom, if I may use the expression, cannot fail to cause us deep concern. I think that this is one of the best ways to counter this mad race to the sorry rules of anarchy and revolution.
Mr. Speaker, the house is aware of the unfortunate happenings nowadays, in sorry associations or communities of hippies, beatniks and others, who feed on LSD, marijuana or free love, and it is with measures like the one proposed by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry that we undoubtedly will fight more efficiently and get better results.
Mr. Speaker, in closing and in view of the fact that we can make no further progress today, I express the wish once again that this idea will not become a dead letter in the pigeon holes that are already bulging with forgotten files of the House of Commons. I am convinced that the hon. Minister of National Defence, who understands the problem well, will consult his senior officers and implement in a tangible way with more chances of success if the initiative is taken
November 15, 1967	COMMONS
by the government, the bill advocated by my colleague, which I support with all the sincerity I am capable of.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is now six o'clock. I look forward to the government's action.
DEBATES	4325
Centennial Youth Summer Program The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif): The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
4327
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 16, 1967