1973-07-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
July 19, 1973-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane) (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts):
That the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, presented to the House on Monday, July 16, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cochrane has given notice of his intention to move concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. I have to advise the hon. member and the House that the Chair has had a cursory look at the report and there are some procedural difficulties in relation to the form of the report.
As hon. members know, the Chair has pointed out to the House from time to time the importance of following the time honoured form in which committees make recommendations to the House and that the government give consideration to the taking of certain action. This form was not followed in respect of this report and I have some doubt that the House would want the Chair to accept a report presented in this form. I am not making a firm ruling in this regard but I am asking the House to give the Chair an opportunity to look at the matter a little more closely and perhaps discuss it with the chairman of the committee.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, without debate, but expressing the deep concern which I am sure is felt on all parts of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this House of Commons strongly deplores the action of the government of France in exploding a nuclear bomb in the South Pacific, and urges, in the name of humanity, that any further tests in the atmosphere be cancelled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The motion of the hon. member is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: My impression is that there is not any "no". If there is, I think that should be made clear. On the assumption that there is agreement, with the approval of members I will put the motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 which reads as follows:
That this House of Commons strongly deplores the action of the government of France in exploding a nuclear bomb in the South Pacific, and urges, in the name of humanity, that any further tests in the atmosphere be cancelled.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion whose urgency is more serious than ever. In view of the lack of jobs offered to students and graduates in June 1973, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That before this House adjourns for the summer, it take steps to spur our national economy so as to enable June 1973 graduates and other students to find jobs and thus earn a living, while at the same time making their contribution to the development and prosperity of our country, which must be our objective if we are to ensure economic prosperity and peace in our society.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot therefore be put.

July 23, 1973
Maritime Code


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-215, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (farm tractors).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, in very simple terms, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations requiring farm tractors to be equipped with safety roll bars or safety cabs, and seat belts and thus avoid the tragic consequences which have too often occurred when a tractor has overturned. About 25 farmers a year lose their lives in Canada through this kind of accident.


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

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT TO EXPAND CLASSES OF ENTITLEMENT On the order: Introduction of Bills.
July 19, 1973-Mr. Stackhouse-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Family Allowances Act".
Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the bill of the hon. member for Scarborough East the Chair has to bring to the attention of the hon. member that there are procedural difficulties relating to the amendments proposed by the hon. member to the Family Allowances Act. My understanding of the hon. member's bill, which I have looked at earlier today, is that he wishes to expand the classes of individuals who could be beneficiaries of payments under the Family Allowances Act. I am sure that if such a bill were introduced by the government, a recommendation would be required, and I have difficulty in seeing how the hon. member can make this kind of amendment to an act without a recommendation. However, I am only pointing that out to the hon. member now so that he might reflect on the difficulty which faces the Chair in the hope that perhaps in the next few days he might have an opportunity to enlighten the Chair on how he thinks that this difficulty can be overcome.


MARITIME CODE ACT
Hon. Warren Allmand (for the Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-216, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Knight: 1.	What were the names of full-time employees in each federal department, departmental corporation, agency corporation and proprietary corporation, who, in the calendar year 1972, received over-time pay in excess of $1,000?
2.	What were the amounts of over-time pay in each case and what were the salary ranges of each of those employees?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The information requested is not readily available because it involves the searching of approximately 423,746 accounts covering employees of departments, departmental corporations, agency corporations and proprietary corporations and a very large number of these individual files would have to be looked at. To attempt to answer this question would involve a very large amount of work which costs in manpower and time would be exorbitant or prohibitive.


Mr. Knight: 1.	What were the names of full-time employees in each federal department, departmental corporation, agency corporation and proprietary corporation who, in the fiscal year 1971-72, submitted travel expenses in excess of $1,000?
2.	What were the amounts of travel expenses and what were the salary ranges of these employees?


John Mercer Reid: The information requested is not readily available. To provide an accurate reply would entail a lengthy and costly examination of the accounts of all departments, departmental corporations, agency corporations and proprietary corporations, which costs in manpower and time would be exorbitant or prohibitive.


Mr. Andre: 1.	What was the cost of production, printing and distribution of the Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1971, for the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	How many copies of the Report were distributed?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1.


[Stage Direction]
2.	1,700.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many employees have been separated from Air Canada service before attaining the normal retirement age of 65 (account reorganization, on early retirement pension, with separation allowances, ets.) since January 1, 1970?
July 23, 1973

2.	(a) What has been the Company policy in terms of a separation allowance for those retired early (b) has the policy been consistently applies to all employees?
3.	(a) Have there been special arrangements made in certain cases (b) are there still some employees on leave of absence with pay who were retired early in 1970 and 1971?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Air
Canada management advises as follows: 1. Approximately 130.
2.	(a) When mutually agreeable to both the employee and the Corporation, a separation allowance is offered based on age, length of service and management level, (b) Yes.
3.	(a) No; (b) Information concerning specific employees must be regarded as an internal management matter.


Mr. Haliburton: What are the passenger travel rates that Air Canada is charging on a mileage basis (a) within the Province of Nova Scotia (b) within the Maritime Region (c) between points in the Maritime Region and points in the Central Region (d) between points within the Province of Ontario (e) between points in the Central Region and points in the Western Region (f) between points within the Western Region (g) between Toronto and Montreal?


Jean Marchand: 1. Air
Canada management advises: The current domestic fares structure for normal or regular fares is based on the following formula: Routes of 1,100 Miles or Less; $12 plus 5.8 cents per mile; Routes of Over 1,100 Miles; $13.50 plus
6.0	cents per mile for the first 500 miles; $13.50 plus 5.5 cents per mile for the next 500 miles; $13.50 plus 5.0 cents per mile for the next 500 miles; $13.50 plus 4.5 cents per mile for the remaining miles.
Selecting points at random in the areas requested, this formula produces the following fares and rates per mile:
Mileage	Economy Fare	Rate per Mile(a) Halifax-Yarmouth	222	$ 20.00	9.000(b) St. John's, Nfld.-St. John, N.B.	666	51.00	7.650(c) Halifax-Toronto	800	58.00	7.250(d) London, Ont-Sudbury 299	29.00	9.690(e) Calgary-Toronto	1,670	104.00	6.220(f) Winnipeg-Vancouver	1,158	79.00	6.820(g) Montreal-Toronto	315	30.00	9.520
The current structure also provides for a number of discounts, as follows: 8/30 Day Excursion available October 1-May 30 on routes over 700 miles, blacked out Fridays and Sundays between 3 and 9 p.m., at 30 per cent discount; Weekend Fare one way or return available all year, midnight Friday to 3 p.m. Sunday at 30 per cent discount; Family Plan 25 per cent discount for spouse, 33'A per cent discount for additional dependents and 50 per cent discount for children. Available all year except on Fridays and Sundays; Senior Citizen available all year except
Order Paper Questions
Fridays and Sundays at 20 per cent discount; Youth Standby available all year except Fridays and Sundays at 40 per cent discount; Group Fare for 15 persons or more available all year except Fridays and Sundays 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. at 20 per cent discount.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	When the bids are received for the 1973 contracts for hauling Arctic cargo by water, operation Sealift, will special preference be made in awarding the contracts on the basis of ownership of Canadian-owned and registered ships and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Will such ships be required to have existing Canadian registry at the time of the contract being made?
3.	Will the government permit foreign registered ships to change their registry to obtain contracts?


Jean Marchand: 1.
Department of Transport tender specifications and contracts for the 1973 sealift requires the contractor(s) to guarantee that all ships used to haul the Arctic cargo will be of Canadian registry and if not British built, then fully duty paid.
2.	No, but ships must be in Canadian registry prior to acceptance for loading.
3.	Yes, providing they meet the requirements of the Canada Shipping Act and the Coasting Trade Regulations.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was an application for an Opportunities for Youth grant received bearing file number 31081833 and in the name of Gananoque Community Park?
2.	Was this application rejected and, if so, for what reason was rejection made?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. Opportunities for Youth application, "Gananoque Community Park", No. 31081833, was received March 3, 1973.
2.	The project was rejected for the following reasons: There was no satisfactory evidence to indicate that project members possessed the necessary skill and experience relating to the project's proposed activities, and little evidence was produced of their specific community support or available skilled expertise.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Was an agreement made in 1970 suspending the provisions of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, Part II, and arranging for the Department of Labour to collect the information required by law to be filed with the Dominion Statistician and, if so (a) by whom (b) under what authority (c) for what reason (d) what was the outcome?
2.	(a) By what authority does the Department of Labour publish union membership data and related information coming within the purview of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act (b) does the Minister plan to take action to resolve this jurisdictional incongruity?

July 23, 1973
Order Paper Questions


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of Labour as follows: 1. Early in 1970, at the request of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, interdepartmental arrangements were developed aimed at eliminating the duplication caused by the concurrent operation of the Department of Labour's annual survey of labour arganizations and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. Under these arrangements, information submitted by unions to the Department of Labour in fulfillment of the January 1, 1971 survey requirements were made available to Statistics Canada to satisfy the major portion of the 1970 reporting requirements of Section 9 (a) of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. For this reason, certain additional items of information were requested of unions by the Department of Labour in their January 1971 survey. This arrangement did not reduce the legislative requirements of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act as information which was not available through the Canada Department of Labour survey was obtained directly by Statistics Canada. Following the 1970 survey year, this arrangement was terminated.
2.	(a) The Department of Labour publishes union membership data and related information by authority of the Department of Labour Act, R.S., c. 72, s. 4; (b) there is no jurisdictional incongruity.


Mr. Crouse: In view of the universal unrest throughout Canada over the present inadequate, complicated, and unjust income tax forms, is the Minister of National Revenue planning to review this matter, with the objective of providing a more practical, simplified form for the payment of income tax next year?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Insofar as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation is concerned: The premises on which the question is based are considered to be invalid and therefore no review has been planned based on them. There is a continuing program aimed at simplification of income tax forms and the forms are reviewed each year. During this review, suggestions made by taxpayers, tax practitioners and other interested persons are considered as well as the experionce of the department during the previous filing season. Furthermore, the Minister has invited suggestions in this respect from all members of parliament and still awaits with interest those of the hon. member for South Shore. It should be noted that in addition to providing for the various features of the Income Tax Act, the 1972 Income Tax form was designed to serve the needs of nine provincial Income Tax Acts, Canada Pension Plan, Quebec Pension Plan, Unemployment Insurance Act, Ontario property tax credit, and Manitoba education property tax credit. This relieved the public from having to file a multiplicity of separate forms. Every effort will continue to be made to keep the form as simple as possible and at the same time provide adequate guidance to the taxpayer both as to the declaration of his income and as to the deductions to which he may be entitled.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	How many individuals were either laid off or allowed to go on vacation from their jobs with the printing department of Information Canada (i.e. The Queen's Printer) in the 12 month period between October 30, 1971 and October 30, 1972 as compared with the period October 30, 1970 and October 30, 1971?
2.	How many printing contracts were awarded to the private sector in the period from October 30, 1971 to October 30, 1972, as compared with the period of October 30, 1970 to October 30, 1971 (a) were public tenders requested in each case (b) were the tenders opened in public (c) what were the total amounts involved in each case?


Hon.. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: If the reference in the question to the printing department of Information Canada (i.e. The Queen's Printer) is meant to mean the Printing Operations of the Department of Supply and Services, the answer is: 1. No employees were laid off and no employees were allowed to go on vacation, other than those absences provided for in the Union agreements, during the period October 30, 1970 to October 30, 1972. By attrition there was a reduction in staff as follows: October 31, 1970 to October 31, 1971, 0.8 per cent; October 31, 1971 to October 31, 1972, 4.6 per cent.
2.	Five thousand fifty-six printing contracts were awarded to the private sector by D.S.S. Printing Operations during the period October 30, 1971 to October 30, 1972. Two thousand nine hundred seventeen contracts were awarded during the period October 30, 1970 to October 30, 1971; (a) An invitation to tender was issued for all requirements. In a very limited number of cases, such as when there is only one known source of supply for an item, a sole source tender was issued; (b) No; (c) October 30, 1971 to October 30, 1972: $22,731,000; October 30, 1970 to October 30, 1971: $11,501,000.


Mr. Stevens: What are the names of the plumbing contractors and suppliers who have regular service contracts with the government in the National Capital area (a) were public tenders requested in each case (b) were the tenders opened in public (c) what are the contract amounts in each case?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Palmers Plumbing Supply Ltd., Ottawa was awarded a Standing Offer contract on February 25, 1972 for the period ending June 30, 1973 for plumbing supplies. The financial limitation of this Standing Offer is $260,000. Interprovincial Plumbing and Heating Registered, Ltd., Ottawa was awarded a Standing Offer contract on March 16, 1973 for the period from April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1975 for plumbing services. The financial limitation of this Standing Offer is $16,000. (a) Yes; (b) no; (c) See above.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	How many programs or applicants proposed for support by Opportunities for Youth this year had previously been denied support by (a) Canada Council (b) any agency of the Department of the Secretary of State (c) any other federal grant-giving agency?
July 23, 1973

2.	Of the above, how many were approved for support by Opportunities for Youth?
3.	What was the name of each such program or aplicant?
4.	What was the reason for approval in each case?
5.	Of the programs or applicants cited in Part 3, which ones had been denied support by (a) Canada Council (b) any agency of the Department of the Secretary of State (c) any other federal grantgiving agency?
6.	Of the programs or applicants cited in Part 5 (b), what was the agency of the Department of the Secretary of State which originally declined support?
7.	Of the programs or applicants cited in Part 5 (c), what was the other agency which originally declined support?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this is the answer to the question: 1. Opportunities for Youth does not require applicants to provide information regarding previous unsuccessful requests for support by the Canada Council, any agency of the Department of the Secretary of State, or any other federal grant-giving agency. However, Opportunities for Youth does ask applicants to divulge all aid other than the OFY grant which is available to the project; such aid may take the form of financial support, materials and supplies, facilities, or expertise. Projects are specifically required to identify the source of this support. In the 1973 Programme's "Notes for Applicants", applicants are encouraged to seek additional support from non-OFY sources to partially cover the expenses of their project submission.
2	to 7. Not applicable.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract KP.66600-2-W334 for blotting paper during the period April 12, 1973 to April 11, 1974 in the amount of $13,527 awarded to Domtar Fine Papers Ltd., Montreal, Quebec?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	No. Domtar Fine Paper Ltd., Montreal is the only known manufacturer of this grade of paper.
3.	No.
4.	Requisition was raised by the Department of Supply and Services for warehouse stocks and subsequently supplied to all requesting Departments.
5.	By formal Invitation to Tender to sole source.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	(a) What departments supply funds to "Imagine Penticton" through the Penticton Human Resources Organization in Pentic-
Order Paper Questions
ton, British Columbia (b) what sums of money have been designated to this organization to date?
2.	(a) What are the specific objectives of this organization (b) are regular reports of its activities being received and, if so, what are they and to whom are they sent?
3.	(a) How long is the grant to be continued (b) are any funds from this grant being shared with the Penticton Human Resources Society and, if so, how much?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) National Health and Welfare, under the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Program, (b) 1971-72, $10,000; 1972-73, $75,000; 1973-74, $40,000, (for fiscal year).
2.	(a) The specific objective of this program is the prevention of drug related problems through stimulating the development of available community resources, (b) Yes, regular reports are received by Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate Headquarters in Ottawa in the following manner: (i) Field reports prepared by the British Columbia project officer, as required; and, (ii) Year end progress report prepared by the staff of the project, accompanied by an assessment report prepared by the British Columbia project officer.
3.	(a) Funding of the project is to remain until October 31, 1973, with continuation of funding dependent upon the project's progress up to that date, (b) No.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	What were the operating profits or deficits by CNR for commuter train services into Montreal during the years 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	How much of these deficits, if any, were paid by (a) CNR (b) the government?


Jean Marchand: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises: CNR incurred a deficit of $2.1 million in 1970, $2.2 million in 1971 and estimates a deficit of 2.4 million for 1972. These deficits apply to both the Mount Royal Tunnel and South Shore Commuter Services. No subsidy has ever been received for losses incurred on commuter operation. CNR has been obliged to cover these losses from general revenues.


Mr. Forrestall: With respect to the proposed R class icebreakers presently under consideration by the government (a) will such vessels be equipped with bow thrusters (b) what will be the total fuel capacity (c) will such hulls be totally or partially ice-reinforced (d) will the fuel tanks be insulated from the shell plating by either (i) ballast tanks (ii) bulkheads and, if not, what structural precautions will be taken to avoid an oil spill in the event of hull rupture in the vicinity of fuel tanks?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
Yes; (b) 2,075 tons; (c) totally; (d) Special interior strengthening and high grade steel in hull.

July 23, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the proposed tonnage and horsepower rating of the new R class icebreakers currently under consideration by the government?
2.	Will such vessels have any usefulness in Canada's Arctic Archipelago outside the short summer shipping season?
3.	What speed will such vessels be able to maintain through 5 foot pressure ice?


Jean Marchand: 1.
Loaded displacement for Arctic, 7,235 tons. 13,600 shaft horsepower.
2.	Yes.
3.	0 knots.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What will be the fuel range of the new R class icebreaker in open water?
2.	What will be the maximum ice for such vessels to navigate through?
3.	What fuel range will such vessels have in such maximum ice conditions?


Jean Marchand: 1. Fifteen thousand nautical miles.
2.	Three feet thickness for continuous progress.
3.	Twenty five days.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What speed will the new R class icebreakers be able to maintain in open water for search and rescue operations?
2.	Will such vessels have helicopter capability and facilities for ice-reconnaissance?
3.	Will such vessels be equipped with radio-telegraphy as well as radio-telephones?


Jean Marchand: 1. Sixteen and a half knots.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to improving the treatment and safety of physically handicapped persons in air transportation, in particular respecting emergency evacuation procedures?


Jean Marchand: Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: To whom has the Post Office Department allotted postage meter number 156107?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Department of Supply and Services 70 Lyon St. Ottawa, Ontario. Postage meter is in service at: Printing Operations, Distribution Services, Room 2736, Sacre-Coeur Blvd., Hull, P.Q.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did Murray Goldman Ltd. lease property registered in the Vancouver Land Registry Office on July 15, 1972 under No. 561347M to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, the Department of Public Works for a term of five years?
2.	Do the terms of the lease contain a right of renewal with priority over the mortgage in favour of Granville Ventures Ltd. and, if so (a) what is the renewable period and what is the rental rate on the renewed lease (b) what is the annual and monthly rental rate (c) under the terms of the lease, who is responsible for the payment of annual taxes, heat, light, electricity and insurance?
3.	(a) What is the declared value of the property on the lease (b) what is the declared value of the said property as registered under the name of Murray Goldman Ltd. in the Vancouver Land Registry Office on September 13, 1971 under the Certificate of Title No. 632864-L (c) does the government consider the rental for this building too high?
4.	Did the government have an opportunity to purchase the building rather than lease it?
5.	Does the government have an option to purchase the building at the end of the lease or any time during the present lease?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
Yes. The correct registration date is July 15, 1972 under No. L 561347-M.
2.	Yes. (a) 1-5 years on 12 months prior written notice, (b) 1st year, $126,000 per annum, $10,500 per month, $11.67 per sq. ft. per annum; 2nd year, $132,000 per annum; $10,750 per month, $11.94 per sq. ft. per annum; 3rd year, $138,000 per annum; $11,000 per month, $12.22 per sq. ft. per annum; 4th year, $144,000 per annum, $11,250 per month, $12.50 per sq. ft. per annum; 5th year, $150,000 per annum, $11,500 per nrmnth, $12.78 per sq. ft. per annum, (c) Tenant: machine and equipment and improvements; property, excess of 1972 taxes; heat; light; electricity. Landlord: insurance, to building standard only.
3.	(a) Not shown; (b) Declared value of the said property as registered under the name Murray Goldman Ltd. in the Vancouver land Registry Office on September 13, 1971, under Certificate of Title No. 632864-L, is $555,000; (c) The rate is comparable to rates being paid by other retail outlets in the general area.
4.	The building was not offered for sale, neither was the land on which the building sits.
5.	No.
July 23, 1973


Mr. Barnett: 1.	What direct federal tax per gallon is levied on aviation gasoline?
2.	What direct provincial tax per gallon is levied on aviation gasoline in each or any of the provinces?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In so far as National Revenue is concerned: 1. There is no specific federal sales tax per gallon levied on aviation gasoline. However, the Excise Tax Act provides for a sales tax of 12 per cent based on the sale price.
2. Matters relating to provincial taxation do not come within the jurisdiction of this Department.


Mr. Godin: 1.	Under the price support policy for potatoes, how many persons received payments in 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	What are the names and addresses of such persons in the constituency of Portneuf and what amount did each receive?
3.	What are the names and addresses of such persons in the constituency of Montmorency and what amount did each receive?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The
Agricultural Stabilization Board did not pay any subsidy to potato growers in 1970. For the fiscal year 1971-72 a total of 1,230 producers were paid.
2 and 3. This type of detailed payment information is considered to be private between the Board and the producers and, because of its confidential nature, is not included with this reply.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw): 1.	What were the total numbers of purebred exotic cattle imported in each year 1969 to 1972 inclusive?
2.	What was the breakdown, by province, of permits allocated for each of these years?


Eugene Whelan: 1.
Number of purebred exotic cattle imported
Year
Number
1970
1972
602
948


Mr. Rowland: Since 1948, have there been any emergencies, disasters or crises in Canada which, in the opinion of the government, have not been effectively handled by existing agencies of provincial and federal governments and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) what were they?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: All emergencies, disasters and crises since 1948 of concern to the Government of Canada have been effectively handled, and the experience gained from past incidents has been, and will be used to improve effectiveness of response in subsequent instances.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	Have senior officials of the Privy Council Office, Security Service of the RCMP, the Treasury Board, the Office of the Deputy Minister of National Defence, discussed the creation of a crisis management centre or similar organization in the Privy Council Office and, if so, has such a recommendation been made to the government?
2.	If such a recommendation has been made (a) what would the relationship of such centre be to other agencies or departments which have in the past dealt with a variety of emergencies, ranging from pollution, air crashes and natural disasters to civil planning for war emergencies (b) does it envisage any change in the relationship of existing federal arrangements with appropriate provincial agencies for the purpose of dealing with emergencies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As
indicated in the response to Question 20 on February 21, 1973 (Hansard Page 1493):1. A study has been made of "crisis handling methods and structures within the federal government.
2. A full summary of findings will be made public in due course.


Mr. Knight: What is the annual breakdown of salaries paid to locally-engaged staff who worked in South Viet Nam from 1954 to date?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Prior to 1971 all locally-engaged staff providing services to Canadian personnel were employees of the International Commission of Control and Supervision in Indo-China and as such their salaries were paid by the ICCS. Since then the salaries paid by the Department of External Affairs are 1971, $272.30; 1972, $1,931.54; 1973 January to June, $1,193.44. These salaries (1971-73) were paid to locally-engaged staff performing support work for personnel of the Canadian International Development Agency.

July 23, 1973
Order Paper Questions CONTRACT FOR DESK TRAYS


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract GO.66600-2-B742 for desk trays during the period May 8, 1973 to May 7, 1974 in the amount of $20,262 awarded to Cluthe Sales (Waterloo) Ltd., Waterloo, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) Cluthe Sales (Waterloo) Limited, Waterloo, Ontario Business Accessories Inc., Toronto; (b) Yes.
3.	No.
4.	DSS Stocked Items to three Supply Centres. Issued as requisitioned by various Departments.
5.	Competitive tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract GD.2542008-1 for ration pack components in the amount of $269,948 awarded to Essex Packers Ltd., Hamilton, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) Essex Packers Ltd., Hamilton, Ont.; Puritan Canners Ltd., Toronto, Ont.; H. J. Heinz Co., Toronto, Ont.; Select Food Products Ltd., Toronto, Ont.; Provincial Canners Ltd., Outremont, Que.; Burns Food Ltd., Calgary, Alta.; Green Giant of Canada Ltd., Windsor, Ont.; Campbell Soup Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont. (b) Lowest tender accepted from those meeting specification.
3.	No.
4.	Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces Supply Depot, 6769 Notre-Dame St., East, Montreal, P.Q.
5.	By Invitation to tender.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract GK.2752067-10, GK.2752077 for electrical power cable in the amount of $30,051 awarded to Canada Wire and Cable Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?

4.	Where were the goods used and by what department of government?
5.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) Northern Electric Co. Ltd., P.O. Box 8237, Ottawa, Ont. Pirelli Cables Ltd., P.O. Box 70, St. Jean, P.Q.; Canada Wire and Cable Ltd., 348 Bronson Ave., Ottawa, Ont.; Turmac Industries Ltd., 2975 Victoria St., P.O. Box 45, Lachine, P.Q.; Phillips Cables Ltd., Suite 520A, 56 Sparks St., Ottawa, Ont. (b) Lowest tender accepted from those meeting specification.
3.	No.
4.	Department of National Defence; No. 1 CFSD, Downs-view, Ont.; No. 25 CFSD, Montreal, P.Q.; No. 5 CFSD, Moncton, N.B.; No. 7 CFSD, Lancaster Park, Alberta.
5.	By Invitation to tender.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What are (a) the terms of reference (b) the operating budget (c) the personnel (d) the expected date of report of the Special Study of the National Capital?
2.	Was it the decision of the Minister that the Study would not involve public hearings and, if not, by whom was it taken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. (a) "To
undertake a study of the most effective arrangements for the future administration of matters directly affecting the National Capital and its development, including the role of the National Capital Commission and its relation to other bodies concerned with the governing of the Capital Region and the coordination of those federal activities which bear upon the development of the Region as a national capital", (b) For the fiscal year 1973-1974, $130,000. (c) At the present time, in addition to Mr. D. H. Fullerton, one administrator and one secretary. Several other additions to the staff are contemplated, together with the part time assistance of consultants, (d) Within one year from June 1, 1973.
2. The decision on public hearings rests with Mr. Fullerton, although the Study has not been constituted under the Inquiries Act, and he therefore does not have the power to summon witnesses. No final decision on hearings has yet been taken, although Mr. Fullerton has said in his advertisement seeking submissions that "It is not my present intention to hold public hearings, since these would more appropriately flow from the review of the National Capital by a Special Committee of Parliament, the establishment of which the government is considering recommending at the next Session." He has added in correspondence on this question that the time, staff, and cost involved in public hearings would make it difficult to finish the study within the time and budget allotted to it, but that the matter would be reviewed in the autumn.
July 23, 1973


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Who was in charge of the recent disposal of certain medical supplies and equipment maintained at Brockville, Ontario by the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	Was a truck rented to transport such materials to the Brockville City Dump and, if so, from whom was the truck rented?
3.	Is the Department aware that such material was disposed of in such a way that children were able to obtain needles and other equipment not properly destroyed or covered?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Emergency Health Services, Department of National Health and Welfare.
2.	Yes, from Ryder Truck Rentals.
3.	The material in question was crushed by machinery at the dump, and completely buried by six to ten inches of earth. This procedure was carried out under the supervision of an officer of the Emergency Health Division. There is no doubt in this case that a number of the administration sets, consisting of rubber tubing and an infusion needle, were not properly pulverized, but they were buried. A subsequent inspection by an official of the Department and a public health inspector from Brockville concluded that the material was well buried, not only by earth, but also by new garbage. The Department is aware of the Police Department report wherein a youth from the nearby town of Lyn admitted having dug up a carton containing several administration sets.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since what date has the Department of National Health and Welfare, been renting premises located at R.R. 2, Brockwille, Ontario?
2.	From whom are these premises rented and what is the rent paid per month?
3.	Does the government have a lease on these premises and, if so, what is the expiry date?
4.	Does the government sublet a portion of this building and, if so, to whom and at what monthly rent?
5.	What use has the Department of National Health and Welfare been making of this building since rental began?


Marc Lalonde: 1. September, 1963.
2.	Industrial Avenue Realties Ltd., Brockville. Rent is presently $3,900 per month.
3.	Yes. February 1978.
4.	Yes, a portion is sublet to the Emergency Measures Organization of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville at $125 per month.
5.	The building is used for the storage of emergnecy health medical units for distribution as required and for a reserve stock of the national medical stockpile.
Orders for Returns


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare recently ordered the disposal of certain medical equipment maintained for civil emergency purposes at various depots throughout Canada and, if so, was this because the material was considered unsafe for human use and what tests were taken to determine that this was so?
2.	What was the nature of all the equipment disposed of?
3.	What was the estimated total value of all supplies or equipment disposed of?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Yes, the Department of National Health and Welfare, recently disposed of Dextran, a blood plasma expander, and administration sets, which had been purchased for the Emergency Health Program between the years 1959-62. This action resulted from tests taken by the Food and Drug Directorate of the Department which found that the material had been in storage too long and could no longer be recommended for medicinal purposes. (Dextran is a harmless substance which would not be injurious to health even if taken orally).
2.	Intravenous Dextran and administration sets.
3.	$550,000.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of Transport on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



WINE LIST AT AIR TERMINALS

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What specific Canadian wines are available in each restaurant operated in air terminals under control of the Department of Transport and, in each case, what is the name of (a) the wine (b) the producer (c) the restaurant and airport at which it is available?
2.	Are there any such restaurants that have no Canadian wines available to the travelling public?
3.	Has the Department of Transport made any effort towards seeking the co-operation of those operating such restaurants in
2G454-7

July 23, 1973
Orders for Returns
making wines of Canada available to the travelling public to a greater degree and, if so, what efforts has it made?
Return tabled.



IMPORTATION OF HIGH PROTEIN FEED

Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What amount of high protein feeds are imported into Canada from the U.S. (a) in quantity (b) dollar value (c) which provinces (d) amount per province, for the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	Is there any trade in dehydrated alfalfa pellets between the U.S. and Canada and, if so, how much in (a) dollar value (b) tonnage (c) what provinces?
3.	Is there any tariff duty on dehydrated alfalfa pellets moving into export to the U.S. from Canada or vice versa and, if so, what is the amount?
Return tabled.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the name and position of each person employed as of April 30, 1973, in Ottawa in the Opportunities for Youth section of the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	What is (a) the name (b) the position (c) the location of each person employed by the government as of April 30, 1973 in any place other than Ottawa, with responsibilities related to the Opportunities for Youth Program?
3.	What is the name and position of each person not specified above who was employed by the government as of April 30, 1973, with responsibilities related in any way to the Opportunities for Youth Program, including members of the personal staff of the Secretary of State?
4.	Of the persons specified in answer to Parts 1, 2 and 3, how many (a) are now associated (b) have been associated with any group, project or undertaking which has received assistance from Opportunities for Youth?
5.	In the case of each person specified in response to Part 4, (a) what was the group, project or undertaking (b) what was the nature of the association (c) what was the date of termination of the association (d) what was the amount of each grant (e) what was the date of award of each grant (f) what was the date of commencement of employment with the government in a position involving responsibilities concerning the Opportunities for Youth Program?
6.	What is the name and assignment of each consultant, or other temporary employee, engaged by a representative of the government with responsibilities associated with the opportunities for Youth Program in the period since the commencement of the original Program?
7.	Of the persons specified in answer to Part 6, how many (a) are now associated (b) have been associated with any group, project or undertaking which has received assistance from Opportunities for Youth?
8.	In the case of each person specified in response to Part 4, (a) what was the group, project or undertaking (b) what was the nature of the association (c) what was the date of commencement of the association (d) what was the date of termination of the association (e) what was the amount of each grant (f) what was the date of award of each such grant (g) what was the date of engagement by representatives of the government (h) what was the date of termination of the engagement in connection with Opportunities for Youth?
9.	Of the persons specified in answer to Parts 1, 2, 3 and 6, how many have or had a wife, husband, brother, sister or other close relative (a) now associated (b) associated in the past with any group, project or undertaking which has received assistance from Opportunities for Youth?

10.	In the case of each persons specified in response to Part 9, (a) what was the group, project or undertaking (b) what was the nature of the association (c) what was the date of commencement of the association (d) what was the date of termination of the association (e) what was the amount of each grant (f) what was the date of award of each grant?
Return tabled.



INFORMATION CANADA PERSONNEL

Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What criteria are used by the Information Canada office in Winnipeg to evaluate personnel for promotion to the positions of (a) documentalist (b) general headquarters administrator (c) chief of administrative services?
2.	What are the names, salaries, qualifications and functions of those persons currently occupying the above positions and on what dates were they hired?
3.	Were any of those persons occupying the aforementioned positions hired or promoted without having written the appropriate civil service examinations and, if so, for what reason?
4.	What is the policy of Information Canada with regard to the hiring and promotion of ex-convicts?
5.	Does the government agree with the policy that Information Canada offices hire convicted criminals?
Return tabled.
PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR, BAGHDAD?

Question No. 2,408-Mr. Macquarrie:
1.	For what reasons did Canada decide not to participate in the International Trade Fair scheduled for October 1973 in Baghdad?
2.	Is consideration being given to reversing this negative decision?
3.	In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce knows, what countries are planning to exhibit at this Fair?
4.	At what International Trade Fairs since 1963 has Canada been a participant?
Return tabled.


Mr. Knight:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the parliamentary secretary promised me that he would have answers for questions Nos. 927, 928, 929 and 931. He has answered two of those questions, or at least I assume the answers are coming to me, but the other two have not been answered. I wonder would he take this into consideration. I am referring to questions relating to travel expenses outside the country incurred by those employed in the office of the Prime Minister, and by other departments and agencies of the government.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, with respect to question No. 929, there is only one governmental agency that is outstanding, and I hope to have the reply from it shortly.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary about questions Nos. 2271 to 2279 inclusive, asking for lists of lawyers maintained by the Department of Justice to do government legal work. I asked the parliamentary secretary about these two weeks ago, and he said it involved getting the names of these lawyers from all the various departments in order to compile the list. I suggest that that statement is not entirely accurate, as the list in the first place is maintained by the Minister

of Justice, and I see no reason why it could not be obtained immediately. Therefore, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to assure me that the list can be made available before the parliamentary recess. Surely, the government would not want to hide the list of lawyers who do business for it?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am not a prophet and I cannot foresee when the House will rise for the summer recess.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the chairman of the non-operating railway unions has stated in a letter to the Department of Labour that they are now prepared to accept the mediation services of the department, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the federal mediators have been in touch with both parties with a view to bringing them together again for negotiations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand the assistant to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Kelly, is in Montreal meeting with both parties at this time, or has been meeting with them.


James Aloysius McGrath: As a supplementary question may I ask if the government has been in touch with the railways and the unions, after the failure of the conciliation board to reach agreement, with a view to coming up with a new set of proposals which would form the basis of new negotiations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the meetings I have just alluded to have been taking place, and it is not for me to disclose the nature of them.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE FROM UNION AND RAILWAYS ESSENTIAL SERVICES WILL NOT BE DISRUPTED IN EVENT OF STRIKE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary to the Acting Minister of Transport. May I ask the Acting Minister of Transport if the government is now prepared to state that they have received assurances from the unions that, with the threat of a nation-wide rail strike or rotating strikes, essential services will not be disrupted and specifically that essential food will be transported, grain will be transported and essential ferry services between Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island will be maintained?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot reply to each one of those items specifically because I do not know the extent of the commitment that has been made. I can assure the hon. member that representations have been made to the parties concerned with regard to essential services, and very specifically with regard to the maintenance of ferry service between the mainland and the two island provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Humber-St.
George's-St. Barbe, a supplementary.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary has been pre-empted.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has had assurances from the two major railways in respect of the movement of essential food and feed grains, in fact all grains needed, in the possibility of a strike or tie-up?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that such assurances have been sought but in that particular case, with the hon. member's indulgence, I will have to take the question as notice and get an answer later. I am not sure what assurances the railways have given.


MANPOWER
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. May I ask the minister if he was aware of the alleged offer made by a Liberal member of parliament to a certain group to the effect that a grant would be obtained if they would treat the minister with honey rather than vinegar, and in any case is he in a position to make a statement on this allegation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the allegation first came to my attention when I read the newspaper this morning. I have had no part nor any discussion on the possibility whatsoever of such an offer involving a grant. I would categorically deny that there was any such arrangement made to which I was party. I am not privy to the discussions that took place between the hon. member mentioned and the group he referred to and I doubt very much that there was such an implication.


LOCAL INITIATIVES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH GRANTS-REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY IN GRANTING APPROVAL
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the government will review its policy of using ministerial authority to approve LIP and OFY
264S4-7J

July 23, 1973
Oral Questions
grants which enabled the government to buy the silence of groups opposed to its policies?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that a question asked in those terms is entirely out of order.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. The priority recommendation of the public service secretaries' brief was for the replacement of the rug-ranking system by a system which would provide for promotion by way of merit for secretaries. In light of the fact that other professional groups and clerks in the public service were granted such a system more than a decade ago, is the government now going to replace the rug-ranking system with a point rating system for secretaries and if so, will a statement be made this week?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the hon. gentleman is not aware that the same system of classification and rating is applied to secretaries as is applied to all other appointments in the public service. The difficulty, of course, is that there tends to be a highly personal relationship between a secretary and his or her employer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Not on this side.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -and a tendency to regard the employer rather than the office as being the important factor.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary. In light of that impressive defence of the status quo, would the minister indicate whether the rug-ranking system has been a matter for Cabinet discussion and whether alternatives have been formally considered during the five years he has been President of the Treasury Board? Also, would the minister be prepared to table Treasury Board minutes in this House with respect to discussions and studies that have gone on in connection with this distressing matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have doubts about the first part of the hon. member's supplementary but perhaps the hon. minister might reply to the last part.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite hear your comment. I would say that Treasury Board minutes are not published and the agenda of cabinet is not published.


Mr. Baldwin:: Only leaked.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would also hope that my colleagues in Cabinet would not be in the habit of discussing slogans.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the reduction in the subsidy to grain farmers to $60 million. In the result it is generally estimated that the cost of a loaf of bread will increase by between one cent and three cents or even four cents. As this $60 million to be paid from year to year is actually the amount that was paid by my administration for acreage payments, on the two occasions when that payment was made, would the Prime Minister, in order to assist in keeping down the cost of living, alter the method of payment, to the end that the consumers of Canada would not have added to the already overwhelming load of the cost of living the additional price they must pay for bread?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman wants to ascertain for himself the mathematics, I am sure he will find that the government is subsidizing the consumer of bread to the tune of $60 million a year. What relationship that has to the acreage payment under his administration is something that he can determine better than I can. Whether or not that was a subsidy to the consumer or the farmer, in this case it is obviously a subsidy to the consumer of $60 million a year. The mathematics of it would indicate to the right hon. member that this might result in an increase in the price of bread of one tenth of one cent, certainly a far cry from the four or five cents that he mentioned.


An hon. Member:: He did not mention five cents.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister apparently did not read the press when he was on the western tour for the purpose of ascertaining the feelings of the people. I ask him again, why should the consumer of Canada, at the time we have the highest cost of living in history, be loaded with a further addition to the cost of one of the staples, bread, because of the action of this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure of the relevance of reading newspapers on my tour of the west, but I would want to think that over and perhaps I might find intelligence in the comment. On the point of the subsidy, the right hon. gentleman should realize that if we were to increase the subsidy to something above $60 million per year, it would mean an increase in taxes, and I am not sure that this is what the right hon. gentleman would support.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister walked around in a circle in that answer. I simply ask him this: now that he is about to approach the west to find out what western Canada wants, is he not prepared to do something along the lines suggested, so that the consumer of Canada will not be loaded down still further by the failure of this government to contain the rise in the cost of living?
July 23, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether hon. members might not agree that this is a restatement of the first supplementary asked by the right hon. gentleman?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was a substantially new element in that question and I wonder if I might be permitted to reply to it. It is the suggestion that we have to do something for the west. Surely, the right hon. gentleman realizes that the announcement made by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, the Minister of Justice, is to the effect that the western farmer will now be permitted to get world prices for the wheat he sells to the miller, instead of the price he got earlier. I see the right hon. gentleman laughs, but he obviously does not understand this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would have expected that applause. While the gabbling of geese saved ancient Rome, I doubt whether that type of thing will save this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the debate might end at this point and we might return to the question period. I will recognize the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands in a moment on a supplementary to the previous question. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Meadow Lake.


HOUSING
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that Bal-Man Homes Ltd. built some homes at Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, of substandard quality, and in view of the fact that this company has not paid some of the subcontractors, this resulting in mechanics liens being registered against the homes, has the minister requested the Saskatoon office of CMHC to conduct a full scale investigation of this matter, to ensure that the home buyers are protected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression the hon. member's question ought to be placed on the order paper. If I am wrong and there is urgency, it could be considered at the time of adjournment this evening.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked
Oral Questions
earlier of the President of the Treasury Board. Is it the position of the minister that the rug-ranking system does treat secretaries as chattels, and, if so, is that acceptable to the government or is this unfair and discriminatory practice, which I can assure the minister does exist, going to be corrected?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if there is an unfair and discriminatory practice, I would be glad to join the hon. member in seeing it is corrected. I would like to suggest that the problems appear to lie rather with our inability to adequately rate secretaries according to their competence, not to the classification of jobs they currently hold.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In light of the minister's reply and his notable lack of enthusiasm to do anything about this, will he consult with Katherine Cooke, Chairman of the Status of Women Advisory Council, in order to get some expert advice as to how this can be done?

[ Transla tion]


MANPOWER
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that some students are still unemployed and that there are only five or six weeks left before school starts again, will the minister make a statement this week and announce new measures designed to help the young workers immediately and thus lighten the burden of their parents?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are always concerned about this segment of the labour force which has more difficulty finding employment than other segments. I believe we have already announced several measures which have been publicized in this House and elsewhere, indicative of our special efforts to find suitable employment for them. I can assure the hon. member that student Manpower centres across the country and student employment programs embarked on by my department, and several other departments, including Opportunities for Youth, are making increased efforts, but I do not have anything new to announce at this stage.
[ Transla tion]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, is the minister also aware that some May and June graduates are unemployed, and will his new policy take into consideration the fact that those young workers are now in a very awkward situation?
[ English]


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the number of graduates coming from our universities and schools. We are making diligent efforts to find them jobs

July 23, 1973
Oral Questions
through job placement agencies, my department and many others. I might say, as members opposite and members in this party have mentioned, there are many jobs available right now for students. We have some 4,200 people on our list seeking jobs. We have jobs in southern Ontario amongst the food processors and agricultural employers who would be glad to get help. We face some difficulties in that when some people find out what kinds of jobs they are, they do not show all the enthusiasm for them we would otherwise expect to see. This creates some difficulty in placing them and matching applicants to jobs available.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-ALLEGED PREPARATIONS OF MINT FOR PRODUCING COMMEMORATIVE COINS-MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Supply and Services. Is the minister aware the Royal Canadian Mint commenced making preparations for the minting of Olympic coins as far back as last March and, in particular, two Olympic coin designs have been chosen and engravers have been working on the dies? If he was aware of the Mint's action, will he inform the House whether this action was taken on his instructions or did the Mint take these steps without authority bearing in mind that the 1976-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might allow the minister to reply to the question. He is now about to make an argument in support of his question and that is not in order.
[ Transla tion]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will surely agree with me that the administration can do the planning. Now, with regard to the Royal Canadian Mint and the actual design of the coins, I do not believe any final decision will be made before normal consultation and final authorization has been granted.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Bearing in mind what the minister has told the House, will he now state if he is aware that two heavy coin presses, suitable for handling the proposed Olympic coin sizes, which were originally ordered for the Winnipeg Mint, are now ready but have been diverted to Ottawa from Winnipeg so that the Mint may be in a position to commence minting the Olympic coins without delay. Was this change in plans on the minister's instructions or did the Mint take this action without his authority?
[Transla tion]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not know but I shall certainly inquire.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Did I understand the minister to say that the

officials of the Mint have the authority to proceed with the preparation of Olympic coins prior to approval being given by this parliament to the minting of those coins? Is that the position of the government?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, it is quite sure that if Parliament rejects the government proposal nothing will be done. However, it is also sure that if Parliament authorizes the government to proceed, we could normally do so with the greatest possible haste and we are now working with that in mind.


HOUSING
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of State for Urban Affairs or the parliamentary secretary. Two weeks ago I asked the minister about certain charges in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Can the acting minister or parliamentary secretary advise the House whether a report will in fact be made to the House by the minister or the government with regard to these very serious charges of corruption, collusion and fraud in connection with the tendering practices in construction of certain student co-operative housing projects?


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I understand from remarks by the minister in the House that an inquiry into this matter began toward the end of February. When that inquiry is complete, I presume the minister will make it available to members of the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: In view of the fact five months have elapsed since this mythical inquiry was instituted, will the minister or the government now indicate if they are satisfied that no meaningful inquiry is being made and refer this matter to the Auditor General for a thorough and complete study under Sections 62 and 63 of the Financial Administration Act?


Ian Watson: To repeat my earlier answer, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that an inquiry was started in February and when the finding is complete, it will be made available to members.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to the drought in Africa and the steps being taken to assist
July 23, 1973

the people resident there. Is it correct that the Food and Agricultural Organization will be meeting toward the end of this month to discuss this question? If so, will Canada be represented at this meeting, at what level and do we have specific proposals to put forward?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that Canada has been in the forefront of countries that have been helping in this tragedy in Africa. Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, President of CIDA, has just returned from a personal inspection of the efforts we are making. Our planes were the first to arrive and have been the most useful in carrying food from the ports to the interior. As to the specific question, I am not quite sure whether the food and agriculture organization is having a meeting. At any rate, I had a letter on Friday from the Director General of the organization thanking Canada for its co-operation.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CANADIAN POSITION MADE CLEAR TO UNITED STATES IN MAY, 1972
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and relates to recent problems connected with the tanker route and a trip tomorrow by some parliamentarians to Washington. In view of the government's position that answers given to the United States have been on public record and known for many months by the United States, can the minister assure the House that the vital question concerning ownership of the pipeline was made abundantly clear to United States secretary Rogers Morton in May, 1972?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in the House he had been carrying on these talks with the United States administration directly, I think he ought to answer the question rather than myself. I did not have any conversations with Secretary Morton.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, there is some urgency in having this answer as this trip tomorrow may well be abortive. In view of the fact the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources seems to have some doubt himself as to whether he made this position clear to United States Secretary Rogers Morton in May, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure the House that this position was stated publicly by the government before July 6, 1973 and, if so, when?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the statement by the hon. gentleman about the position taken by my colleague, but I think this question should be directed to the minister responsible. I am not responsible for pipeline policy in my portfolio, and this question should be directed to him.


Gerald William Baldwin: We do not think he is responsible, either.
Oral Questions


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances I should like to direct the question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It will be too late tomorrow to ask this question, and I would ask the Prime Minister whether he can advise the House that Canada's position on the ownership of the oil pipeline was made clear to Rogers Morton in May, 1972, as was indicated in respect of the whole question of Canada's position by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on Thursday last?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to recall what the minister said in the House, and no doubt the hon. member like myself could find it in Hansard. I have some doubt that he said every aspect was made clear in May, 1972, but I do recall him having said that every aspect had been made clear to the United States well before the date in July, 1973 about which the hon. member is asking. If that is not correct I will try to ascertain from the minister, who I believe is travelling west, or rather at a meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Petroleum, later today and perhaps have an answer for the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the growing concern of many western grain producers with regard to the government's forthcoming feed grain policy, will the minister assure us now that feed grain will not be removed from the control of the Wheat Board without the approval of grain producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the intentions of the government have been outlined in an announcement on feed grains policy. We intend to adhere to that policy and it will be announced by August 1.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Given the fact that industrial sources indicate that General Motors has increased the price of its replacement parts by 20 per cent to compensate for the 1973 price freeze on automobiles, can the minister advise whether he was consulted on this matter and will other automobile manufacturers be following the same course of action?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I notice the hon. member referred to replacement parts rather than to new automobiles. In regard to the direct question as to whether or not

July 23, 1973
Oral Questions
my department was consulted, I will be pleased to make inquiries.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise the House whether the subject of automobile replacement parts prices was discussed when he negotiated the price freeze on 1973 automobiles with the manufacturers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps that question might be placed on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS     INQUIRY AS TO OBJECTIONS FROM PROVINCES ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS TO IMPOSITION OF PRICE AND INCOMES CONTROLS BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would tell the House if any provincial premier at the last Dominion-Provincial Conference indicated any intention to dispute on constitutional grounds the jurisdiction of the federal government in the event the federal government desires to get into a prices and incomes control policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not to my
recollection, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to be put in the position of stating definite constitutional positions of all provinces, but I cannot remember any vociferous expression of opposition.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that at least three or four of the premiers immediately after the conference, and some of them even since, have publicly gone out of their way to indicate they would certainly not dispute jurisdiction of the federal government, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could recollect if there was a discussion on that particular ground and, if so, inform the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, the subject was raised and some provinces did volunteer the opinion that they would not oppose federal government action in that field. I just answered the previous question by indicating I could not speak for all the provinces, as I do not believe they all expressed an opinion on that. I might add that this was not the real bone of contention, if I could use that expression. It was not so much the constitutionality of measures, but whether they would work, and on this there seemed to be a strong feeling that they would not.


AGRICULTURE
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the world situation and the fact that it is becoming all too apparent there will be a short supply of foodstuffs, will

the minister inform the House what moves and actions he will take on behalf of Canada on upcoming negotiations on trade under GATT, and can he inform the House whether his department has considered this situation in terms of what policy will be presented?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, that I am more optimistic than the hon. member about the world's supply of grains, etc. Crop reports from the U.S.S.R. show a 12 per cent increase in the production of grain this year, and the United States forecasts a tremendous increase in the production of grain and soybeans. Our people are discussing these things at GATT, as far as that goes, but for me to try to give a full report at this time as to what stage they are at, how they are doing or what they are doing would be impossible.


POSITION OF CANADA ON NEW INTERNATIONAL GRAINS
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the House whether he is prepared to make a statement on motions in the near future, informing the House whether the government is attempting to get another international grains agreement in light of the need for grain supplies and the need to be in a position or in a mood to consider this type of agreement? Will the minister inform the house whether he would be prepared to do that?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, at a meeting of the OECD in Paris sometime ago this topic was discussed by governmental officials at all levels of each government concerned. This is very much on the mind of the government here as well as an the minds of many other governments; that is the fact that this is the type of program that should be negotiated. We are studying and looking at it very closely, but I cannot say when I might be prepared to make a statement to the House as I leave this afternoon for Charlottetown, and then from Charlottetown I go to Calgary. If you can be patient until I get back maybe a statement can be made.


SOYBEAN MEAL-DIFFERENTIAL IN PRICE BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CORRECT
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister be attempting to have the cost of soybean meal equalized as between Canada and the United States in order that our Canadian producers will not be at such a disadvantage, keeping in mind that soybean meal for protein supplement is costing our Canadian producers twice as much as the United States producers have to pay?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there is a great discrepancy in the price of this protein. We are watching the prices very closely and comparing what the United States producers of agricultural products pay and what the agricultural producers pay in
July 23, 1973

Canada. How quickly we can rectify the situation I do not know, and I do not believe anyone knows. However, so far as we are concerned there is this great difference between what producers of agricultural livestock and poultry have to pay for this protein in Canada and what the United States producers have to pay who are in direct competition with Canadian producers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I must bring to the attention of hon. members that we are running short of time. A number of members are waiting to ask questions, and with the situation in the House this afternoon I was hoping all hon. members to my left who wished to ask questions might be permitted to do so. It seems that perhaps the members in the fourth and fifth rows will not have an opportunity unless we limit supplementaries.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, the minister suggested what he would like to see done in this regard. I should like him to tell the House what he is doing specifically to rectify this situation?


Eugene Whelan: I would like to get some suggestions from the opposition, if they have any, rather than have them just tell me to do something, because we certainly have programs which we can initiate but it would take tax dollars to do this.


PROTEIN FEEDS-SUGGESTION CANADIAN POLICY DEPENDENT ON UNITED STATES POLICY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that an official of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce some time ago said, that the Canadian government and the Department of Agriculture were awaiting a policy development by the United States before they took a definite stand on agricultural policy in Canada, are the government and his department still awaiting the development of United States policy before Canada takes a stand in this House?


Eugene Whelan: Well, I think we are dependent on the United States for protein because, to a great extent, it comes from the United States. Whatever they do has an effect on our situation here. I visited the United States in February and one of the questions we asked was whether they intended to freeze the price of protein or whether they intended to restrict supplies. At that time they had no intention of restricting supply because they thought they had an ample supply for all their world customers, including Canada. The situation changed later, and has changed again just recently. I think it is too soon to say how quickly the prices will level off or where the program will go from here.
Oral Questions HISTORIC SITES


ALLEGED PROHIBITION OF MEMBERS FROM PARTICIPATING IN CEREMONY COMMEMORATING OLD STONE MILL IN VILLAGE OF DELTA
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising out of the ceremony commemorating the Old Stone Mill as a national historic site in my riding in the village of Delta last Saturday, July 21. Will the minister tell the House whether instructions were given to his department and by whom that the federal member for Leeds, the provincial member for Leeds and the local municipal reeve were to be prohibited from taking part in the commemoration ceremony on the ground that they are members of the Progressive Conservative Party?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge no such guideline has been given. I know that several times during the past weeks, under similar circumstances, some members opposite wrote to tell me that they had been very well received by my staff.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport and his parliamentary secretary may I ask the Prime Minister, in light of the disastrous rail accidents in the last few days, whether he would use his very real powers of persuasion with the Minister of Transport to immediately institute a public inquiry into rail accidents in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a representation. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


THE MINT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Would the minister inquire whether there will be coin presses for both Winnipeg and Ottawa and whether in fact there will be duplicates of equipment.
[ Transla t/on]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised, but I will surely inquire.
5876

July 23, 1973
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to questions asked some time ago of the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask him whether or not the cabinet has made a decision concerning exclusion of feed grains from the Canadian Wheat Board. Has there been any such decision made?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I said to some other members, the decision and announcement will be made by August 1.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a simple question like that should be answered clearly. If the government pretends that no decision has been made I should like to ask the minister what will be the nature of the discussion he is to have in Prince Edward Island in connection with feed grains?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have been invited to attend the meeting. It is not my meeting in Prince Edward Island. I am invited to attend the meeting of provincial ministers of agriculture from all across this land. They are to make their suggestions and requests to me. I am to be there to listen, but you can be sure that will not be all I will be doing there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the right hon. gentleman for a supplementary, but again I ask for co-operation of members because there are only two minutes left before the end of the question period.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a question which affects western Canada to a degree no other matter does.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you will notice how the Liberal members ridicule western members by their attitude.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman might ask a question now. We are running short of time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if you would direct your observations to the government members who sneer and yell when I mention western Canada I would appreciate it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Don't lecture the Chair.


FEED GRAINS POLICY-REASON FOR ANNOUNCEMENT ON AUGUST 1-POSSIBLE CONSULTATION WITH WHEAT POOLS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister why August 1 has been chosen as the time for the announcement, and does the minister, when he goes west along with the Prime Minister to learn what the west wants, intend to interview the various

wheat pools in western Canada to ascertain their suggestions and will they be listened to, too?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question which the right hon. gentleman has asked, and I want to say that the Minister of Agriculture for Canada is concerned about the interests of all farmers of Canada. It will be my concern, as it is the concern of the government, to make sure that all farmers in Canada, wherever they may be, those who use feed grain or not, will be treated in an equitable fashion. This is my job as a member of the government and I understand it is government policy to listen and consult. I have discussed this with members of the wheat pools of the three provinces and leaders of farm organizations. I know some of their views. They are not all opposed. All have different views. We are also listening to the provincial governments, and I certainly cannot say so far that they are unanimous in their feelings about what should be done in respect of a feed grains policy.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar who also has a supplementary on this matter, then the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and then call orders of the day.


FEED GRAINS-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that this government, the Minister of Justice in charge of the Wheat Board, and the Minister of Agriculture are responsible for a grain marketing policy, I should like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to take a responsible stand, be responsible to this parliament, and announce to the House what their policy is with regard to marketing feed grain.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this minister is responsible and any stand he takes will be a responsible one.


TAPS TANKER ROUTE-SUGGESTION NO CO-ORDINATION OF DISCUSSION WITH UNITED STATES BY DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It arises because of the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the question put to him by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South, claiming that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is unaware of the exact nature of the exchanges that took place between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the United States embassy. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is now government policy to allow relations between Canada and foreign governments to be carried on through any and all ministries of govern-

ment, without even a co-ordinating role being assigned to the Department of External Affairs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no, that is not the policy of the government and I am quite sure my friend misunderstood what the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated. It was that ministers, such as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, do have contacts with their opposite members, in this case United States Secretary Morton, on subjects which are specific to them, but always with the knowledge and under the general co-ordination of the foreign policy conducted so ably by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


An hon. Member:: That may be the problem.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Transla tion]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, July 20, consideration of Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert) moved:: That Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be amended in Clause 2 by deleting on page 1 the comma in line 15, by inserting an "(a)" immediately before the word "in" in line 16, by re-numbering paragraphs (a) and (b) as (i) and (ii), and by adding immediately after line 5 on page 2 the following new paragraphs:
"(b) in respect of a male person, where such person causes the death of a female person while committing or attempting to commit rape, and
(c) in respect of any person, where such person causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit an offence under section 247, or, if while committing or attempting to commit that offence, such person abandons a human being and death ensues as a consequence."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to apologize to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is rising on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of a matter that was left in the air on Friday when questions were raised as to whether Your Honour might defer the vote on one report stage amendment since there is to be another one. Of course, this is Your Honour's right under Standing Order 75(11). I think it would be helpful for the House in this debate to know whether that is Your Honour's intention.


Mr. Speaker:: The position of the Chair in such matters is that although there is, under our Standing Orders, the authority granted to the Chair to make such a decision, it
Capital Punishment
might be better to see how the debate develops. Perhaps some time in the month of August the Chair might give the matter further consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albanie Morin: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues have accused me of unduly delaying the work of the House and our adjournment by presenting this amendment; consequently, I will be very brief in enumerating the reasons which prompted me to present it. I have no intention of discussing the pros and cons of capital punishment, as this question was covered during the many debates in the House since the presentation of Bill C-2.
[ Translation]
The amendment before this House today is aimed at the retention of capital punishment in cases of kidnapping or rape during which the victim is murdered. In other words, any person found guilty of murdering a person whom he has kidnapped or raped, would be liable to the death penalty. Of all criminal acts, kidnapping or rape followed by murder is certainly the most odious. Capital punishment is the only just punishment for the most odious crimes and it is the only penalty that can atone for an unpardonable crime.
The death penalty by hanging embodies all the repulsion and all the horror that society feels towards the most serious of all crimes.
The punishment inflicted for a serious crime should clearly show the repugnance it evokes in most people, and in the final analysis a punishment is justified not so much by its value as a deterrent but because it constitutes the categorical condemnation of a crime by society. Thus, some murders, for example, a kidnapping or rape during which the victim is murdered or is subsequently murdered, require the ultimate punishment, the death penalty.
Why, Mr. Speaker, these crimes in particular, and not all other crimes in which there is loss of life? Because, quite simply, kidnapping or rape followed by murder involves a two-stage decision-and this is the point I wish to stress- the decision is sometimes premeditated in both cases. They are two, separate criminal acts. In the case of kidnapping in particular, in view of the fact that it is not a single decision-once the kidnapping is carried out, the aim is to obtain ransom or the liberation of a criminal-it is logical to assume that the deterrent power of capital punishment, in the second decision, that of whether or not to murder the victim, will have its deterrent effect on the conscience of the person who is considering committing a second criminal act.
More specifically, Mr. Speaker, unless he is not fully in possession of all his faculties, an individual who, after due consideration, decides to kidnap or rape his crime once committed, is the master of a second decision, whether to kill or spare his victim. If this individual does not go beyond his first crime and liberates his victim, he is liable to life imprisonment and it is at this very point that capital punishment may exert its deterrent or preventive effect.
If the first crime is a spontaneous and thoughtless act, the second crime which implies a second decision is not, as was the case in Pierre Laporte's murder, for some time
26454-8)

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
elapses between the first and the second crime. In other words-I repeat-the individual who is in possession of all his faculties has a choice between capital punishment and life imprisonment. The choice being his own, the individual chooses between the two sentences.
Not only would capital punishment have deterrent effects in these definite cases in preventing the second crime, but it would have the persuasive effect of liberating the victim.
Some hon. members from both sides of the House have objected, when this amendment was debated in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, that the amendment I was proposing meant that crimes involving two criminal actions were liable to capital punishment, particularly armed robberies when one individual is killed whether he be a bank employee or a passerby. This is totally different and this kind of murder does not involve premeditation. Certainly an armed robbery involves premeditation but the murder of a bank employee or a bystander is accidental because the objective is to rob the bank and not to kill such or such a person. It is not a double decision. An armed robbery involving murder is one thing while kidnapping is a criminal action as well as the execution of the victim. This is what I am trying to say: two criminal actions or a double decision.
The second reason which compels me to propose this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is that this kind of criminal act is a twentieth century crime which seems to have become prominent lately. For instance, South America has already experiencesd its ninetieth kidnapping: the victims have been presidents of companies, diplomats, and children of wealthy families.
If memory serves me correctly, in the province of Quebec in the last three years there were three cases of kidnapping followed by murder, and there is no proof that one of the victims would not have been spared if capital punishment had been in force for these particular cases. [Translation]
In case of rape when the victim is murdered or subsequently murdered it is true that those criminal actions are totally different from kidnapping followed by murder but they are both foul. It is true that the individual's overexcitement may influence his first criminal action. It can even happen that the victim is murdered before being raped but, once more, this is a double decision and here again I think that the death penalty cannot but have a preventive or deterrent effect.
While preparing those few remarks, I read again the comments of a few Canadian politicians following the assassination of Pierre Laporte and I would like to quote them.
The Alberta attorney general, for instance, said that the kidnappers and murderers of Pierre Laporte were "wild dogs" and should be treated as such. Now, how are wild dogs treated?
British Columbia Attorney General Leslie Pearson urged the authorities of this country not to be merciful towards Pierre Laporte's kidnappers and subversive ele-

ments responsible for this murder. Well, one of the accused was acquitted from the kidnapping and murder charges.
I know that many hon. members will say that my argument is based on the deterrent effect of capital punishment. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I must at this stage inform the House of the inquiry I carried on among prison guards and correction officers of the various penitentiaries I visited recently.
All but four of the guards and correction officers who were interviewed believed that the retention of capital punishment as it existed in December 1972 was an additional protection for them, and therefore that it had a deterrent effect on murderers.
A murderer who is serving a life sentence, they said, has nothing to lose if he kills two or three guards who are hostile to him. Therefore, they think that capital punishment is an additional protection. A few guards even told me that they would resign the day following the abolition of capital punishment.
Other hon. members of the opposition, in particular on the far right, have called me a "hangwoman", raising the argument that capital punishment was inhuman. This may be true, but is murder less inhuman? At the bottom of his heart, does the murderer have any regard for the dignity of his victim?
I wonder how these hon. members can call me a hang-woman because I propose a deterrent in cases of kidnapping or rape, while many of them support the abolition of capital punishment, that is true, for murderers who have acted contrary to the rules of society, but they pronounce at the same time or in another time in favour of abortion, that is to say the murder of innocent children who have done nothing wrong against society. How in all logic can one support total abolition of capital punishment and abortion at the same time?

I repeat that the ultimate goal of this amendment is to prevent killing in the case of kidnapping and rape. If by my proposed amendment I am instrumental in preventing the murder of one such victim, I will have accomplished more than certain members of this House hope to accomplish by the abolition of the death penalty.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment and hope that hon. members, voting according to choice in a free vote, will see the merit of adding the amendment to the bill before us.
There are a number of reasons why it should receive general support. One of them, as indicated by the mover of the amendment, is that kidnapping itself is a heinous crime. In our Criminal Code we have already made the distinction between one kind of crime justifying execution and another kind where a more moderate penalty would be appropriate. The Criminal Code thus distinguishes between capital and non-capital murder. Bill C-2 itself distinguishes between the murder of a prison guard or police officer and any other homicide. Therefore, in principle this amendment is following those precedents, suggesting as it does that this particular crime of murder committed during kidnapping is the kind that would call for the death penalty.

I think this is an amendment which would receive widespread support from the public which has been shocked by the general laxity on the part of the government over the years in the treatment of offenders, by its generally permissive attitude toward many kinds of crime in terms of moderate sentences, and in terms of generous and lax administration of parole and other programs. We must recognize that there is general public demand for a firming up in our administration of the law.
Just a few years ago, for example, a young woman in a rural community not far from metropolitan Toronto was kidnapped by a gang of men and held for several days while they demanded a high ransom. But this crime led only to moderate prison sentences and within a couple of years most of these kidnappers were out on parole. It is this lax attitude toward serious crimes which has aroused the concern of the public. I believe the public would generally endorse this amendment, saying, "Should a life be taken during a kidnapping, execution would be the approriate penalty." Therefore I hope that the amendment will carry.
Another reason is that we must be mindful of the way in which the threat of the death penalty can deter a potential murderer who is a kidnapper. We know that frequently kidnappers have taken the lives of those whom they have held for ransom, simply because this freed them from the threat of being identified by their victims at a later time. Having obtained the ransom, they were ruthlessly callous toward their victims. I believe they could be deterred by the threat of the death penalty. I would hope there would be general support for this amendment as an act of compassion to the kidnap victim. We see a lot of compassion for the people who commit these heinous crimes, but seldom do we shed a tear for the person whose life has been taken, perhaps after great suffering. I would hope that through compassion for that kind of person we would be prepared to offer these legal protections. Surely the law ought to be the arm by which society will protect its members against those who are really carrying on a war against society.
Similarly, the amendment calling for capital punishment in the instance of murder committed during rape calls for our support because this is an equally heinous crime, an example of heinous, indefensible murder. I hope that in the debate that may ensue nobody will mislead the House again by misrepresenting the issue, as has been done so often in the House and in committee, by pointing out how in times past there was capital punishment for theft, pickpocketing, horse thieving, and so on. I hope nobody will say that here is another example of wanting to have capital punishment for a whole series of crimes. Note, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment does not call for the addition of any more crimes; it calls for capital punishment to be invoked upon the perpetrator of the same crime, namely, murder. It is not calling for capital punishment for a kidnapper or a rapist as such, but for a murderer. It could be argued that one murder is like any other, but we have accepted in this parliament over more than a decade the distinction between capital and non-capital murder; we have accepted the distinction between one crime of murder and another-for example, between an
Capital Punishment
act on impulse by someone who would not otherwise commit any crime, and a crime caused by ruthless disregard of the interests of others, the callous, lustful desire to impose one's will over others.
I believe that if we were to accept this amendment we would be moving in the direction that it is obvious an increasing majority of Canadian citizens want their government and parliament to move. It has been demonstrated by many members on both sides of the House that polls and surveys taken throughout the country have indicated a growing number of Canadians want a firming up in the administration of the law. They look upon the capital punishment issue as an example of that, because to a large degree Bill C-2 is not simply an act of legislation; it is a symbolic act, an act that symbolizes a permissive attitude on the part of many members of government who over the years have given priority to the interests of those who are committing crimes, rather than a priority to those who are their victims.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will have a change of direction here and will follow the direction that the Canadian people want us to follow. I believe that while this amendment could be called into question in this way or that, fundamentally it is pointing us in the direction that has majority support, this is not because most Canadians have some kind of blood lust that they are trying to satisfy, not because the Canadian people have a kind of sadism that they have to express through capital punishment but, rather, because the Canadian people want to put the criminal element of this country on notice that when a person takes the life of another, he risks the supreme penalty.
We might very well extend the list of crimes where capital punishment would be the penalty that could be invoked. Certainly, in the interests of protecting the lives of policemen and prison guards we have a minimum list, and in adding kidnapping and rape we are equally modest in extending the list available to us. I would therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that in line with the desires of the Canadian people, expressed on a large number of occasions, parliament would support this amendment as a demonstration to the people that we mean business, that we are going to firm up our law enforcement and that we are going to use the law as it is intended, that is, to protect society.
[ Translation]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we are now considering the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) to Bill C-2, amending the Criminal Code, and aimed at adding provisions to the existing legislation which stipulates that murderers of policemen or prison guards may be sentenced to death.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) certainly deserves to be congratulated for her proposal, for the government is clearly set on the total abolishment of capital punishment in Canada.
For reasons well known to the House, the amendments introduced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) have been "withdrawn from circulation" and we have resumed

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
our consideration of Bill C-2, to maintain in effect the existing legislation for the next five years.
Now the hon. member for Louis-Hebert proposes, in her amendment, the following new sub-paragraphs:
"(b) in respect of a male person, where such person causes the death of a female person while committing or attempting to commit rape, and
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that nowadays we hear so much talk about the equality of the sexes, I would also have added "in respect of a female person, where such person causes the death of a male person"-That happens too, and the law must be made equal for all.
Mr. Speaker, in sub-paragraph (c) the hon. member for Louis-Hebert proposes, and I quote:
(c) in respect of any person, where such person causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit an offence under section 247, or, if while committing or attempting to commit that offence, such person abandons a human being and death ensues as a consequence."
Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment that cannot be defeated. I believe, however, it will still not be sufficient. Only this morning I could read about so many squaring of accounts in the Montreal newspapers during which two or three persons were murdered last night.
Everywhere we sense a lack of security among people. People are afraid to walk the streets because of hoodlums who are not afraid anymore or scarcely afraid of the law. They are sentenced to life imprisonment. After 20 years, they are released, if not after ten years, and they cannot be rehabilitated because society is not adapted to that kind of treatment. For instance, is there a member of Parliament who would employ a former convict upon his release from prison? One would be frightened at once and would say: He is a murderer; he has been in prison and his rehabilitation is almost impossible. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that in some cases, it may be possible, but it is often impossible, and in most of the known cases in Canada, it was impossible. Indeed, as the hon. member for Louis-Hebert said a while ago, when she made an inquiry among prison guards, asking them about their opinion, they said: If capital punishment is abolished, we quit right away. And it is true.
Recently, I took part in a hot line broadcast in Vancouver, from my hometown in Rouyn, for an hour and a half, during the broadcast of Mr. Pat Burns, whom many have known when he was in Montreal. And among the people who called me, there was not a single abolitionist.
Recently, during the program "Choc du futur" on radio station CKAC in Montreal, there was a two-hour discussion on capital punishment and the amendments submitted, and the abolition of capital punishment was firmly opposed.
I sent a questionnaire to thousands of citizens in the province of Quebec. All, without exception, were for maintaining capital punishment, but not as it was 15 or 20 years ago, when risks were taken and innocent people executed, but for capital punishment when there is infallible proof without the shadow of a doubt. If there is some doubt, then let the prisoner benefit from it. But if there is not the shadow of a doubt, Mr. Speaker, the population of Canada

is not for abolishing capital punishment, and that is why I suggested to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) not to take my word but to hold a referendum across Canada and ask the people what they want. The Prime Minister answered that hon. members had to take their responsibilities because they are elected to represent the people. We have not been elected to abolish capital punishment, however. This is not true.
The hon. member for Louis-Hebert said earlier that hon. members who are at her far right-we are at her far right too but to the left of the chair-are in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. Yet, at the same time, they are in favour of abortion. In fact, in the name of society, of humanism, these people claim that we should not take the life of the murderer. And if a mother which has been pregnant for two, three or four months decided to abort, this would be justifiable, according to the members of the New Democratic Party. Then they will tell us that they thought about it. This is a strange way of reasoning.
I defy any hon. member of the New Democratic Party to make a random inquiry in his own riding on the timeliness of abolishing capital punishment and he will see that people are not in favour of it. This is why I am asking for a referendum. In fact we receive letters from people from all parts of the country who are opposed to the abolition of capital punishment. We receive a great number of letters from everywhere, even from former justice ministers. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), for instance, adopted a definite position against the abolition of capital punishment. Yes, we are in favour of improving law. The law must be changed not only to protect prison guards. I want my wife and my children to be protected and I want hon. members to be protected too.
If an hon. member is attacked or killed by a murderer, there is no capital punishment whereas this punishment would be given for the murder of a prison guard-I feel much sympathy for them because they are human beings like others, neither superior, nor inferior. I am for protecting these people, but I want the whole society to be protected in the same way and no treatment of favour for a few people. A law applicable to the whole Canadian people would be necessary and I am convinced that when the murderers see the sword of Damocles or the rope above their heads, they will be a little more hindered in their movements.
Mr. Speaker, we will have a chance to get back to this amendment. In fact, there are two amendments before the House and we will have the opportunity of getting back to this bill on third reading, just as we had today the opportunity of doing so in order to discuss this question again which should have been deferred till fall so that members of Parliament might go, on vacation just like anyone else. But they preferred to introduce this bill at this time. We shall discuss and struggle with the best of our energy in order that this bill does not come up for third reading. As far as the amendments are concerned, we shall certainly support them because they already represent an improvement over the existing legislation which provides that only the murderer of a prison guard may be sentenced to capital punishment by a court, and this is not enough.
I repeat that every human being is entitled to live in security, has the right to feel free in a free country, and
July 23, 1973

the criminals who commit murders are still responsible for their actions. And if there are people who are afraid to talk about it, I am not.
And earlier, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) spoke of the Laporte case. Now, to try to cover up, I think, the murder of Pierre Laporte, they are inventing things. They are trying to prove that there was collusion between Mr. Laporte and the Montreal underworld. Mr. Speaker, these are under-hand procedures and they are unworthy of human beings; and if there is proof of these things, let them produce it, but if not, they should shut up. There is nothing else to be done. However, these are unfortunate things that are happening, and Mr. Laporte is not here to defend himself. Everyone knows that.
His murder in 1970 was a sordid affair, and his murderers are now trying to pass themselves off as perfectly respectable people, as heroes. Mr. Speaker, when you are not afraid of what you have done, you do not have to hide in a rat hole. You do not have to run away if you are not afraid, if you have no reason to reproach yourself. You can face the music, or accusations, and prove that you were not there, that you were not responsible.
The murder of Pierre Laporte is a sordid murder, as well as the murder of police officers in Ville-Saint-Laurent by people dressed up as Santa Claus. It was sordid. Young girls of Cap-de-la-Madeleine or Trois-Rivieres have been assaulted, raped and killed in cold blood by young hoodlums. Those crimes were also sordid and this Parliament is going to pass a legislation to save these people from the rope. Let us be logical, Mr. Speaker. If we really want to save society, this is the question I wish to ask publicly, on T.V., on the radio and here in this House: Are we to protect criminals from society or society from criminals? This is something we have to decide on.
As for a free vote in the House of Commons, I have my doubts as to the freedom which exists on some occasions. Some hon. members from the Montreal area whose constituents are strongly opposed to the abolition of capital punishment voted in favour of abolition. I warn these members that they will have to account for that in their own ridings, as I shall see to it personally. We are here to express the will of our constituents, failing which I am sure that some hon. members will lose their seats if they do not take the will of their constituents into account.
Those are the few words I had to say this afternoon; when the motion for third reading is introduced, I intend to mention examples chosen on a nation wide basis. We are going to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert, in order to make some small improvements in the existing legislation. We want more improvements, more strictness and more categorical rulings as far as the law is concerned, as far as order, justice and safety for every human being in Canada are concerned.
[ English]


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to speak briefly against this amendment. I propose to vote against it. This will come as no surprise to those who know the firm convictions I have expressed from time
Capital Punishment
to time, both in this House and elsewhere, against capital punishment and in favour of its total abolition. I do not believe it has a useful place in a civilized jurisprudence. I do not believe it works; I do not believe it deters.
The amendment has the effect of extending capital punishment even beyond the provisions of the bill, which I will support. The effect of the amendment is to extend the penalty of capital punishment to cases where death results from rape. I do not wish to be considered as making light of the horror of this offence. Indeed, I think every decent person regards the crime of rape with horror and repulsion. The very fact that it is such an emotional matter makes it necessary for us to pause and inquire whether we are improving the situation in any way by imposing capital punishment. I think the facts show the reverse.
Some members of this House are aware that up until 1955 the crime of rape was punishable by death, and at that time capital punishment was abolished. In fact, no person in Canada has been executed for that crime since confederation. I appreciate the present legislation does not attempt to apply capital punishment to all convinctions of rape, nevertheless it is a fact that that was the law for many years. For various reasons it was repulsive to the people of Canada, and even though it was part of the law of the country it in fact has not been applied since confederation. In 1955 it was abolished.
What was the result? The result was a clear demonstration that the existence of this punishment was not a deterrent in any way. Even though there was the threat that one might be executed for the commission of this offence, essentially an offence of passion and emotion, the fact is that the number of convictions decreased after the abolition of capital punishment in spite of the population increase. In 1954, the year before the abolition of capital punishment, the number of convictions for rape was 44. In 1955, the year of the repeal of the provision for capital punishment in the case of rape, the number of convictions was 46. In each year thereafter the number of convictions for rape decreased. The details can be found in a book issued by the former solicitor general entitled "Canada on Capital Punishment, New Material 1965-1972" at pages 68 and 69. I will not read the details; all I say is that what is said there clearly indicates the futility of imagining that capital punishment successfully deters the offence for which it is imposed.
There is another reason why we should be particularly cautious in this regard. Of all the crimes in the calendar, rape creates the greatest number of dubious cases, cases in which emotions can be aroused and, having been aroused, innocent people can possibly be convicted. Every member of this House knows that what sometimes appears to be rape is the result of provocation and, to be perfectly frank, the result of invitation, yet the so-called victim wishes to vindicate her reputation and charges are falsely laid. This is a very real danger. This is not the only case in which our system of justice, however excellent it may be, is not perfect. We should be wary of imposing the ultimate penalty, the deprivation of life, in cases of this nature.
In my view, and I know it may not be particularly popular, this amendment is a retrograde step, a mistaken move. It cannot and should not receive the support of this House.

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment


Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, capital punishment should certainly be extended to more cases than are now covered by Bill C-2, which provides for capital punishment in the case of murder of policeman and prison guards. When speaking of rape, the previous speaker said that often it is committed as a result of invitation rather than a person seizing an opportunity. I remind the hon. member that the purpose of the amendment is not to have capital punishment for rape, and rape alone; it is for rape plus murder.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I made that clear.


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: The extension to include capital punishment for kidnapping plus murder is one which all members could well support. One of the main reasons capital punishment is necessary is that the public must feel that the power it has given to the government will be exercised for its benefit. The main purpose of capital punishment was a progressive step rather than a regressive one.
In olden days, if murder was committed-this goes back a century or two in the United States-involving a member of one family against another, than a blood feud was on. If murder was committed in the wild days of the west in the United States, without proper law enforcement in the vicinity, the public took it upon itself to lynch the murderer. Lynching is bad, yet it relates to a strong feeling within everyone that justice must be done. If there is a strong community feeling that a wrong has been committed against society, the community concerned will have either lynching or vigilante gangs, or will entrust justice to a government which is out to protect society. When this is not done, when you have the death sentence repeatedly commuted and when, in many of the states of the United States, you have capital punishment repealed, then you have a feeling among the public that society is not being protected. The result is that in another way the public takes the law into its own hands. When this happens, the public regards it as a democratic and constitutional right for each individual to carry a gun.
When justice does not appear to be done, and capital punishment is abolished, you then have the feeling among the public that it is not being protected by the government. Then, as in many areas of the United States, you find people with a little armoury in their homes: they have guns upstairs, downstairs and in the living-room, in order to protect themselves.
We in Canada do not have this form of individual protection, but we might well think in terms of what might happen in the future with the extension of social problems, with the feelings of one segment of the community against another, and with the general feeling of being fed-up about world situations today. It may well be that Canada, in the absence of a firm law on capital punishment, will itself become a land where there exists cities such as those now condemned in the United States. Unless we make clear to the public that we intend to protect it, there will not be a feeling among the people that their protection and security has been taken into account.
Whenever I make a speech in favour of capital punishment, I receive letters from those who speak about the

hangman's noose, asking me how I would like to take over the next hanging, and so on. I should like to say that although the purpose of the bill is not to change the method of punishment, unfortunately an amendment which would change it has been disallowed on good procedural grounds. But capital punishment need be nothing more than the removal of a person in the most humane way.
When I speak in favour of capital punishment, I do not necessarily speak against a certain segment of society or look upon those who might be murderers as different from myself. I think each and every one of us in his heart, and sometimes in his actions, could be capable of murder. I think there is not one of us who has not said at some time, "I could kill that guy." If the opportunity had been present at the time of that resolution, it might well be that many more of us would be guilty of murder.
If we look into the hearts of men, and the whole idea of good and evil, we will see that in fact evil largely develops in the context of a particular time, place and society. I can see that a youth of 16, 17 or 18 in the Germany of Hitler, a youth who looked at his country and saw it was going nowhere, and whenever it made some advances having to pay money to the other side in war reparations, might well respond to the call of Hitler. That youth might be looking for an affirmation, a focus or some way in which he could be positive. He might respond to Hitler's request to follow him, and become a person dedicated to violence. That same youth of 15, 16 or 17 years living 2,000 years ago, looking for affirmation, for a purpose or for some positive way in which to live, might have responded to the call of Christ going by the shores of Galilee who said, "Follow me." Each of us has the capacity for good and evil and each of us, given the circumstances, might have answered the call
2,000	years ago to follow an individual with some purpose, while each of us in Hitler's Germany might well have become a young Nazi or a young thug.
This is why many people feel it is society that is to blame and that it is society which creates particular circumstances. Many people feel it is a person's upbringing and his home that might be to blame, and that to understand is to forgive. Yet I would say that if I ever became guilty of murder, despite the fact that I might understand why I committed the crime, and that if I were to speak to some others they might feel they understood the circumstances, knew how this built up and why I committed murder, I would still hope that somewhere, objectively, I would see the need in society to exact the supreme penalty for the supreme crime.
We can go too far in allowing democracy to go wild and in believing that everybody is as good as anybody else. We can go too far in saying that even a cruel and vicious murderer who has had a lifetime of robbery, a lifetime of being a vicious animal, someone who has robbed and who has beaten people up, if only understood and given proper encouragement could be a proper individual. I take the stand, and I think it is a true one, that there are those, no matter how you might understand their actions, who are incorrigible. They are beyond the point of being saved. To treat them well is to be regarded as a sucker.
Unless we realize there is such a thing as evil in society, then we reach the peculiar situation in which we say that
July 23, 1973

if a person is not to blame for his actions which are evil, we cannot praise someone for actions which are good. This, of course, is utter nonsense. The only way in which society can function is by having law and order based on a recognition of that which is wrong.
If society becomes too permissive, we than have a situation in which society is blamed for everything and in which no one takes responsibility for himself. I do not want to see a situation in Canada where everyone would feel that because the government is not exercising its responsibility, everyone has a right to carry a gun. I do not want to see a situation in society in which the public will not feel justice is being done. I do not want to see a situation in society where democracy has gone wild and where anyone may feel able to do his own thing, yea even unto murder, and have the complete compassion of society. So I affirm that I am in favour of the amendment now being discussed.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to intervene very briefly in this debate. I supported the government bill during second reading and shall support it whether or not this amendment passes. However, I wish to indicate to this House that I support the amendment presented by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin).
Although probably in most cases the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, I am convinced there is a chance in some cases of kidnapping and perhaps in some cases of rape followed by murder that the existence of the death penalty would act as a deterrent. I do not think this very often is the case. Most of these crimes are committed by people who are not deterred by any criminal penalty. It seems to me, however, that we must look at another factor. I refer to the attitude of the general public toward law enforcement and the application of justice.
It is characteristic of this generation that more and more people tend to believe that our criminal justice system is an unfair system. I do not think this is correct. Our system today is more fair than ever before, but some aspects of it are lacking in the eyes of the general public. There are also some aspects which I believe are sorely in need of correction. The area which disturbs me most in respect of our present criminal system is the inequitable treatment accorded to the casual criminal and to the member of organized crime. It seems to me we must face up to the fact that in a modern society organized criminals are a different breed and should be treated under a different set of laws. Until we achieve this we will not have the kind of public respect we wish for the application of justice.
It is a fact that members of organized crime, rich persons or professional criminals who have resources behind them, can afford the kind of legal expertise which will enable them in almost every case to escape conviction as a result of a murder charge. The poor person has never had that chance in the past. Even with the much improved system of legal aid there is still, at least in my mind, a possibility that a person who does not have adequate financial resources conceivably could be convicted of a
Capital Punishment
murder which he did not commit, because of inadequacy of his access to legal expertise.
It is really more on this basis than on any other that I consistently have supported the bill that was brought in in 1987 establishing a five-year trial period of abolition in all but two areas of murder. I also supported the present bill, and will support it regardless of what happens in respect of this amendment. But I am convinced that this House should examine its conscience with regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert.
Perhaps in one of three instances which come to my mind, the assassination of Mr. Laporte, the kidnapping of a young woman in my constituency last summer and her murder about 15 hours later, and the situation which occurred in Hull in which a boy was kidnapped, ransom was asked for and a day or so later the bludgeoned body of the boy was discovered, the purpose of the murder was to cover up or safeguard the identity of the person who had committed the first crime of kidnapping. In the case of both the Hull boy and the girl who had been kidnapped, I realize arguments could be made with equal force that the punishment would or would not have acted as a deterrent. I doubt very much whether either side of that argument will ever be proven conclusively.
I do not know whether my report is exact, but I understand a study was undertaken recently, within the last year or two, by an association somehow related to the office of the Solicitor General and that the result of this study showed that five out of every six persons who had been convicted of murder since 1967 did not even realize that capital punishment for all but two crimes had been abolished in 1967. That kind of conclusion does not really surprise me, but it does not dissuade me from the logical argument which I believe has been made by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert in respect of her amendment. I submit that along with this legislation, or soon after it is passed, we will have to consider changes in the approach to organized criminal activity. I think we will have to re-examine the whole way in which we approach criminal law and its application, and we will have to do it if we want to maintain the confidence of the public in our judicial system.
We will have to decide to split up our criminal law and have two categories, as I said earlier, one for the occasional criminal who when he is caught is usually so sorry about what he has done that he is prepared to plead guilty, often without the advice of lawyers-this poor guy ends up getting years, sometimes decades, in prison-and the real criminals, those who devote their lifetime to criminal activities, those who kill or rob for hire, those who can afford the very best legal advice and are able to get off with a minimum sentence. If they end up in jail, because of the expert advice they receive from their counsel they behave like the most model prisoner and are eligible for parole at the earliest possible date, because parole is largely granted on the basis of the reported behaviour of the prisoner while in prison and on the opinion of parole officers. When they get out, if they do not immediately return to criminal activities they form a sort of backdrop of assistance to organized crime.

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
We must think in terms of dividing our Criminal Code into categories for organized and non-organized crime. Also, in the re-examination of our parole system I urge the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to give every consideration to the problem which I have outlined. What do you do with the organized criminal who happens to be caught and convicted in spite of all the expertise which his backers can amass? This fellow then behaves like a model prisoner and is eligible for parole quickly, even though he is not reformed. What do you do in such instances?
I would argue that with the officials one must devise a parole system that will take into consideration the kind of crime in which a person was involved prior to his conviction. If it was organized crime, there must be different parole procedures. I would also submit that in the case of individuals who show no indication of remorse for what they have done, and no wish to reform, there should not be automatic eligibility for parole. I am 100 per cent in favour of an even more liberal parole system. We should be putting more people on parole. But there is a real deficiency in the way in which we are examining convicts who become eligible for parole. I do not think we are being liberal enough with many of them; yet a large number who become eligible, in my view should never become eligible because of the nature of the crime and because they were part of organized crime or a criminal association prior to their committing the offence, and they will be looked after by this association once they get out, in one way or another-in some cases in a rather unpleasant way, but in most cases financially and otherwise.


William Warren Allmand: There are special rules now.


Ian Watson: I would hope that these special rules would be further refined to take care of the types of criminal activity which concern me and which I think are engendering among the public at large an unreasonable lack of confidence in our judicial system. I for one believe that our judicial system is immeasurably better now than it was 50 years ago, and vastly superior to what it was 50 years before that. But having said that, I think there is no reason for us to sit back and accept that what we have is good and will be acceptable in the years to come. There is much room for improvement, and that is the area where I believe improvement can take place more effectively and in a way which will increase public confidence in our system.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this amendment I would like first of all to commend most sincerely the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) for being so courageous as to introduce this amendment for our consideration today. I believe her action demonstrates that although, presumably, some discipline has been used within the party ranks of the government to avoid such amendments, there are some hon. members who felt sufficiently strongly on this issue, including the hon. member for Louis-Hebert, that they were willing to suggest that this amendment be added to the amendments which were agreed to with respect to Bill C-2 when it was at the committee stage.
Having said that, I would like to add that while I hope to keep my remarks with respect to the amendment reasonably brief, I also hope to have an opportunity as this

debate ensues to reiterate some arguments that I feel justify having the death penalty retained in Canada for at least some criminal acts. I would be the first to admit there is almost an inevitable argument raised by members in the House, and sometimes by the public, that it is necessary that this matter be decided by a free vote. It is stated that in a sense it is a matter of conscience whether or not the death penalty should be retained.
I find it very odd on the part of the government-having followed to some extent the actions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) with respect to this bill when it was referred to committee-to find now that the government still insists that there be a free vote on this matter in the House. Surely if the government, as represented by the Solicitor General, believe in abolition-as I understand the Solicitor General's representations to the standing committee, he feels there should be complete abolition- why does the government not introduce an abolitionist bill, get the party whips working and be done with it? Surely there is no question of conscience if you are suggesting that there should be no death penalty. Surely if there is no question-incidentally, I understand that the vast majority of the Liberal caucus support such an abolitionist measure-that it has nothing to do with conscience, why should the Trudeau government worry about the matter? Yet we find that the government does not have the courage to introduce a complete abolitionist measure into the House.
I can only assume that it is, therefore, not so much a matter of conscience that is disturbing the government as a matter of votes. It knows on this particular issue that it is out of step with the people of Canada, namely, the electors. For reasons that I am earnestly trying to discern, it intends, by devious means or otherwise, to have us accept a postponement of the death penalty provisions for another five years.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is unfortunate that a government is so indecisive in this respect that it does not have the courage of its convictions to bring in a bill which specifically does what the government intends to do anyway, regardless of what we do in this House today, this week, or at any time with respect to the death penalty. They are abolitionists, yet they will not admit it. This is not being fair to the people of Canada. If its members are in truth part of an abolitionist government, let them stand up and be counted, and explain during the next election to the electors why they ignored the popular demand and refused to allow the death penalty to stay in our criminal procedures.


Mr. MacGuigan:: They explained that during the last election.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am very pleased that the hon. member has made that interjection, because obviously something went wrong for them in the last election. I would suggest to him that one of the things that went wrong for the government is that people feel throughout the country that law and order has deteriorated under the Trudeau government.


Mr. Pelletier (Hochelaga):: We need a Nixon.
July 23, 1973


Mr. Gilbert:: Yes, we need Mr. Nixon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which Nixon?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Isn't it odd that the government is so obsessed with the leader of another country that even during debate on this important issue it is that leader's name that is the first name to flash into their minds when any question comes up that ministers may feel in the slightest is a little embarrassing or damaging to their position on this issue. Let me reiterate what I was saying. The fact is that the government under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) lost support in the country partly due to the fact that it did not maintain a law and order type of government during the five years it was in power.
Mr. Speaker, my point is simply that it is wrong for any government to come into this House and pretend that somehow it is a retentionist government, slip a bill through, and then at committee stage go to the lengths that the Solicitor General did to attempt to amend that bill into an abolitionist bill. I believe his true intentions, the intentions of the Prime Minister and of the government were shown clearly through those attempted actions of the Solicitor General. That is why I feel every member of the House should commend the hon. member for Louis-Hebert for introducing the amendment that we are considering today-because, bear in mind, she has done so as a member of the party that is supporting a government that is really a 100 per cent abolitionist government. I believe it is important that we first refer to the two main aspects of the hon. member's amendment. She is suggesting that the crimes punishable by death be extended to include "a male person, where such person causes the death of a female person while committing or attempting to commit rape."
During an earlier speech by the hon. member for Broadview, a member of the NDP, in which he spoke on this amendment I was most startled-


John Gilbert: On this amendment?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes.


John Gilbert: I did not speak on this amendment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may correct my mistake. I had the right party, but the wrong riding. I was referring to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).


John Gilbert: You probably have the wrong ideas too, but go ahead.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: During his speech on this amendment I was most startled to hear him comment that he felt that somehow the death penalty was not a deterrent. I was startled because, surely, the argument as to whether the death penalty is or is not a deterrent could be used with respect to any penalty, be it imprisonment or a fine. With equal weight you could argue that the fact that people are fined for speeding on the highway, or jailed for robbing banks is not a deterrent, so why have either penalty?
I would suggest it is wrong to feel that you can distinguish between a deterrent in one sense, as long as it is not taking a life in the form of capital punishment, but in the other sense it is a deterrent if one is penalized by a fine or
Capital Punishment
imprisonment. But let me be a little more specific, because I find this question of whether there is a deterrent is really one of colouring. During our consideration of Bill C-132, which deals with foreign ownership takeovers in this country, at committee stage I was rather amused, to put it mildly, to hear NDP representatives on the committee propose two amendments with respect to infractions that might ensue under that bill if it is enacted. Both of those amendments were offered by the NDP because they said they would be a better deterrent against an offence being committed. In both cases their remedy was, granted, not capital punishment but the raising of the fine from $5,000 to $100,000, and in the second case raising the fine from $10,000 to $100,000 with possible imprisonment from six months to one year. In that case the representatives of the NDP had no hesitation in indicating that this penalty was a deterrent at which all people in business would shudder, if it was ever accepted. But they now suggest, as the hon. member for Greenwood has done today, that the ultimate deterrent-you can lose no more than your life- is not a deterrent.
Having thrown out that general observation concerning the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood, I owe it to this House to refer to the specific figures on murder which were published by Statistics Canada in 1971. They show what has transpired with respect to the number of murders reported by the police to Statistics Canada, and homicidal deaths, on a per 100,000 of population basis. In 1954, murders in Canada reported to Statistics Canada were one per 100,000, and yet by 1971-I point out each year in the interim it is almost consistently up-the rate had reached 2.2 per 100,000. Under the column "Homicidal deaths," for the year 1954, the rate is shown at 1.2 per 100,000, yet for 1971 the rate was 2.4 per 100,000-an increase of exactly 100 per cent. Mr. Speaker, how can those who say that the death penalty is no deterrent justify their stand when the facts themselves show that the death rate in this country, as far as homicidal death or murder is concerned, has gone up?
The second thing that alarmed me, if it did not dismay me, was the fact that the hon. member for Greenwood said words to the effect that the amendment before us which proposes the death penalty in cases of rape where a death has occurred should not be taken too seriously. Often, he suggested, the girl provokes or even invites the man in this situation. He seemed to pass this off rather lightly, and suggested that we must bear in mind that in many cases the poor, unfortunate rape victim wants to vindicate herself. How, after her death, she is able to do this I am at a loss to know. How can the person who is raped and dead, as she would be before this amendment would have effect, vindicate herself? Be that as it may, I should like to refer to the figures because it is so convenient to be emotional but ignore the facts.
If we look at the Statistics Canada "Murder Statistics, 1961-1970" publication we find they have a separate heading under "Murder incidents and victims". One of these headings is "Sexual assault and rape". We find that between 1961 and 1970 there were 86 victims of rape involving females. Of that number-and I believe this is significant-21 were young girls under the age of 15 years;

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
that is, approximately one-quarter of the victims of this type of rape were girls of 15 years or less. Sixteen were in the 16 to 19 age bracket, and 19 were in the 20 to 29 age bracket.
I know it was unintentional on the part of the hon. member for Greenwood, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is unfortunate that he introduced the comment that he did in this debate. We are dealing with a situation where almost half of the rapes that might have been punishable by death, had these provisions before us today been in effect, involved young girls who should never be victims, under any circumstances, of this type of crime.
I think it is also important, when dealing with the question of the increase of crime in our country, and consequently with the lack of law and order that many people sense, to look at the figures with respect to rape to determine whether crime has actually been rising. Has the number of murder incidents increased? Here, again, I should like to refer to the Statistics Canada figures which show that in 1970, 21 incidents of sexual assault and rape involving murder were committed, compared to three such incidents in 1961. I would also point out that in the past five years the murder incidents involving rape as far as females are concerned totalled 60 victims, compared to 26 victims in the previous five years. If nothing else, these figures certainly cannot be taken by those who intend to vote against this amendment as supporting their contention that crimes of this nature are on the downswing.
If I may, I should now like to touch on the second aspect of the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert. This deals with crimes attempted or committed under section 247 of the Criminal Code. Here again she suggests that the death penalty should apply if death ensues from such a person being abandoned during a kidnapping, or as a result of the kidnapping. I feel this aspect of the amendment should be supported because, surely, unlike the situation referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood concerning rape, there can be no suggestion of the absence of premeditation in the case of kidnapping. Surely few crimes which can result in death and murder are as clearly premeditated as kidnapping.
I agree that skyjacking that has been capturing public attention for several days in the Middle East is not kidnapping in the normal sense in which that type of crime is generally understood. I would suggest however, that in a way skyjacking is the modern, 1970s type of kidnapping. Surely nobody in this House feels that the law should not be as strict as possible against those who have held the lives-in that case, of over 100 people-at bay for whatever reasons they feel are justified.
I am making the point, Mr. Speaker, that there is no more clear crime which could result in murder and which has a premeditated aspect to it than kidnapping. For that reason I again commend the hon. member for proposing her amendment to this House, and I urge hon. members to vote for it when it comes to a vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret, indeed, to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He could, however, continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.

Some hon Members: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert).


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to participate in this debate. I spoke at length on second reading of the bill and participated in the debate at committee stage, and thought I had set my views forth so that it would not be necessary to speak again. The hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) prompted me to speak, but more especially what prompted me were the remarks of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Arrol), the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse), and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).
I fully appreciate why a woman would be concerned with the crimes of rape and kidnapping. I think they have a certain hangup with regard to those particular crimes. I believe there is an emotional involvment and women feel they may be the victim at some time, and this seems to blur their thinking with regard to the general principle of capital punishment. I am sure, even though the hon. member for Louis-Hebert has brought forward her amendment in all sincerity, that she will agree that many women have such an emotional interest in rape and kidnapping that they find it difficult to be rational about the problem.
Let me mention the argument of the hon. member for Scarborough East. He is a biblical scholar who represents the Anglican Church and lectures at university. He is well aware of the distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament there are words to the effect, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord". The hon. member for Scarborough East made a slight change: his version would be, "Vengeance is mine, saith the hon. member for Scarborough East." He tried to bring feelings of rage, passion and retribution to bear on the subject.
I would have thought that the biblical scholar from Scarborough East would prefer to move from the Old Testament to the New Testament and adopt some of the teachings of the carpenter from Galilee. He taught that we should show forgiveness, understanding, compassion and love. But the hon. member did not dwell on those teachings. Does he not appreciate history, which shows mankind as moving from barbarism to enlightenment? He does not appreciate that in the past there was a whole catalogue of crimes for which capital punishment was the penalty. In our forward movement we have reduced the number of crimes for which a man can be put to death in Canada to two, the murder of a prison guard and of a policeman on duty.


An hon. Member:: We did that in the past.


John Gilbert: Yes, we did that in the past. That is what we have done in Canada. What has been done in the United States? I ask the hon. member for York-Simcoe, the hon. member for Scarborough East, and the hon. member for York East to look at what has been done in the United States. What has that country done with regard to capital punishment? It wants to see it abolished. And on what basis? On the basis that it constitutes cruel, inhuman
July 23, 1973

and unjust treatment. Within the last six months the Supreme Court of the United States, in pronouncing on this problem, has made this finding. I think that Canada ought to follow the enlightened direction given by the Supreme Court of the United States.


Mr. Whicher:: That is the only country following that pronouncement.


John Gilbert: I ask the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) to look at what has been done in England. A few years ago that country passed a law very similar to the one we are attempting to pass today. After an experiment lasting ten years, I believe, a motion was moved in England for abolishing completely capital punishment, and that motion passed with a great majority supporting it.


An hon. Member:: Not so.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, with respect, it is so. Our friends in the United States and in England have pronounced in an enlightened way on capital punishment. On the basis of their experience and reasoning that is the conclusion they have come to. But we in Canada, especially some of my friends in the Conservative Party and particularly the biblical scholar from Scarborough East, want to retain capital punishment on the basis of fear, prejudice and retribution. That is not worthy of them; it is not worthy of Canadians. I ask the hon. member for Scarborough East to find out what the Anglican Church has pronounced with regard to capital punishment. That church has said that capital punishment should be abolished totally, and it is supported by the major churches in the country. Yet the hon. member for Scarborough East wants to impose this terrible punishment, this terrible passion, this terrible retribution.
The hon. member for York East made the point that the Canadian public will not feel protected if we do not accept this amendment regarding rape and kidnapping ensuing in death. He suggests we will be doing a disservice to Canadians if we do not give them full protection. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I am proud to say about Canada is that Canadians feel secure within their society. There is no evidence to show that they do not feel protected. The people of those states of the United States, and of England, where total abolition has been brought in are protected. The policeman in the United Kingdom does not even carry a gun.
Directing my attention to the question of rape and kidnapping, I am sure that most people who commit such heinous crimes are mentally or physically ill. Any jury trying such a case would find, in most instances, that the accused person is mentally or physically ill. Yet out of our feelings of vengeance we want to impose the death penalty on these people. 1 do not think it is worthy of us to do so, more especially in view of the enlightened methods we have for treating these people. I would think we should want to see establlished a system of penology with concepts of rehabilitation and reformation rather than what is suggested by the amendment. Such a system would be based on reformation rather than retribution. People who are ill and who have committed such crimes should be subjected to the type of treatment that is necessary.
Capital Punishment
I am sure the hon. member for Louis-Hebert would agree that the amendment will not act as a deterrent. Of course, there have been many arguments for and against with regard to deterrence and it is safe to say, I think, that in the final analysis capital punishment acts neither one way nor the other. It really boils down to the particular person concerned. You will find in most cases involving rape and kidnapping that the person committing the crime is both mentally and physically ill.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Watson) talked about the parole system and suggested we have reached the stage where there should be a difference in the treatment of organized criminals and persons who are first offenders. The distinction he tried to draw, I suggest, is an impossible one. I suggest that our parole system should move in the direction of giving some hope, some chance to the parolee. We commit human error in some cases. What has happened in the past year or so has underlined some of the errors we have made. But this is life, Mr. Speaker. This is the purpose of taking a chance with regard to people. We have to exercise a certain faith and trust. It is impossible to categorize people with regard to the offences they have committed.
I was rather amused by the hon. member for York-Simcoe who said the members of the Liberal Party were almost total abolitionists. I certainly wish they were. We would not have some of the difficulties we are experiencing today. The hon. member suggested the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) made a grave error with regard to the amendments he submitted to the committee. I would like to tell the hon. member that when the amendments are submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the spokesman for the New Democratic Party fully supported them. The spokesman for the Progressive Conservative Party also supported them.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He was not our spokesman.


John Gilbert: The usual spokesman.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He said he was speaking for himself.


John Gilbert: I will accept that, but he is the usual spokesman. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) spoke personally in favour of the amendments.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He is not the spokesman of the Conservatives.


John Gilbert: There seems to be some debate as to who is the Conservative spokesman. The spokesman was the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. To put the total blame on the Solicitor General is most unfair, and certainly is not true. He had a great deal of support within the committee with regard to the amendments he proposed. Unfortunately, and we all accepted the verdict, they did not carry. However, the hon. member for York-Simcoe should not place the total blame on the Solicitor General.
I notice the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) is in the chamber. He is a former Crown counsel in the city of Ottawa. He has probably handled many rape

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
and kidnapping cases. I would like to hear his views on this matter. I have suggested that many persons convicted of rape or kidnapping are mentally or physically ill. This has been my experience. Your Honour has experience in criminal law and may have drawn the same conclusion. I would like to hear a former Crown counsel speak with regard to this particular amendment and give us the benefit of his experience on the question of rape and kidnapping. He knows that in many rape cases there is a great deal of invitation and provocation. These are surrounding circumstances. But in most cases the persons who commit these offences have disordered minds. I would like to hear the views of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
The hon member for York East spoke of the good and evil concept in society. I suppose most of us are an amalgamation of both good and evil. Surely the pursuit of man should be the attainment of good. The principles we follow should be toward attaining good. Perhaps this is the reason why the members of the New Democratic Party are so progressive with regard to this subject. We want the type of society which is based on man's goodness, enlightenment and achievement toward goodness. I cannot see any way of controlling evil by wreaking vengeance on a fellow human being, swelling within the human mind and soul hatred, passion and prejudice of one man toward another. I cannot picture that type of society.
I notice there are only two minutes left before private members' hour. I will summarize briefly what I feel with regard to this amendment. I am sure it was brought forward with good intentions, but the mover has the mistaken conception that it will in some way act as a deterrent. I respectfully submit that the whole basis of the amendment is fear. You cannot develop with any success a society which is based on fear. I ask the mover of this amendment to look at the experience in the United States and England to see whether their thinking and experience is the type we should have in this country. In the final analysis, what we want is a better Canada and a protected Canada. This amendment will not produce that result.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member entertain a question?


John Gilbert: Certainly.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Does the hon. member disagree that the bill before us today, which has been sponsored by the Solicitor General, is an entirely different measure from the bill referred to at Westminster, which was simply a Conservative backbencher's bill to attempt to restore capital punishment and was handled simply as a private member's bill?


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, in all honesty I am not familiar with the content of the motion that was dealt with at Westminster. I am familiar with the previous bill that was the law of England. The law of England said that capital pusnishment was abolished. The motion by the backbencher was to reinstate capital punishment. That motion was defeated.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) - National Capital Commission-Alleged notification to municipalities that dumping on its lands will be prohibited in 1974; the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdo-ly)-Housing-Alleged poor construction of Bal-Mon Homes, Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan-Bequest for investigation; the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark)-Information Canada-Suggested disbandment- Government position.
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.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
[ English]


William James Kempling: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to remove the inequity whereby a contributor under the act, who is not resident in Canada, cannot receive benefits upon becoming unemployed outside of Canada and, in fact, receives no benefit from those contributions upon returning to Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my notice of motion asks the government to remove the inequity whereby a contributor under the Unemployment Insurance Act, who is not resident in Canada, cannot receive benefits upon becoming unemployed outside Canada and, in fact, receives no benefit from those contributions upon returning to Canada.
It seems to me that by regulation the government should simply not deduct unemployment insurance contributions from persons outside Canada who cannot, under the act, receive benefits. As far as I am concerned, this is a very straightforward matter, but I am sure from conversations I have had with some of my colleagues opposite they will confuse the matter and it will not be as simple as I see it.
This whole matter came to my attention early this year, in January in fact, when a constituent normally residing in my riding of Halton-Wentworth received orders to proceed overseas with our Canadian armed forces to Europe. As my constituent is a member of the armed forces and his wife moved with him to Europe, upon receiving his notice to move, my constituent's wife applied for unemployment insurance on the assumption that having contributed to the UIC for 12 years she would be entitled to receive benefits for the prescribed period of weeks. She then
(Mr. Gilbert.)
July 23, 1973

found she must be resident in Canada in order to collect unemployment insurance.
It is not uncommon for persons, having contributed to the unemployment insurance fund for a number of years, to feel entitled to collect at least their contributions or a specific amount of money. We do this for people who upon reaching age 65 apply for a pension. They are directed to the UIC by Manpower and told they can collect three weeks' benefits. In the case of my constituents, who had contributed for a period of 12 years, she felt she was entitled to collect some of her contribution. She wrote to the UIC and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but received little satisfaction. For that reason I put the notice of motion on the order paper. I think it would be appropriate for me to read into the record the letter my constituent wrote the Prime Minister on December 14, 1972. She said, if I may be allowed to quote:
Dear Sir:
Being so far away from home, we Canadians overseas seem to lose all contacts with our government and its policies. The following incident with which I have been faced has made me wonder what "A Just Society" really is. Our government has so often used this term over the last few years and I must say that I truly believed they intended to implement this policy. However, the situation in which I was personally involved has raised doubts in my mind.
My husband is a member of the Canadian armed forces and last July was transferred to CFB Europe. Before our departure for Europe, I inquired through the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Quebec City as to my entitlement to unemployment insurance since I had to resign from my position due to my husband's transfer. I had, up to this date, worked for 12 years in Canada and had therefore been paying unemployment insurance for all those years without, at any time, collecting any unemployment insurance. I was advised that because I would not be a resident of Canada, I was not entitled to any benefits. I found this quite unfair since the government of Canada was my husband's employer and the government was the party sending my husband to Europe. He was not coming to Europe for a trip or holiday but to work here as a Canadian, as a member of the Canadian armed forces on a Canadian base. But I was formally told that I had no right to any benefits. Who is really entitled to Canadian benefits? I have known many wives and mothers back in Canada who went to work for a period of time and then resigned purposely because, as they would quote, "It pays a lot more to stay home and collect unemployment insurance than to work all the time." Is this what you call "just"? After 12 years of continuous work and paying unemployment insurance, I am refused a benefit and yet a person who goes to work for one year with the idea that after this period she will resign and stay home collecting unemployment insurance.
However, I left Canada and although I was not in agreement with this policy, there was nothing I could do about it. After I arrived here, I went to work at CFB Europe for a short period but had to resign because of my child. When I received my pay, I noticed that Canadian income tax and pension were deducted from my pay. This seemed strange to me after being told in Canada that I was not considered to be a resident of Canada, but I was truly shocked to notice that unemployment insurance dues were indeed deducted from my pay. The government was not willing to consider me for benefits here but they were most willing to enrich their treasury with all those deductions.
She went on to make a few other remarks which I do not think would be appropriate to read into the record. I read this letter with a great deal of interest. My only purpose in putting this matter on the order paper was to try to clarify what I consider to be an injustice. I have checked the matter with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and find that indeed you receive no benefits for your contributions while outside Canada; but on return to
Unemployment Insurance
Canada, after waiting for a period of eight weeks you can collect benefits. This in no way relates to the fact that you were employed and contributing outside the country.
I believe it would be unreasonable to expect the government to pay unemployment insurance benefits to people employed outside Canada, as I do not thinly you could control this situation. I am prepared to accept that fact. But surely it is just as unreasonable and unjust to ask a person employed outside Canada to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund with the full knowledge that they cannot collect benefits because they are not resident in Canada. The clear solution seems to me to be just to stop deducting UIC premiums from persons employed outside Canada who cannot collect benefits because they are not resident in Canada.
That is about the sum and substance of what I have to say on the subject. This is something the government could rectify by regulation. I do not think it is political in any way, shape or form, but I think it is an injustice. I do not suggest it was done deliberately, but was perhaps an oversight on the part of the government and the commission. I cannot help but feel my constituent has a just case. She has every right to be heard, and when she could not get satisfaction from other avenues of approach she wrote me. I have taken this opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the Parliament of Canada in the hope that the department or the parliamentary secretary will convey this injustice to the minister, an injustice which I believe should be rectified.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to comment on the case the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) has brought to our attention. I should like to remind him that the unemployment insurance scheme is an insurance scheme. If you owned an automobile and paid insurance on it for ten years, and at the end of that period sold it and swore that you would never again own an automobile, the insurance company would not give you back your insurance money.
The motion before the House suggests that the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to remove the inequity whereby a contributor, who is not resident in Canada, cannot receive benefits upon becoming unemployed outside the country, and in fact receives no benefit from these contributions upon returning to Canada.
I should like to point out various aspects of the motion. I think the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth in his comments said that the person who comes back to Canada can indeed collect some insurance, but I should like to point out and emphasize that it is clear that the premise of the motion is partly unfounded in another aspect and it is really quite untrue, as the hon. member himself has pointed out. I wish to deal first with the inaccuracy. The motion states that an unemployed person who has become unemployed outside Canada cannot receive benefits from unemployment insurance even upon returning to this country. This part of his motion is inaccurate.

July 23, 1973
Unemployment Insurance


William James Kempling: Do not play with words.


Peter A. Stollery: In fact, the contributor once he comes back to Canada, is perfectly within his right to file a claim.


William James Kempling: After eight weeks. You did not listen to what I said.


Peter A. Stollery: I am reading the part of the motion which says that he cannot receive benefits from his contributions upon returning to Canada. I am pointing out to the hon. member that as I understand it, a person who comes back to Canada after a period abroad can in fact claim unemployment insurance.


William James Kempling: No. Check with the Unemployment Insurance Commission.;


Peter A. Stollery: Persons who return to Canada upon becoming unemployed, or who become unemployed upon their return to Canada, are covered by the contributions made when outside the country. I must say I fail to understand the point in respect of the woman who went overseas and who seemed to be concerned because she did not receive a refund of her unemployment insurance payment.


William James Kempling: That is not it at all.


Peter A. Stollery: A major reason for establishing universal coverage in the act was to ensure that all persons working in insurable employment, whether inside or outside Canada, would benefit from the program. If the hon. member would do his research, I think that is what he would find. But I should like to explain another important area where contributors under the act will receive benefit outside Canada. That is in relation to the reciprocal arrangements which Canada has with the United States. I would direct the attention of the hon. member to those arrangements. Section 12 of the Unemployment Insurance Act grants authority to the commission to establish agreements with other countries. Part of this section reads as follows:
With the approval of the governor in council, the commission may, notwithstanding any other provision of this act, enter into agreements with the governments of other countries to establish reciprocal arrangements on matters relating to unemployment insurance.
Sections 34 and 37 of the Unemployment Insurance Act stipulate that recipients of unemployment insurance benefits who do not reside in Canada are not entitled to those benefits which are determined by national and regional unemployment rates. They are entitled specifically to benefits accrued by virtue of the length of their labour force attachment. As the hon. member knows, Canada is divided into areas, and if those figures go to over 4 per cent the rate of unemployment insurance alters. It is very clearly pointed out that people who are subject to the reciprocal -arrangements that Canada has, specifically with the United States, are entitled to benefits accruing by virtue of their labour force attachment. At the present time Canada has reciprocal arrangements with the United States in matters of unemployment insurance.


William James Kempling: What about Germany?


Peter A. Stollery: The Canadian-American reciprocal agreement is an administrative arrangement whereby the American states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and Canada-I will get to Germany in a moment, if the hon. member will be patient-take each other's claims on interstate forms but payments to claimants are made by the liable state or country authority; that is, the place where the claimant acquired his unemployment insurance credits pays him his benefits under the terms of its act which governs unemployment insurance. The place where the claimant resides while claiming benefits ensures his availability for employment and may recommend his disqualification to the liable state if, in their opinion, the claimant is not meeting the provisions of the act which would determine his benefits. Benefits, then, are paid by the country where the credit was established, and not by the country in which the claimant is seeking employment. The volume of traffic between Canada and the United, States is about equal-I think this refers specifically to what the hon. member was suggesting about Germany- and therefore the time and cost of administration is also about equal.
There is another circumstance in which a Canadian claimant in a foreign country is covered by the unemployment insurance scheme; that is, if he falls sick in a foreign country, the regulations state that his period of actual hospitalization in a foreign country is covered by the Canadian unemployment insurance program. I should like to deal for a moment with the coverage provisions of the present act and the relationship of those provisions to persons employed outside this country. The provisions of section 52 of the legislation are a carry-over of the old act and read as follows:
The employment of a person outside Canada, other than a person employed on a ship or vessel as described in section 51, is included in insurable employment where that person:
(a)	normally resides in Canada.
(b)	is employed outside Canada or partly outside Canada by an employer who is a resident or has a place of business in Canada, and
(c)	would be employed in insurable employment if such employment. were in Canada, and
(d)	is not employed in employment that is insurable under the laws of the country in which he is employed.
The impact of section 52 was greatly increased by the provision of the new act which, because of the universal nature of coverage, included members of the Canadian armed forces and the public service. I am sure we remember the protests of a few years ago when this universal aspect was being considered by, for example, people in the nursing profession who felt they should not have to pay unemployment insurance and who now, I think, are content to pay because, of course, if they become unemployed they are eligible.
When you consider the various alternatives relating to payments to Canadians abroad, there are a number of solutions which are possible that would continue the universal coverage of the program as well as allow us to pay benefits to those who are contributing under the act wherever they may be. The following are a few possibilities. First, we could enter into reciprocal agreements with all
July 23, 1973

countries-this, I think, is what the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth is suggesting-because surely reciprocity is the most important aspect. If we are to have an unemployment insurance scheme which becomes part of the West German scheme, we must have a reciprocal agreement. This, of course, would be true of all countries.
Another possibility would be that we could repeal section 45 of the act and make the benefit payable to residents of all countries who have sufficient Canadian credits to qualify, whether or not they are Canadian citizens. Another possibility would be for us to eliminate coverage for those persons identified in section 52, or we could provide for the payment of sickness and maternity benefits to persons living in foreign countries, provided they otherwise qualify.
Now I would like to say a few words about reciprocal arrangements, which are a little more complex than the hon. member would imply. For example, a reciprocal agreement with a foreign country could consist of several alternatives. The Unemployment Insurance Commission could pay benefits to persons who have established eligibility, according to the Unemployment Insurance Act, while employed in Canada and have gone to a foreign country with the intention of seeking employment in that country. The other country could pay unemployment insurance benefits to persons who established the right to benefits while employed in that country and then came to Canada, or Canada could pay benefits to persons who immigrate to Canada from a foreign country who are unable to find suitable employment on arrival and who have built up unemployment insurance credits in their country. Another possibility would be for the other country to pay benefits to persons who have obtained unemployment insurance credits in Canada, who went to the foreign country and were unable to find suitable employment upon arrival.
At the moment Canada does not entertain reciprocal arrangements with any other jurisdiction except the United States. To enter into such reciprocal agreements with foreign governments would have serious implications which, of course, we would want to consider. In fact, Canada has been approached by both the United Kingdom and Italy to enter into reciprocal arrangements with the Canadian Unemployment Insurance Commission. Essentially, the proposal of the United Kingdom advocated that both countries recognize contributions under the unemployment insurance plan of the other country for the purpose of rates and duration, and the country where the claimant was residing and unable to find employment would pay him unemployment insurance benefits. In the negotiations, the commission indicated that they were not prepared at that time to enter into a reciprocal agreement which would require the commission to recognize the United Kingdom contributions as a qualification for receiving benefits from the Canadian unemployment insurance plan. Part of the rationale for this position-I am sure the hon. member would agree with this-was that the traffic is mainly one way; most people come from the United Kingdom to Canada looking for work.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order.
Unemployment Insurance


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member cannot raise a point of order unless he is seated in his own place.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, when I was making the various points I was not referring to reciprocal arrangements with the United States, the United Kingdom or any other country. The simple point I made was that the government was deducting unemployment insurance from someone from whom it should not be deducted; that is all.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to rise on the point of order. The House is not considering the hon. member's words, although we listened to his words with great interest, but the motion which is before us; and the motion is not as limited as the speech was. Therefore I would argue that the comments which the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) was making are very much in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member will admit that all these points are not points of order but, rather points of debate, I do not think the hon. member was straying from the motion before us, and I think he should be allowed to continue.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to try to respond to the hon. member's speech. I can only respond to the motion, and I am afraid that is a limitation I must accept in pointing out the error of his ways. I was explaining that the rationale for the position that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is not prepared to enter into an agreement with the government of the United Kingdom is that most people come from the United Kingdom to Canada. This would work to the detriment of Canada. People would be able to come from the United Kingdom to Canada, become eligible for unemployment insurance and then return to the United Kingdom and collect unemployment insurance there after eight weeks' of work in Canada. I think people would find that obj ectionable.
Another central issue was the fact that there would be difficulty in administering any such agreement, and the effective administration that would be required would be very expensive. Also, it was felt that the difference in currencies would cause a problem. I might add that the commission's views have been fairly well received and the United Kingdom has not pursued this position very strongly.
With regard to the government of Italy, they have approached the Unemployment Insurance Commission with a view to establishing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), not so much for the logic of his motion -although he is usually a logical fellow-but for going to bat for his constituency as a good member should. After all, what he is doing is trying to

July 23, 1973
Unemployment Insurance
help his constituents rip-off unemployment insurance, as everybody else is doing.
Perhaps what we should be discussing is some kind of entitlement. This is really what his constituent is saying in between the lines in her letter-"Everybody is ripping off the unemployment insurance, so why not me?" The reason I rise to speak on this is that I think there are some things that need to be said.
I have witnessed many occasions since the last election when Conservative members and others have risen to denounce the inequities under the Unemployment Insurance Act, telling how the administration is prosecuting so and so, bringing the law to bear on so and so, being unjust, and behaving mercilessly. Yet the Conservatives were the party that virtually fought the last election on a campaign against abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Act, saying how they hoped to clean it up.


William James Kempling: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge is absolutely twisting what has been said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is no point of order.


William James Kempling: There is no case of anybody ripping off anything. What my constituent is asking is that unemployment insurance premiums not be deducted from her income. She does not want to pay in, and she does not want to collect from unemployment insurance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why did
you not make your speech while you had the floor?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Iianiel):: Order. I wish to remind hon. members that they should not take advantage of points of order or points of privilege to try to explain or rectify the arguments they have made in their speeches. Hon. members are entitled to their own interpretations of speeches, and as long as they follow the rules and regulations of the House and stay within the subject matter of the debate, they should be allowed to continue their speeches without intervention.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), who I am sure will send a copy of his speech to his constituent to indicate how he has gone to bat for her, that he at no time suggested she was ripping off the unemployment insurance. The hon. member was putting her case forward as a legitimate complaint for this House to consider, and I hope nothing I have said suggested anything else. But I am suggesting that what his constituent is saying is, "Everybody is ripping off the act, why not me? I am contributing; I am entitled to take it. She has pointed out that people contribute under the act for eight weeks and then collect maternity benefit. I say that the hon. member's constituent is absolutely right, that the act is being ripped off right, left and centre.
When the amending act was introduced by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) I may have been the only member of the House who rose to criticize it sharply.

At that time I said it was no longer an Unemployment Insurance Act, and that by no stretch of the imagination was it an insurance program. I said it had become a giant welfare scheme. Events subsequent to that have demonstrated the truth of what I said. The trouble is that a lot of people are collecting unemployment insurance as if it were a welfare program, treating it as supplemental income. These are people who would be horrified if they had to go down to city hall to make an application for welfare.
The point here is that the hon. member's constituent who wrote him a letter is saying, "I am making contributions and I cannot get any benefits." I ask in which way is she different from many people who are making contributions and not getting benefits? I say there is no more sense to the act. There is no more relationship between the contributions people pay under the act and the benefits they receive.
What we have in this country are people who go to work, punch the clock, work conscientiously at what they are doing, while many other people, some of them legitimately unemployed but many of them unemployed strictly by choice, prefer to collect unemployment insurance rather than work. Something has to be done about this because moral decay sets into society when this takes place.
What was once a great Unemployment Insurance Act that I supported and that many others supported because we felt it gave people the income maintenance that was necessary has now become an entirely different thing. Anyone who rises in the House and tries to relate the premiums to the benefits, or the risks to the premiums, is really off the point. We should not even call them premiums. It has no relationship to an insurance program. It is straightforward taxation that we are imposing on people, and we might as well call it taxation. If we are going to continue with this system, then I say let us get rid of all premiums and simply add the cost to the tax system. It would be a fairer way.
Who are the people who are abusing the act? They are not particularly the poor. A lot of them are middle class people with a somewhat superior education who have learned every single line and comma in the act. They know to the day how long they have to work in order to qualify, and how long it takes to collect benefits. They make a very simple calculation to cover an eight week period. They say, "It is going to cost me something like $10, and I will get $1,500 back." What kind of justice is there in a society that permits that kind of thing to go on? The girl who cannot go to work for the necessary number of qualifying weeks because she is pregnant will not get benefits. But somebody who is smart enough can rip off the system for $1,500.
While it may not be a very popular thing to do to stand up and denounce the act, I think it is necessary for somebody to bring this matter up. What is the point in fishermen being included under the provisions of the act? Insurance is supposed to take care of unpredictable hazards. What is unpredictable about fishermen being unemployed?
If all fishermen were poor, of course, people would understand that this is a form of income maintenance; but
July 23, 1973

many fishermen-and here I am talking about west coast fishermen-earn more in the few months they are working than some guys will earn working a whole year in a factory. They work for a few months and collect unemployment insurance for the rest of the time. Up until recently that was not taxable income. At least now it is taxable income.
I remember the time when people in jobs were using seniority in order to hang on to their jobs. But when the time comes that people use their seniority in order to get laid off so that they can collect unemployment insurance, then I say our society and the motivations at work in our society have to be looked at again.
It is not a question that people do not understand. I have many people who call me and ask about their rights under the Unemployment Insurance Act. When they are talking to me they may say, "I guess you are not very happy about what I am doing. I am not happy either. I know I am ripping it off, but then everybody is doing it."


An hon. Member:: Everybody is not doing it.


Max Saltsman: I am saying that there are tremendous abuses of the act the way things are set up now. In effect, it has become a disaster area. The time has probably come when it must be changed from a separate attempt to maintain income and become a far more comprehensive program that includes income for all kinds of losses, integrated with workmen's compensation and other plans.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but he is engaging in a rather wide examination of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think he should return as quickly as possible to the motion that is in front of us, which is really directed to one special type of case covered by the act, as put forward by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can understand your concern. If I have ranged somewhat widely it was for the purpose of demonstrating how ridiculous it was to try to make any change in the Unemployment Insurance Act in this case.
In effect the motion is an attempt to point out that there is an abuse in the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Payments are being collected from some people who simply have no way of collecting benefits. What I am suggesting to the hon. member who moved this motion is that to argue anything on a rational basis to try to get an adjustment of the provisions of this act is pouring water into a sieve.
I want to conclude what I have to say but I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will appreciate why it had to be put in that somewhat larger context. We now have a situation that we are paying for because a former minister of the Crown could not get his way in cabinet in terms of economic policies and he was going to solve all of the welfare problems of our society in one fell swoop through unemployment insurance. The consequences of that attempt have been very harsh and have changed in many ways the psyche of our society very much for the worse. I
Unemployment Insurance
think it is time that some serious corrections to the Unemployment Insurance Act were made, though not along the line of suggestions made today because something far more fundamental will be required.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I have enjoyed listening to the the contribution of the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) and the hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge (Mr. Saltsman) is that the positions which they have suggested this afternoon are not typical of those their parties normally take. I recognize, of course, that the Conservative Party has tried to play it both ways on unemployment insurance. Normally, I think, the majority of them like to come down on the tough side, but here we have the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth pleading for more benefits. By contrast we have the member from the New Democratic Party taking a tough line on unemployment insurance. Knowing that he is somewhat an individualist, I am not sure that he presages the views of his party on all points involving unemployment insurance, but it is interesting to hear such views from that corner of the House.
The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth began by saying the this was a very straightforward matter and he thought we would make it too complicated. I may say that is just what we have to do, not because we are making it complicated but because the facts and legislation do so. The presentation that the hon. member gave is somewhat too simple for the situation. I refer to the inaccuracies both in the motion and in the comments which he made this afternoon. There are some five or six of these which change his perspective considerably.
I should like to begin by quoting from the notice of motion, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, to remove the inequity whereby a contributer under the Act, who is not resident in Canada, cannot receive benefits upon becoming unemployed outside of Canada and, in fact, receives no benefit from those contributions upon returning to Canada.
The first objection I would take is to the last clause in the motion which states that a person who is not resident in Canada and has paid contributions receives no benefit from these contributions upon returning to Canada. Mr. Speaker, that is not so. In his spoken remarks this afternoon, I take it that the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth was repudiating the statement in his motion and suggesting-


William James Kempling: Not at all.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member says "Not at all", but the suggestion orally was not that no benefits could be obtained but that there was a 12-week wait. It seems to me that is a contradiction of what he suggests in his motion.


William James Kempling: I said 8-week.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Well, I took down the figure 12 at the time the hon. member said it. In any event, he is wrong on both counts, whether he is saying that there are no benefits when they return to Canada or is suggesting that they must wait for 12 weeks or 8 weeks. Such a person is in

July 23, 1973
Unemployment Insurance
exactly the same position as anybody else who contributes; he has the normal waiting period, and providing he has the proper amount of insurable weeks of contribution during the previous year, he has no more waiting period than any other person. There is no requirement for requalification either. That is a very considerable limitation on the picture which the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth painted at the beginning.
There are also some qualifications to be made which considerably change the first part of the motion before us. To refer to the words and the clause just before the one I previously referred to, the motion reads:
... a contributor .. . who is not resident in Canada, cannot receive benefits upon becoming unemployed outside of Canada . . .
That is not true in all cases, and again these limitations are of considerable importance. The first of these, as the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) has pointed out, is that where there is a reciprocal arrangement with another country, there is an exception. The United States is the only country with which we have a reciprocal arrangement at the present time. Another exception mentioned by the hon. member for Spadina was where a Canadian claimant in a foreign country falls sick and requires hospitalization in that foreign country. During his period of actual hospitalization in the foreign country he is covered by the Canadian unemployment insurance program.
There is a third and important exception which is in the process of being established, and this we could not have expected to have come to the attention of the hon. member of Halton-Wentworth because it is not yet entirely a matter of law. I can say this afternoon on behalf of the minister and the unemployment insurance commission that there is the intention to make this further change with respect to sickness and maternity benefits. The new policy would make provision for claimants abroad to claim sickness or maternity benefits providing their residency abroad was due to their participation in insurable employment or their spouse's participation in insurable employment. It follows, of course, that the individuals would also have to qualify in their own right.
The unemployment insurance commission has adopted a policy which can be implemented by regulation. Administrative procedures are now in the process of being worked out and the policy is expected to be implemented in short order. The bulk of the claimants for whom serious questions have been raised include service men and women, members of the Canadian public service abroad, and employees of Canadian multinational corporations who are working in insurable employment abroad.
The proposed solution, which would allow for the payment of sickness and maternity benefits, would not necessitate reciprocal agreements with other countries concerned and, therefore, would not have any of the disadvantages which might be attached to paying regular benefits. The individuals concerned could file their claims through a Canadian office designated to handle such claims. There would be no need to police availability as entitlement would be based on the adequacy of medical evidence. The act would not have to be amended and administratively we could expect, particularly in large armed forces bases overseas, that the staff would receive
[Mr. MacGuigan.)
some training material which would enable them to assist claimants in making application.
Finally, there would be no need to seek a change in the coverage regulations which are the responsibility of the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, as the commission could implement this change by amendment to section 169 of the regulations.
It should be recognized, Mr. Speaker, that for the most part Canadians who are serving abroad and who are in insurable employment have contracts of service with employers, mainly with the Canadian government, which would not leave them unemployed overseas. Any termination would include transportation back to Canada. In this event, the individual concerned could file a claim and would be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits as if his credits were established in Canada. Those people who go overseas will become eligible for maternity benefits; for example, a servicewoman who, while granted leave without pay by the armed forces, receives no further remuneration would be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits while abroad for the designated 15 week period. This would also hold true for those persons who became sick and could establish that fact by medical evidence. Since there is no need in these cases to establish availability or capability, then there would be no difficulty in paying these persons without the need for reciprocal arrangements which would cause administrative and other difficulties.
As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this policy has recently been adopted by the unemployment insurance commission and it is the intention of the commission and the minister to change the regulations to implement the policy. This matter had been brought forcefully to the attention of the minister and the commission by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) on behalf of armed forces employees. As a result of this and other representations it was decided that a change in the regulations should be sought. However, to make the change on the broader scale suggested by the motion would, it seems to me, open a can of worms that would be very difficult to deal with.
We have had UIC problems in this country. For example, as hon. members know, there have been difficulties in enforcing all the regulations and ensuring that claimants are available for work. We must recognize that there are not any officers of the department in Europe who act in a policing capacity. Unless we enter into reciprocal arrangements with European countries, we could not take advantage of their services. Indeed, their conception of unemployment insurance is sufficiently different from ours to make it hard to say whether or not we could use their administrative services. We do not know whether their services would enable them to cover the claimants we might have.
There are skiers in this country who have gone on holiday to Banff by taking advantage of their unemployment insurance benefits. If the hon. member's suggestion were adopted, we should have people taking their holidays in the Alps, or in Austria, at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. It seems to me that that is not what the hon. member wishes to suggest.
July 23, 1973

That is not the sort of loose administration which can be countenanced by the unemployment insurance commission or by the government. I suggest that, if he considers all the implications, this scheme will not be countenanced even by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) Therefore, it seems to me that it would not be advisable to follow the line suggested by this motion. At the same time, it is important to understand that the motion has, albeit erroneously and inaccurately, drawn the matter to our attention. Inasmuch as there is already a considerable area within which there is protection for Canadians who are employed abroad and who make contributions abroad, it would not seem wise at present to expand that protection.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) has given us an opportunity to go over this general area of concern, even though he has spoken about his constituency. For that I wish to thank him. Without looking beyond our borders, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth can point to people who fall into two additional categories which might benefit from his intervention in this House. I am speaking of their eligibility for unemployment insurance payments.
First, let me refer to constituents who might presently be or might have been in the past workmen's compensation cases. On re-entering the labour force after absence due to an accident, after which they might have found a new skill, they are confronted with difficulties. Many people acquire new skills in their forties and fifties. Such people as these may have contributed for a number of years to the unemployment insurance scheme. They find themselves attempting to re-enter the labour force. They seek employment and yet are without protection; they are without income benefits on a weekly basis, and without the advantage of protection under the unemployment insurance scheme. This category would embrace a number of people in the hon. member's constituency and in the constituencies of many members of this House.
Another group affected, of course, is the group alluded to by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth. Perhaps the government should look at this matter and try to find an equitable answer. This group consists of ex-inmates who have been out of the labour force, for obvious reasons. They may have contributed considerably and, at a certain point, found themselves re-entering the labour force; yet because of their absence from the labour force, they do not qualify for any benefit or coverage.
That situation, of course, entails an economic strain on those individuals who are, in most cases, seriously determined to re-enter society and find employment in a normal way, just as everybody else does. Yet they must turn to special agencies for economic assistance instead of drawing benefits from the fund that has been established, also with their help.
We can understand the dilemma of the commission in being asked to cover people who have been out of the labour force for a certain period. In the case of the man who has been injured and who has been covered for some time by workmen's compensation, the unemployment insurance commission can say that such a man has not been available for work, has been under the jurisdiction of
Capital Punishment
another commission, and therefore constitutes a case for which the commission has no responsibility. I suppose a similar reply could be made by the commission in the case of an ex-inmate.
The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth, in giving examples, raised the question of the eligibility of individuals in our society who, for some reason or other, have not belonged to the labour force in Canada for some time but who, at the same time, feel that they have a claim on some form of benefit.
This raises a much broader question. I would not want to incur your displeasure or be ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I am looking at the clock, and it is almost six o'clock. In other words, we must deal with the much broader question of whether in modern times the whole system of unemployment insurance really meets our needs, or whether or not in Canada we should introduce a system which will be based on ensuring employment rather than on ensuring benefits for the unemployed.
The present system of unemployment insurance entails the setting up of all sorts of rules and regulations that result in frustrations and confrontations between applicants and claimants, on the one side, and the bureaucracy, on the other, with the government getting the blame in the middle. Mr. Speaker, as it is six o'clock, perhaps I may be permitted to call it so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, here we go again on the capital punishment debate, Bill C-2. In my view, this debate is a waste of time Many bills have much greater priority than this. I believe about 150 speeches have been made on this bill since it was introduced earlier this session.
Let me repeat what I stated when I spoke in this debate on May 22. There are many bills, such as the family allowances bill, which could have been debated earlier this

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
session, passed by Parliament and be in effect by this time. People could have been receiving their increased family allowances by July 1.
It is about time somebody told it like it is. No one has been executed since 1962. At present, no one is in the death cell awaiting execution.
I had the privilege today of speaking to a former distinguished member of this House. He said we might as well resign ourselves to the fact that there will never be another execution in Canada and we should get on with other business. I might qualify this by saying there will never be another legal execution. Every day and every night people are plotting executions, whether it is of members of this House or someone else. They are being plotted and carried out. If the executioners are unfortunate enough to be caught, they will be subject to the usual life sentence which will be commuted in 10 years. This is not a big gamble for them.
This afternoon I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin). She spoke in support of her amendment which would provide capital punishment for kidnapping and rape where killing ensues. She cited cases of kidnappings of prominent people and the children of prominent people. Time and again ransoms have been paid and murders committed.
I also listened to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) who referred to the amendment and the remarks of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert. He questioned the hon. member about rape killings. He stated that women have a particular hang-up fear of this type of murder. He can certainly view this type of crime in a detached and compassionate way as there is no way he could possibly be the victim. That certainly would not apply to the beautiful and eloquent member for Louis-Hebert.
The hon. member for Broadview stated that most Canadians feel protected. I disagree; most Canadians feel they are not protected. I live in a small town where the crime rate is among the very lowest. Years ago we never locked a door or closed a window. Now when I am at home on weekends my wife lives in fear that someone will break in and commit a crime. I have to check all the windows and doors.
Time and again the song-singing abolitionists-and there are a great many of them-talk about terrible crimes. They point out that many of these dastardly crimes are committed by mentally ill or deranged people. They talk as though these people would be subject to the supreme penalty. That is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone knows that if someone is proven mentally incompetent, he will be sent to a hospital or institution. If he can be cured, he will return to society in due course.
We hear a lot about the words compassion and mercy. They are beautiful words, very poetic. In Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Portia said;
The quality of mercy is not strain'd;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath.
In view of the majority, too much mercy has been handed out and there has been too little justice. There has

been too much concern for the killers and little or none for the victims or their families.
It was suggested in another amendment that was not approved that we should provide a 25-year minimum mandatory sentence for first degree murder. I believe this is just as severe as the death penalty. Let me repeat, I consider death by hanging a cruel way to take a person's life. In my previous speech I stated that these cold-blooded or mad dog killers should be eliminated from society as painlessly as possible by administration of a drug.
Those in favour of abolition talk about vengeance and the state becoming a murderer. The public is unhappy with the present crime wave, too lenient sentences and murderers being allowed out for weekends and holidays- and on one occasion to get married. I am aware that the majority of members in this House are not in favour of the retention of capital punishment for murder in the first degree. However, let me say loud and clear that the majority of the people in Canada are certainly in favour of it.
It would seem to me that members of this House should give consideration to public demand for tightening up our laws and severe punishment for these criminals. Those espousing the cause of the abolitionist have some very powerful allies in the press and news media. Let me repeat that the majority of newspapers, TV and radio stations or broadcasters seem to be in favour of abolition. However, this is one case where they have come off second best, because they have not been able to sell this bill of goods to the public at all.
It has been mentioned in this chamber before, and I repeat it, that this question should be put on a general referendum at the next general election. Let the people of Canada decide once and for all, instead of leaving it to 264 members of this House. This is supposed to be a free vote but we know that is not so. This is a government-sponsored bill, and I am quite sure there are members on the other side who deep down in their hearts feel, as many of us do, that capital punishment should be retained. If they voted on this basis they would be voting on their own convictions, and in 99 per cent of the cases would be voting as the great majority constituents would want them to vote.
The sooner we get this bill out of this House and this issue decided, the better. We can then get down to the serious business of priority matters such as unemployment, inflation, family allowances and so on.
We were supposed to amass data on whether capital punishment in respect of killers of policemen would be a deterrent to this type of crime. No data is available for the simple reason that killers of policemen in the past five years-and there have been far too many such murders- have all had their sentences commuted by the cabinet. Since we cannot ensure that the government will in fact allow the execution of murderers of policemen and prison guards, this debate is simply a time-consuming exercise. In my view our time is too valuable to waste in this way.
I would far rather the government asked for a vote on what it really wants, total abolition, and then we could get down to the business of the House. The government has
July 23, 1973

brought this matter before the House during this hot time of the year assuming a lot of those opposed to the bill would be home in their ridings. I for one would like a holiday, but I am quite prepared to stay here during the entire summer and right through until Christmas, and I know I speak for many others. I certainly feel that this bill should be brought to a head right now; we should get rid of it and then get on with more important business.


Mr. Joe Hueglin (Niagara Falls):: July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
the people and governments are in opposition, and not only at the federal level, I might add.
Our people are concerned about the lack of control on individual licence in respect of drugs, pornography, murder and virtually all aspects of life. This abolitionist government, however, is determined to obtain its way. The very interesting amendments in committee showed their true colours. It is too bad the amendments were not accepted because then the government could have been held totally responsible for what would follow. But the amendments of the Solicitor General and the cabinet were ruled out of order.
These amendments advocated complete abolition, a position opposed by fully 88 per cent of those polled in the Niagara Falls riding. Over 55,000 people replied to the questionnaire sent out in this riding. The amendments w'ere introduced with the concurrence of the cabinet, I presume in the belief that the true aims of the cabinet could be realized in legislation as well as in executive decree because of the 14-vote spread on this bill when it received second reading. This debate should have been delayed until the fall when people would have had a full interest in politics and public concern could have manifested itself more fully.


An hon. Member:: No.


Joseph Fred Hueglin: Of course, you are not interested in the people. It has been introduced now when many electors are more concerned with living their private lives-


An hon. Member:: Talk about yourself.


Joseph Fred Hueglin: Mr. Speaker, let the hon. member at least attack me if he is going to speak. Otherwise I hope he remains quiet. It has been introduced now when many electors are more concerned with living their private lives and when our actions here fall on fewer ears than usual. This debate should have been held in the fall, but that it is held now is the government's will supported ably by some backbenchers.
We are addressing ourselves to the first amendment. This amendment does not go as far as the people wish. It will not allay all the concerns. However, it is a step in the right direction. If this amendment should pass, and I hope it will, it will be interesting to see whether, if a murder should occur under this provision, the law will be honoured, or whether the expressed will of the cabinet will prevail.
Almost three years ago now Canada was greatly upset by what was called a threat to our life as a nation. Lately we have seen the last of those who were accused of murdering Pierre Laporte convicted of a crime, but so late after the fact and so limited in gravity that little satisfaction is derived by those who have followed the case. Indeed, there is some discontent. The country was unsettled by the situation which developed in October 1970, and it is still unsettled because the rehabilitation of the individual rather than the protection of society is the priority of this government. The individual feels threatened. He must be granted security if life is to be lived in

freedom from fear. The people of this country demand security. The government has denied them this. This amendment provides some deterrence to kidnapping and rape. For this reason it has merit and therefore I shall support it fully.
In his defence of abolition the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) introduced history to support his position. He said we move from barbarism to enlightenment and that this should be stressed. He said we should look for good and not evil. History will show periods of refinement and enlightenment.
History shows that man is a mixture of good and evil. The good must be fostered, but if the evil is not controlled by society, individual licence will destroy a civilization. We are in a period of permissiveness in which individual freedoms and demands dominate. But these are infringing on the paths of those who seek only to live their lives in peace and security and have no causes to promote. In the minds of the people the death penalty is the keystone; it is the ultimate sanction against anti-social acts. Let hon. members poll their constituents and they will find this is so. Let them prove whether the people fear, or whether, as the hon. member for Broadview says, the people walk the streets with no fear.
Our people want and need a strong statement from their leaders that society will be maintained, that permissiveness will end, and that order will be restored. It is my hope that this amendment will pass. It will perhaps deter some people from killing, and if it is put into effect it will certainly bring retribution to those who disregard society. This bill is an abomination. It should be withdrawn and replaced by the true feeling of the cabinet as shown by the amendments of the Solicitor General (Mr. Alimand). It should be a bill of complete abolition. This amendment improves the bill, but allows others who commit premeditated murders to escape their just reward.
f Transla tion]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on Bill C-2 entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code. This bill was sent back to the House by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs with two proposed amendments, one of which by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin). May I be dispensed from reading it since the Chair has already done so.
I can understand that it was difficult for the members of the committee to pass those amendments according to the wishes of the members while respecting the Standing Orders. That explains the confusion at one point, of which the public was not made too much aware.
Still, the amendment of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) adds to the provisions of the act two types of murders which could be punished by death. And I commend the hon. member who made this afternoon a most convincing speech in support of her amendment. It was a speech by a true mother who knows life and who wants at all costs to see it respected in this country. And whoever jeopardizes the right to live in a truly Christian society should be punished.

In any event, in the past capital murder was punished following fair judgement. I think the time when justice should be forgotten and not be allowed to proceed is not over. However, I am surprised to find that the abolitionists are aware that life is the most precious gift made by God to humanity. They all know that to keep his life one must struggle day after day. In fact, they all know that this invaluable treasure is the most precious gift God made to humanity.
A few day ago, I attended the celebration of the one hundredth birthday of one of my constituents. I was able to see the great happiness experienced by this person at being still alive. You could see on his face his happiness at being still alive with all his lucidity and faculties. On that occasion, I heard very moving tales of heroic actions by our ancestors who saved the life of a mother, of a newly-born child or of a father wounded while working.
As many other members, and also as many other citizens, I cannot understand how members may be in favour of the abolition of capital punishment under the pretence that they consider that as revenge and a lack of respect for life while on the other hand, they are for abortion, namely the murder of innocents who have a right to live, right that was given to us and that nobody could dispute. Why show such a lack of respect for innocent victims and be so compassionate for those who are found guilty of capital murder?
I can remember very well when I was eleven years old and my father lost his wife accidentally as he was helping a needy neighbour rebuild one of his farm buildings. I understood then the self-sacrifice of a father who was helping a neighbour, a fellow citizen and I have kept to this day an indelible remembrance of that generosity, of that charity one can have for his fellow men. But I would not have the same kind of remembrance today if my father had been the victim of a murderer. That is why I can better understand what may happen in the heart of a mother, or of children whose father or mother was the victim of a murderer.
Now we live in society, and I think that we have the right to make certain rules, to pass certain laws, so that we can have mutual respect for what is most precious to us, for what we all seek to preserve, and that is life itself.
Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to say that the abolition of capital punishment has not helped to reduce the crime rate, but we should remember certain statements made by persons in office several years ago; they quoted figures that cannot be questioned to prove that the abolition of the death penalty, on the commuting death sentences by the cabinet, did indeed contribute to a rise in the number of murders in Quebec.
I refer now to the testimony of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who, in 1961, as Quebec Minister of Justice, stated, and I quote:
The Minister of Justice, Mr. Claude Wagner, made a strong impression on the delegates at the federal-provincial conference of Attorneys-general and ministers of justice, when he presented statistics to prove that the number of murders has steadily increased in Quebec since 1946, but especially since 1961, when the practice of commuting death sentences to life emprisonment started.
Capital Punishment
What was done, quite simply, was to remove the fear that is essential: the fear of punishment. He showed his statistics that there was an increase in the number of murders and I think that he was right.
In 1965, the present member for Saint-Hyacinthe, who was still Minister of Justice at the time, in a statement published in the newspapers, urged the public to write to the federal government saying that the death penalty should not be abolished. Here was a Minister of Justice who had had courtroom experience, since he had been a judge for some time, and who was now asking the public to write to their elected representatives, to the government of Canada, asking that capital punishment not be abolished.
That was the testimony of an informed man; I think that he had a certain amount of experience, and at that time it was given little consideration. In fact, the Criminal Code was amended, and the death penalty was kept only for the murder of police officers, law enforcement officers and prison guards.
And it happened-as I mentioned in a speech on second reading-that a number of policemen, law enforcement officers and prison guards have been murdered and that criminals were condemned after a fair trial for capital murder, when they were undoubtedly guilty. I still agree with my leader who said this afternoon in this House that the death penalty should be retained for capital murder, if there is no possibility of miscarriage of justice, if the evidence and circumstances show that it was definitely capital murder.
I feel that we should retain that penalty for criminals who in cold blood kill their fellowmen.
I will now quote a former Minister of Justice who was a member of this House, Hon. Remi Paul:
-Mr. Paul stated in particular that the death penalty was necessary as a deterrent within the community. To abolish capital punishment would mean to believe that right is in the power of the individual, that might is right and that justice leans on the side of the stronger, said that lawyer.
-he repeated that sentiments have nothing to do with the legislation concerning capital punishment. They consider with too much sympathy the fate of the criminal, he said, and feelings of false pity and love of man lead many people to ask society to avoid capital punishment.
In my view, this is neither a question of vengeance nor of saying like the old lex talionis: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This is merely a measure of justice and equity.
In England, in 1971, a lady led a campaign in order to ask the government to restore capital punishment. I have here an excerpt from her statement which has been published September 5, 1971-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, The hon. member will permit me to intrerrupt him for a moment. He knows that under our rules, he has 20 minutes at his disposal to debate this motion. May I remind him more specifically that we are considering the motion moved by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin).
5900

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
I hope that hon. members who will participate in the debate will find the way to relate their speeches to the motion.
May I remind the hon. member for Bellechasse. (Mr. Lambert) and all other hon. members who intend to take part in this debate that we have not reached the third reading stage yet, that we are considering the motion introduced by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert and that we may continue to do so tomorrow and for the next few days. There will be another motion to consider later on. I therefore suggest to hon. members that they limit their remarks to the amendment under review; eventually, they may have the opportunity, when the time comes for third reading, to make speeches with a more general approach. For the moment, I would urge the hon. member and all his colleagues to limit as much as possible their comments to the motion now before us.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take your recommendations into account. As always, I like to respect the Standing Orders as well as your authority.
Therefore, according to your recommendation, I will deal only with the motion now before us, that is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert. Nevertheless, this amendment prompts us to make certain considerations and bring forward some evidence to show to what extent we wish that our fellow citizens' life be protected in all circumstances.
In any event, the amendment of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert reads, and I quote:
"(b) in respect of a male person, where such person causes the death of a female person while committing or attempting to commit rape,
That is the first part. I fully agree with this amendment because it often happens-we have witnessed it on a few occasions-that newspapers report that such and such person, such and such young girl was the victim of a murderer who assaulted her and resorted to cruel means in order to kill her and try to hide her body so as to conceal his murder.
What happens is that if there was in our Criminal Code a least one provision relating to the particular fact stated in the amendment, we would then have a third argument to justify the retention of capital punishment, since we have already two basic points in the bill itself, that is the murder of policemen and prison guards.
The amendment under consideration provides that we should add also, in cases of murder for rape, and I quote:
This is the third item which I quote:
(c) in respect of any person, where such person causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit an offence under section 247, or, if while committing or attempting to commit that offence, such person abandons a human being and death ensues as a consequence."
Mr. Speaker, this fourth item in particular justifies the upholding of capital punishment in such circumstances. Thus, it is evident that the amendment could not anticipate all circumstances under which a murder could be committed. In my capacity as member for Bellechasse, whose population is in favour of upholding capital punishment, I consider it to be my duty to express its wishes in

this House and I can say, after carefully studying these amendments, that I must give them my support so that we may extend as much as possible the circumstances surrounding murder punishable by death. Naturally, the same arguments could be used in many cases, which would be as just as those mentioned in the amendments to Bill C-2.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks which I wanted to make on this amendment. Faced with the facts, with the wishes of the population I represent, I will of course have to vote in favour of this amendment.
[ English]


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say that I support the amendment to Bill C-2 submitted by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin). This afternoon I was shocked to hear her say that she had been accused of trying to prolong debate on this bill. Such an accusation must come from the government side, because no one in this party would deny the hon. member the right to voice her opinion on this subject. If this is a truly free vote why should anyone be denied the right to speak?
The suggestion that the hon. member was accused of prolonging the debate is perhaps an example of the motives of those persons who are trying to ramrod this bill through the House. We must be given time to state our case, present arguments, consider amendments, and deal with the bill on third reading before the door is closed on this matter.
At this point I might say that the remarks by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) about the mover of the amendment were a little inappropriate. To suggest that women are too emotional to exercise good judgment in such matters shows a complete lack of understanding on the part of the hon. member for Broadview. I am sure there are many female members of the hon. member's party who will certainly take issue with him over his remarks.
The amendment proposed is a proper one and I would like to see it applied more across the board to cover all acts of murder. But if it be that we must take part measures, then let us get on with it, and perhaps if the hon. member's amendment is adopted we could make a further amendment at a later date to add to the list of crimes that we deem should be punishable by death if an accused is found guilty.
I suppose everybody's opinion on this subject is tempered by his or her personal experiences. If you are one of those who are unafraid to view life as it really is, then your opinions are hardened by your experiences. If you live in a make believe world then you find it hard to accept the punishment suggested in this amendment for the crimes of kidnapping and murder and rape and murder.
If you read the Ottawa Journal tonight you will find in it an article reporting that two people were killed in a cafe in Quebec. As a result of the incident one woman was injured and two men are dead. The police said that the shooting "appeared to be the settlement of an account." In another report you read about teenagers tortured in a house of horrors.

If you are in the group who just cannot accept the idea of hanging, of being put to death for a murder, then as part of your experience in life I think you should visit with a family of a victim who has been kidnapped and murdered, or raped and murdered. It is a strange thing that in our society we seem to be very conscious of the person accused of such a crime. There are those who would have you believe that there is not adequate opportunity for the accused to prove his innocence. Some shrink away from the idea of hanging. Others will take the over-simplistic view that we are indeed barbarians if we would hang a person judged guilty of murder.
I have yet to hear one of those who stand for abolition discuss the family of the victim of the crime, those who are left behind to try to make a new life from one shattered by such an emotional experience.
My riding is one of the fastest growing in Canada. It is a riding of great mobility and we have had some murders in the past few years. I have personal friends whose daugther was murdered. I know the anguish they suffered, I know the months of rehabilitation, and I know the empty feeling they have when they look at you and say "Why, why was it our daughter"? They suffered invasion of their privacy by the press, some of them looking for cheap sensationalism that they might use for a headline.
When the guilty person was brought to trial and found guilty on a lesser charge in front of the courts, he was sentenced to the lesser crime and given ten years. After the sentence the police in their systematic way put together the facts and they found that this murder was similar to three others that had been committed in Montreal. They confronted this man with them and he confessed to them. He was brought to court again and was given ten years for each of the murders. He committed four and he was given ten years to run concurrently. Ten years for four murders. I find that hard to take.
I spoke earlier today on a notice of motion and the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) in his usual style took many of my words out of context in the same style as people who oppose capital punishment for kidnapping and murder and rape and murder will take out of context the sentence meted out to the man who murdered four times. They will say, after this man has served four, five or seven years or whatever the Parole Board gives, that he has paid his debt to society and should go free. All the rehabilitation groups will say he can soon be made useful in society again.
What about the victim's parents? I do not see any rush of people trying to get them into the mainstream of life again. I have heard of no groups trying to rehabilitate the survivors of a murder victim. I have heard the sanctimonious statements of abolitionists, but not one word has been uttered on behalf of the survivors of a murder victim.
I know of a policeman killed in the line of duty, or murdered in the line of duty, whichever way you put it. He left a wife and family. I have heard some abolitionists say his family will be looked after by the police benevolent society. That is a pretty tough case for a kid who wants his father.
Capital Punishment
We know of cases where the taxpayer has paid for weekend accommodation with all the trimmings for hardened criminals when some rehabilitation officer felt the prisoner needed a change of scene. It is no consolation to the survivors of the murder victim to know a person accused of the murder of their wife or daughter or son is enjoying rehabilitation.
A kidnapping itself is a heinous crime, although kidnapping and murder is worse. But rape that ends in murder is probably the worst crime of all. I do not know of any crime that angers men more than rape that ends with murder. Rape in itself is bad enough, but rape and murder is committed by people who are little more than animals. I can find no room in my heart for them. I can find no compassion for them.
If they commit the crime and are found guilty after all the numerous avenues of appeal available to them, they find no sympathy in me. I myself have seen victims of rape and murder, and I say to an abolitionist I would like him to look in the face of a person dead of rape and murder and tell me if he really has any compassion for the person who committed the crime.
Pick up your weekend paper and read a story that was in my paper last week of a little girl enticed into a car by a man and never seen again. It takes little imagination to realize what happened. The parents and family of that victim suffered beyond belief. I have a constituent who recently lost her young child due to an act of murder. I have talked to her many times and cannot find words to console her. Can someone find the words to bring her back into social contact? She has no chance of living a normal life again.
Which of you abolisionists has the courage to face the people left behind? They are victims equally with the person murdered. They never come back. There is a sadness to them that you cannot imagine, an empty feeling that you no doubt will never experience unless, God forbid, you lose one of your own.
The crimes of kidnapping and murder and rape and murder are beyond the imagination of the average man. Anyone who kidnaps and murders, plans it. He planned one or the other act. Anyone who rapes and murders in my mind is little more than an animal, and I have no compassion for him at all, I cannot condone either act, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I support the amendment put forth by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin).


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I spoke at some length at second reading so I do not want to spend much time at this stage and I will make some remarks on third reading. But I do want to deal with the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin). The hon. member has expressed great concern for those who have been raped and murdered or kidnapped and murdered, and I am in full accord with her in expressing that concern.
I think, quite contrary to the views just expressed by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), that we do have great concern for the victims of murder and their families. I have said it time and time again. I do not know where he has been but if he cares to read the speech that I gave on second reading as well as those of
26454-9;

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
other hon. members he will see where we stand on this matter.
But the question is this: How in God's name do we help the victim or help the family by hanging the murderer?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: If any hon. member on this side or on the other side who supports this amendment or supports the retention of capital punishment can show me how we can help the victim or the family of the murdered person by hanging somebody, I would be happy and willing to consider changing my position. If we study the situation over the years where they applied capital punishment with great vigour in this country and others, it did nothing whatsoever to help the victims of crime. It may do a lot to satisfy the sense of recrimination or revenge, or the punitive nature of man to see somebody hanged or executed for a murder, but it does nothing to help society, does nothing to help the victim, does nothing to help the family.
The hon. member said "Look at the face of a murder victim". I agree, it is a horrible thing. Murder, as killing of any kind, whether by the state, by individuals, or by criminals, is a terrible, terrible thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: I agree with the hon. member. There is great sadness, a great loss in the family. I think if we are really serious about doing something about murder we must get to the causes of crime. Let us do something about family life, about the socio-economic causes of crime.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Such as what?


William Warren Allmand: Let us do something about public and police protection, the economy, improving the cores of our cities where crime takes place.


Paul Yewchuk: Why are you not doing it?


William Warren Allmand: We are doing many things and we ask for your support. These things are not easy. They are not open to facile answers. Countries all over the world are looking for solutions to crime. There have been executions for centuries and they did not work. They did not reduce the crime rate.
In Europe now there are only two countries that have retained capital punishment, and those two countries, France and Spain, have the highest murder rates in Europe. France still retains the guillotine, which it has used recently. That country, with Spain, has the highest murder rate in Europe. In the other country, Spain, the garrotte is still used. It is a very pleasant sort of punishment, done in public. They take a man outside and execute him in public. I have a friend who recently watched such an execution. They bring the murderer to an arena, and they put this thing, this garrotte, around his neck and gradually tighten it until they crush his neck and head. Yet Spain still has one of the highest murder rates in Europe. How does this protect society effectively? All we do by executing such criminals is descend to the level of the criminal and go backward on the road of civilization.

The hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) has presented this amendment for two reasons. She has suggested that the crimes of rape and kidnapping should be punished with death because they are committed deliberately. She suggests they are committed after planning aforethought and so on. I do not know about that. I am in touch with the RCMP; they come under my department. Not too many rapes are planned in advance. They are usually committed under severe emotional stress, when the accused is under the influence of drink, drugs and so on. They are certainly not planned in advance, and if the victim is killed afterwards, that killing is not planned in advance either.
Kidnapping is different. I think kidnappings are planned, but they are planned so well that the kidnappers do not think they will be caught. There have been kidnappings for years. There used to be kidnappings when kidnapping was an offence punishable with capital punishment. In the case referred to by the hon. member, the kidnapping of Pierre Laporte, there is no doubt that the kidnapping was planned, but all the evidence at the trial showed that there was no advance planning in the killing of Pierre Laporte. The death resulted from a scuffle between Mr. Laporte and his kidnappers, apparently, in which the metal chain around his neck was tightened when he attempted to escape. I am not minimizing the horror of that murder. I am merely pointing out that the murder was not planned in advance, and there was no evidence at the trial to suggest that it was.


Paul Yewchuk: What's the difference; he died, did he not?


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member is right, he died. We must do something effective to reduce murder in this country. However, as I say, we are deluding ourselves if we think we are doing something effective by returning to capital punishment.
Lots of points were raised about this particular amendment. All I want to say on behalf of the government, as Solicitor General, is that we are concerned about murder committed with rape and about murder committed in connection with kidnapping, but we do not think that this amendment is the way to handle it. There are much better ways. If we are really, seriously interested in this, I suggest to the House that we should reject this amendment. If we accept the amendment we shall extend the area to which capital punishment will apply. We shall be widening the area of violence in this country, and we need less violence, not more.


Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) who wishes to extend the death penalty to cases involving rape and kidnapping in which the victim dies. I was interested to hear the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) trying to defend his stand. He asked a difficult question, to which he has no answer. He asked how we can help the victim by hanging anyone. I suggest that our difficulties today stem from the fact that the government has not had the courage to enforce the laws of this country during the last five years, the result being that no one, including a prospective killer, has any reason to be deterred by fear of punishment or to

think that there is any remote possibility of the ultimate penalty, as prescribed by previous parliaments for taking the life of another person being carried out.
Certainly the victim of a murderer will not be helped after the murder if anybody is executed. However, I suggest that applying the type of law enforcement that the people of this country expect would bring about a sufficient deterrent, and we should thereby make sure that those contemplating murder, at least planned murder, would know that, if they are caught, brought to trial and convicted, they will face the ultimate sanction of this country as prescribed by law, namely hanging.
The Solicitor General dealt with statistics and referred to what is done in France and Spain. I do not have those statistics before me and cannot comment on them. I can say this, however, that the crime of murder in this country has increased by over 100 per cent in the last few years. You can draw your own conclusions from that. Certainly that is a fact of which we are aware and with which we must deal. The legislation as proposed by the Solicitor General will not deal with this effectively.
He asked what effective steps are to be taken. I ask him, in turn, what effective steps has the government taken to deal with the ever increasing number of murders in this country. The answer is obvious if one studies the statistics to which I have alluded.
The position we are in today is awkward and is becoming misunderstood. It is apparent, in view of the government's extension of clemency to those convicted of murder, that the government has no intention of enforcing the laws of this country in cases of capital murder. We all know that a capital sentence has not been carried out for over 11 years, to be exact. The reason for that is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet will not enforce the death penalty, but simply use the prerogative of mercy and commute death sentences.
I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister and the cabinet should not have authority to commute sentences. I merely suggest that when it is known in advance how the prerogative of mercy will be exercised, the law in reality becomes meaningless.
In 1967 this House passed legislation that stated that persons who kill police officers or prison guards shall be subject to the death penalty. Since then courts have, in good faith and in accordance with the legislation, imposed such sentence in cases where it applied. However, when each of these cases came before cabinet for review, it was, without exception, summarily commuted. Apparently there was not too much consideration, the cabinet having made a prior expression of intention. The accused in two cases in Manitoba in which police officers were killed had their sentences commuted. That aptly demonstrates that mitigating circumstances apparently are not required before the cabinet will commute the sentence of the cold blooded killer of a police officer or prison guard.
As I said before, I support the continued existence of the prerogative of mercy. However, it must not be invoked automatically, because that effectively makes law without the required legislation having been passed. That, Mr. Speaker, would make a mockery of the law of the land and of Parliament itself.
Capital Punishment
The government still apparently opposes the death penalty. It seems that it has decided that it is having enough trouble pleasing the electorate without ramming such an unwelcome measure down the public's throat. I say unwelcome because poll after poll has indicated that the people of Canada want the death penalty restored and imposed. However, it only appeared that the government was going to do nothing in this regard when the Solicitor General, at the committee stage, tried to sneak in an amendment espousing total abolition.


An hon. Member:: He sneaked it in.


Charles Keith Taylor: It is a strange circumstance indeed that the Solicitor General should have been the one to put forward such an amendment.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker-


Charles Keith Taylor: After all, considering the difficulty-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Will the hon. member please resume his seat?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I object strenuously to the suggestion by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Taylor) that I tried to sneak something in at the committee stage of the bill. When a member exercises his right under the standing orders of this House to present amendments when amendments are to be presented, I do not see how his intentions can be misrepresented by stating that he tried to sneak in something. It was done openly before the whole committee. The amendments were rejected and I accept the ruling of the committee. The hon. member should withdraw his suggestion that I tried to sneak in something.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. As far as the Chair is conce-ned, this is debate. It is a question of opinion. It is very difficult for the Chair to pass judgment on remarks by members from one side or the other. The hon. member should be allowed to complete his remarks.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. When talking on television on many occasions, the minister said he would present amendments to the House. He has denied tonight almost everything he said. The minister had to withdraw. It was right for him to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: You sneaked it in on TV.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I feel that hon. members are taking advantage by rising on points of order to participate in the debate. Hon. members may have all kinds of opinions, but we will not make progress unless we allow the hon. member to complete his remarks.


Charles Keith Taylor: Mr. Speaker, 1 can certainly understand the Solicitor General being a little sensitive to the debate. He should be more than just a little sensitive when you consider the way this matter has been handled. It was a

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
very clumsy attempt to do something directly opposed to what initially was the intention of the bill. Of course, we have already dealt with that.
It is very strange that the Solicitor General would put forward the amendment he did, considering the difficulty he has keeping prisoners confined. He should be more aware than anyone of the illusion that is intrinsic when we speak of a life sentence. After the various incidents of late, most notably the much publicized escape of five dangerous prisoners from St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, it seems that a life sentence today lasts only as long as the individual prisoner, be he murderer, rapist, kidnapper or whatever, wants it to last.
We have been repeatedly told that the death penalty has not served as a deterrent to crime. The reason, we are told, is that a murderer is sick, either physically or mentally, or that his action was a crime of passion, a reflex action.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) suggested that increased stress in modern society is the basic cause for an increased crime rate, and that the increase in murders is no more than commensurate with this general increased crime rate. Perhaps such is the situation in certain cases, but not in the cases we are discussing here.
I was amazed at the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). He stated that rape giving rise to murder is quite often the result of invitation. He said the so-called victim wishes to vindicate her reputation in some way or another and that charges are falsely laid. We are talking about a victim who is dead. She is in no position whatsoever to vindicate her reputation. Surely hon. members realize the import of that statement.
I am not advocating the use of the death penalty in cases where the killer is sick, acting out of reflex or is unable to cope with the stresses of living. I am talking about coldblooded, premeditated murder, murder that is planned and in many cases committed by those whose livelihood is gained by committing murder, by illegal activity in the course of which murder is committed. The amendment we are discussing deals with the situation.
The blame for such premeditated acts cannot be laid at the feet of society or on the stress of living in society. Figures have been bandied about by all sides on this question, each side using figures which support their respective contentions. In my opinion, they more or less cancel each other out.
One point must be clear. It has been conclusively proven that the incidence of premeditated murder, that kind which before the introduction of the moratorium would likely have resulted in a death sentence, has significantly increased since 1967. I have indicated to the House that there has been over a 100 per cent increase.
Premeditated murder does not result from increased stress. Rather, it is cold-blooded and calculated. Anyone who would plot such a foul deed as murder, rape or kidnapping would surely calculate the consequences of such an act. Further, he would hesitate if among the consequences of that act was the death penalty. Notwithstanding this belief, I believe there is still valid reason for maintaining the death sentence in such cases.
We hear time and again that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. However, the argument seems to stop

at that point. No one seems to ask the logical follow-up question, the gist of which is, if capital punishment does not act as a deterrent, what does? The problem is that no practical method of deterrence has come into practice in the Canadian penal system. Similarly, there is no sure method of rehabilitation.
If the Solicitor General could guarantee to the members of this House that any given murderer would never commit another murder, or if he could guarantee that any incarcerated, unrehabilitated murderer would never again be able to escape and mingle in open society, we would have a deterrent. However, while the Solicitor General might make such an assertion, and we have found he is capable of anything these days, he could not honestly do that. There have been too many cases of supposedly rehabilitated murderers killing again and too many prison escapes for such to be the situation.
The people of Canada have a right to be protected as much as possible from killers. Even if you accept the contention that capital punishment is not a deterrent to premeditated murder, it seems a reasonable man must accept that no other effective means of deterrence has been developed. Until the time such a deterrent is developed, capital punishment for premeditated murder will serve a necessary function-the protection of the people of Canada.
We are not talking about using capital punishment for anything but the most deliberate type of murder. While the number of applicable cases is small, it is absolutely essential for the security and preservation of society that the judicial system have the right to mete out the utmost penalty, death, especially since its use is safeguarded by a very thorough legal and political review. For these reasons I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert.


David Réal Caouette: Would the member permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: In the midst of his remarks he talked about the victims of murderers. Would the hon. member suggest that the government give the victims as much money as it is giving to murderers today by keeping them in prison at the rate of $12,000 to $15,000 a year?


Charles Keith Taylor: I assume that in asking the question the hon. member was referring to the relatives of victims rather than the victims themselves. I certainly doubt that he meant the victims. Certainly this country is far behind in aid or compensation to victims of crimes, and this is one area where society as a whole does have a responsibility.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have not taken part at all in this debate at any of its stages up to now, but I feel compelled to make a few remarks at this juncture on the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin). I would like to congratulate the hon. lady on her initiative in this regard because the amendment is a thoughtful one, and because it

goes without saying that some of the most heinous murders are committed in conjunction with kidnapping, frequently when kidnappers extort sums of money after having kidnapped a child, and on many occasions the child has then been murdered in order to get rid of a possible witness against the criminal.
However, this amendment, like almost every concept having to do with this very important question of capital punishment and whether it is a fit punishment for murder, hinges on the very important question; what is the right thing for society to do in such situation? What about the sanctity of life? If there is such a thing, how do we interpret it and what does it mean?
I have assumed that even the most ardent abolitionist works on the premise that the occurrence of frequent murders in our society is (a) not a good thing and (b) an indication that there is some deficiency in our society and level of civilization, or in our system of justice, or both.
Because I frequently hear these same ardent abolitionists glibly advocating abortion on demand, even that premise is a bit shaken in my mind. If one regards life as sacred, it is sacred even in the case of the defenceless who cannot speak for themselves. I cannot prove this, but I think the advocates of abortion on demand are biased. I cannot prove this but as a lawyer would say, there is strong circumstantial evidence to indicate that those who advocate abortion on demand have themselves already been born. Therefore, I believe if the unborn could speak they would demand the right of life. This is a sort of an aside to this general question of the sanctity of life and how society should deal with those who take it upon themselves to extinguish the life of one of their fellow citizens.
I suggest it seems inconsistent that an abolitionist as far as capital punishment is concerned should at the same time support the concept of abortion on demand. I suppose in fairness the other side of the coin may, too, seem inconsistent. For example, I believe that the life of the unborn, the fetus, should be saved if it is at all possible, yet I do not believe that capital punishment should be abolished, at least not in every case. Perhaps some people would find a contradiction in that. If I have regard for the sanctity of life in the case of an unborn, why do I not regard the life of a murderer so highly that under no circumstances or system of justice should it be taken away, no matter how heinous his crime might be?
We hear a great number of expressions, such as capital punishment being ritualized murder carried out by the state, that capital punishment is no more civilized an act than murder itself. I do not agree with that sort of woolly and confused thinking. Let us look at the situation. A citizen of this or any other country could live in the most circumspect way, a model citizen in every way, yet he cannot protect himself against the possibility of being murdered in cold blood. He may be perfectly innocent of crime of any sort yet become the victim of a cold-blooded murder.
How does one avoid being murdered? I suggest when murder is as frequent as it is it is impossible to guarantee one can avoid being the victim of a murder. If capital punishment is ritualized murder carried out by the state, is that possible to avoid? I suggest that it is. All a citizen
Capital Punishment
has to do is avoid murdering, as capital punishment will then never apply. This is the basic difference. If one lives in a civilized or even semi-civilized fashion he need have no fear of the rope ever, and this is something we should bear in mind.
In addition to that, we take pride in the fact that our legal system and its traditions are based on the British system of justice in that no one is considered guilty until proven guilty. Or, putting it the other way around, everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty.
The whole structure of our law seems to be heavily balanced on the side of justice for the accused, so that as seldom as possible is one convicted of something of which one is innocent. The whole legal system is designed to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. I think everyone would agree with that statement. Even when capital punishment was imposed as part of our law to a greater extent than now-indeed, it has gone out of style entirely so far as this government is concerned-many murderers were not convicted of murder because the evidence against them was not conclusive. They were given the benefit of the doubt, and that is as it should be.
However, what about the victim? The victim is not given any chance at all. He has no defence. The victim usually suffers terrifying and lonely death. There is no press or TV to cover the horror, agony or terror the victim suffers in his last moments. But when someone is accused of a crime, his name is on the lips of everyone who watches TV or reads the newspapers, with the result that the public is far more aware of the accused than of his victim. The victim of a gruesome murder receives about as much attention as a bridegroom at a wedding. He is just there; he does not receive the attention of the TV or news media or of the general public.
I think if there is any shred of mitigating circumstance, public sympathy tends to build up for the accused. He is the centre attraction in the legal process over a long period of time. He is given the benefit of every doubt. He has the right of appeal, and reappeal in many cases if the decision is against him. Many of these murders are cold-blooded and premeditated. Some of them are carried on in conjunction with organized crime as a matter of course.
A great deal has been said in this debate about statistics in an attempt to prove whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent. I think statistics of this type covering a short term are unlikely to prove anything in a convincing fashion. A period of five years may be a very short period. I do not believe there is any evidence from the statistics to indicate that the abolition of capital punishment would reduce the number of murders. However, there may be a time lag in respect of the effect.
As a society we know far too little about human behaviour in the scientific sense. I think we know far too little concerning the root cause of crime and why criminals are criminals. We know too little about what effect our clumsy ad hoc methods of dealing with criminals have. In this state of affairs I do not believe we can rest happily on the assumption that if we treat criminals kindly, generously and softly, criminals will disappear. That does not necessarily follow.

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
I believe the effect in respect of the abolition or retention of capital punishment is a long term one. I think there is an effect in respect of society's attitude toward crime in the general sense. For example, if a youngster knows that someone can carry out a cold-blooded murder, be committed to a penitentiary for a few years and then be let out on parole and become a member of society, naturally the notion grows up in that youngster's mind that, after all, murder is not such a serious thing and that perhaps in some circumstances it is an option one has.
On the other hand, a few decades ago when capital murder was considered a heinous crime and a murderer was beyond the pale so far as society was concerned, very few of the rising generation had this kind of attitude. With the permissive attitude we have today murder might be thought of as being sort of smart, at least among members of certain gangs, especially in large metropolitan areas. What I am saying is that the general attitude of society toward crime makes an imprint on rising generations with regard to what is or is not acceptable conduct.
Now, of course, there is a wider question with regard to what society should do, not only in respect of those who commit murder, but also in respect of the apparent growth of crime generally. It has been a long, slow, painful struggle for humanity to reach even its present level of civilization. On occasion the human race does not, even now, exhibit a high level of civilization. We have still a long way to go. All the accumulated wisdom of the ages so far as civilization is concerned must be transmitted to each new generation in the formative years of childhood. That is a tremendous, awe-inspiring responsibility, or it should be, on the part of parents, schools, churches and every other organization which has some responsibility in transmitting civilization, hopefully improved, to each new generation. It takes only one brief breaking of the link for that civilization to become degraded, and sometimes I feel-I hope I am wrong-that we have been living in the last few years in an era of permissiveness and have lacked knowledge about human reactions to living in large metropolitan areas, as unnatural a habitat for man as it is for animals.
A few elementary sociological studies have been done in some large universities which indicate that some of the trends in society today are caused by the environment which society has created for itself. For example, in some cities in the United States they have discovered the alarming fact that the crime rate is in direct ratio to the height of the buildings in the city. That seems very strange but nevertheless it is a fact. We do not know enough about the effects of crowding on human beings, for example. I would like to see a great deal of basic research carried out in the field of human behaviour so that we could gain a better idea of what produces criminals and try to eliminate the causes at the root.
However, since we do not have these facts, I think it is foolhardy and unreasonable to pass laws which, in effect, would allow individuals the right to terminate the life of another individual and not suffer an equal deprivation themselves. I believe that this is true in the case of cold and calculated murder. I believe that at least until such time as we have a stronger scientific basis for adopting

another course we should retain capital punishment for the worst crimes, and for that reason I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, the topic of capital punishment is a matter of concern to all members of the House. Probably many of us feel that under the circumstances, with so many other pressing matters demanding our attention, this may not be the best time, in terms of absolute priority, to discuss this matter. However, it is not for me to quibble about the priorities of the House, and in speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) I should like to state at the outset that, in my opinion, it is a reasonable and constructive amendment and I intend to support it.
It seems to me that in instances where death follows rape, attempted rape or kidnapping there is always a great deal of premeditation in the committing of the crime. It is not the type of crime that is usually committed impulsively, in a spirit of anger, or for any other reason. This amendment is very necessary if we are to make a distinction between cases where the death penalty should or should not be imposed. On the basis of the experience I have had I am not at all certain that a valid case can be made for making such distinction when murder has been committed.
Under our legal system which has been evolved over the centuries, mostly based on English common law, a great many safeguards are built into the system in the case of people who have taken the life of another, without making distinctions between the specific acts of the persons involved. I am thinking of some of the more recent defences in which the concept of automatism has received judicial approval. Of course, insanity is always raised when one person takes the life of another, and in serious cases involving murder it has become almost automatic for the accused person to be sent for observation to a suitable institution to determine whether or not he is truly able to understand the nature of his action.
In my understanding of the reasoned speech made by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), he was saying, in effect, to paraphrase Winston Churchill on another topic, that perhaps the mild and ameliorating influence of education and the increasing moral responsibility of society will ultimately create a social climate which will make this type of legislation not such a pressing issue in society.
In other words, as I said earlier in the House when we were discussing the subject, when society changes, when more comprehensive administrative and legal procedures are evolved through experience to rehabilitate and supervise people on parole, and when the necessary adjustments are made in our legal system, perhaps at that time we can vote in all conscience to abolish the death penalty once and for all. However, I do not believe that the time is yet right, and for that reason the amendment of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert deserves the attention and support of all members of the House.
I should like to go back to the religious context for a moment. It has been said that the idea of a fire and brimstone hell may be scientifically silly, none the less it has kept many bad people good. It seems to me that the
July 23, 1973

same analogy applies to the criminal law and to such deterrents as the death penalty. I believe it was the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) who, in a speech earlier in this session, referred to a transcript of a trial in which he either participated or of which he had knowledge.
He spoke of the murderer being confronted by officers of the law while he had a loaded gun in his hand. However, he did not pull the trigger and was heard to say words to the following effect: "What do you think, that I am crazy or something to shoot you? You are an officer of the law and if I shot you I would be liable to receive the death penalty for killing a policeman." If this is actually true-and we have no reason to doubt this-we must remember that there are many such cases across the nation, and this in itself should make us pause to see whether or not we are doing the right thing at this time in moving toward the abolition of capital punishment or the reduction of cases for which the death penalty is imposed, no matter how heinous the crime might be.
I would like to say at this time that, of course, I respect the motives and the views of those who have an opposite opinion from that put forward by myself and those of us who are not in favour of softening the penalties for capital crimes to any great extent. I have great personal regard and respect for the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). None the less I feel that this matter may have been handled unfortunately in committee, something which may have changed the atmosphere in which many of us considered the motives and weighed the pros and cons of this legislation. I feel that he and the government would have been acting in the better interests of Canada had they, in the first instance, brought in an outright abolitionist bill, rather than attempting to make such drastic changes after the bill had been considered on second reading in this House.
As far as the priorities are concerned, again it seems that we could go on considering amendments such as the one we are now discussing. We could talk a great length on these amendments. We could talk on other amendments, which I understand may be introduced. We could continue on third reading. We could discuss all the ramifications, pro and con, all summer. Yet if we do this we are neglecting very urgent priorities that should demand the attention of the House, priorities and pieces of legislation that, ironically enough, we were considering at the time the House was adjourned for the summer not much over a year ago. At that time we were considering electoral reform, family income security, and matters of that nature.
Returning to the debate being held this evening, as the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) said so ably, until we have determined exactly what is the basis that makes capital crimes so prevalent in this nation, what makes them at least appear to be on the increase, until we are sure that there is no particular merit in the concept of deterrence, then I suggest that amendments such as the one moved by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) should be considered seriously. The whole concept of capital punishment must remain before us. It would not be in the best interests of the nation, or indeed of this
Capital Punishment
House, to continue to erode the traditional methods that have been found tried and true over the years in dealing with capital crimes.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I say that our legal system provides, in the form of trial by jury, preliminary hearings, and all the other safeguards, every opportunity for an accused to establish not only his innocence but the various degrees of culpability that may have caused him to commit the act with which he is charged. This is all the more so at the present time when one considers the assistance given by both federal and provincial administrations through so-called legal aid funds, so that an accused person has no longer to contend with the former situation where, in effect, he was throwing himself on the charity of the local bar society to provide his defence. Through the means of legal aid he can now get a solicitor of his choice, an experienced criminal lawyer, to avail himself of the many defences, some of which I have enumerated, which he may be called upon to put forward to justify the act for which he is charged.
As I said at the outset of my brief speech, I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment and I compliment the hon. member for Louis-Hebert on her sagacity and concern in bringing it before the House at this particular time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in this mid-summer of madness we are engaged upon, it seems odd at three minutes to ten o'clock to be talking about these facts; but we are here, we cannot go back, and we must do what we have to do. I am going to vote against the amendment. What I have said in the past would indicate that. However, I have a few comments to make.
I just want to point out one thing on the technical aspects of the matter. I give credit to the hon. member who introduced the amendment. I think she was working towards a very logical and laudable conclusion. But if this amendment were to pass, from the point of view of the courts it would create almost a monstrosity.
There are two criminal offences involved. First, there is the criminal offence of rape, which would have to be established, and like any other criminal offence it would have to be established beyond any reasonable doubt. One of the general principles in law with regard to any offence charging rape is that it is necessary not only to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt but, in cases of this kind, it is essential that there be also established some form of corroboration in certain material respects. It would therefore be essential to prove rape had been committed, or attempted rape had been committed.
I know from my own professional experience how exceedingly difficult an offence like this is to prove. I am not saying it does not occur quite frequently, but to prove it along the lines which the law would require to satisfy the onus of proof is a very difficult thing. So one would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that rape was committed, and also in some material way that there was corroboration of that particular offence.
In addition to that, one would have to prove a murder had been committed by the person who is charged, and that murder in turn would have to be established beyond any reasonable doubt. I am not saying that the fact that it
5908

July 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
is difficult to establish an offence does not mean we should not, if we in our wisdom think it is essential, put it on the statute books-


Albanie Morin: It is not difficult to prove when it is a four year old.


Gerald William Baldwin: That may well be, but I am just saying that no matter how difficult it might be, that alone should not deter us if, in our wisdom, we come to the conclusion that we genuinely believe there should be an additional crime in respect of which capital punishment should be inflicted. But I thought I owed it to the House, before calling it ten o'clock, to deal with the difficult aspects connected with proving such an offence, and to point out the very serious difficulties involved in prosecuting an offence of this kind. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Chair accepts the hon. member's calling of ten o'clock I might be allowed to refer to the discussion which took place earlier today, and also on Friday last, with regard to the application of Standing Order 75(11) in connection with the deferring of votes. The Chair indicated at the time that I would give the matter serious thought, and that also I would listen to comments or advice which might be given to me for guidance of the Chair.
Having followed the debate today and the discussion of Friday afternoon, this has led me to the conclusion that there is really nothing to justify changing the practice which has been established over the months and the years to defer a vote. Hon. members know that this is a practice which has evolved during the last few years under the terms of Standing Order 75(11), so that when there are a number of motions at this stage of proceedings the votes are deferred.
I would think that, in the circumstances, the Chair would be required to follow the practice which has been established. At the same time I would indicate to hon. members that, if there were to be some degree of agreement on this particular point that we follow a different practice, I would, of course, accept the unanimous suggestion or general suggestion of the House. For the moment, however, I suggest to hon. members that I have no other alternative than to follow the long established practice.
The hon. member rises on a point of order?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if you are inviting comment?


Mr. Speaker:: No, I am not inviting comment because I received comment, particularly from the hon. member, last Friday and it is taking into account the hon. member's comment that I have commented as I did.
Perhaps I should add that to some extent this is theoretical, or hypothetical, because the Standing Order does provide that when a recorded division is called the Speaker may then call for a deferred vote. Of course, it has not been called yet, but that is when the decision of the Chair would be announced. It was felt, because of this interest, that the Chair should indicate for the assistance

of all hon. members the way I tend to think at the present time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Does that mean that the vote on the amendment now before this House would be postponed in order to put it to the vote at the same time as the next one to be studied by the House?


Mr. Speaker:: That was the suggestion made last week and which I am again making to hon. members, namely that the two amendments be put to the vote consecutively. The motion of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) would be first, followed by that of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on June 8, 1973, as reported at page 4575 of Hansard, I asked a question of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) about the growing concern of the people generally in the national capital area with respect to problems affecting waste management disposal in the area. I asked the minister specifically whether the national capital commission had notified the municipalities within the area that dumping on its lands would be prohibited in 1974 and, if so, what was the cut-off date for that order. I am quoting almost exactly, Mr. Speaker. The minister at that time indicated that he would take the matter under advisement.
Subsequently, I had a letter from the general manager of the national capital commission which indicated that there was indeed a problem with respect to the dumping of garbage on national capital commission land, that the land presently being used in this area was being very quickly filled, that by 1974 it would in fact be rendered useless from the point of view of land fill, and that consideration had been given to other methods of disposal.
One of those methods of disposal unfortunately, according to sources that I have, is the acquisition of further dumping ground elsewhere within the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Speaking personally, Mr. Speaker, this concerns me greatly because I think it is really a perpetuation of what is generally regarded as self-destroying and a non-modern practice of waste disposal.
July 23, 1973

The national capital commission, however, did indicate to me that they were considering a technical process of waste disposal, one involving incineration, that they had indeed suggested to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and perhaps to other municipalities that there was a process available, and that it would be available to the relevant municipalities within the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I think this is very important, and not only from the point of view that the national capital must prove itself to be a leader with respect to urban problems, only one of which is waste disposal. The national government ought to give some meat to the attitude that it would like to project in the country, an attitude showing it is interested in urban problems.
I hope the parliamentary secretary's answer tonight will show for the record that the government is considering the technical process of incineration; that the federal government is preparing to finance or fund out of the federal treasury a major proportion, at least, of a pilot project; that the national capital of our country ought to be a leader with respect to municipal services available in this area, and that there will not be any consideration of land acquisition so that municipalities will not need to acquire large tracts of land for 20 years duration, such as is the case with respect to the site south of the Jock River in Nepean township. That, I understand, was one of the considerations brought forward in a consultant's report.
I emphasize to the government through you, Mr. Speaker, that the government should not stop with the national capital area in the funding of programs of this nature. It should as well consider making available this expertise, this technology and, more important, similar funding for these vital municipal services to other large cities across Canada, such as Toronto, Hamilton, Vancouver and Montreal, which are experiencing great difficulties in this area. I hope we shall never see in the national capital area what we are seeing in the metropolitan Toronto area. The garbage and waste from the metropolitan area is being trucked out and deposited in other municipalities. As I said at the outset, this is a self-perpetuating, self-destroying system of waste disposal.
If the answers by the parliamentary secretary to the questions which I have asked in the course of this debate are in the affirmative, I urge the government to give permission to other municipalities to apply for similar funding, so that we may attack on a national basis one of the problems that is affecting municipalities and, particularly, the municipalities within the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, the NCC has been assisting the city of Ottawa for the past nine years by providing approximately 109 acres of land which is used as a garbage dump and operated as a sanitary land fill site. The ten-year legal agreement for use of this NCC Greenbelt land expires December 31, 1973. The users are fully aware of the expiry date and have been advised that alternate disposal methods must be considered for the future. The capacity of this land fill site is nearly exhausted and another area for sanitary land fill or an alternative means of disposal must soon be found.
Adjournment Debate
Realizing that the problem of waste disposal is of regional concern and that similar problems are being faced by cities and regions across Canada, the NCC, together with MOE, the Municipal Regional Councils of Ottawa-Carleton and Outaouais, have financed a comprehensive study by consultants of waste disposal in the national capital region. The study is to make recommendations for waste disposal with due regard for the protection of the environment. All modern methods of disposal are to be considered, including incineration.
I might add that there are a number of municipalities across the country which would like this type of test facility. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) makes a good case for the Ottawa region, but he must realize that there are many members from across this country, myself included, who would like to see this kind of test facility installed in their regions, at the expense of the national taxpayer. Ottawa seems to get quite a few of these items. It is woith reminding members from the Ottawa region that there are others in this country who would like a national contribution of this kind in their areas once in a while. In saying that I speak not as the parliamentary secretary but as the member representing Laprairie.
This phasing out may occur sooner than 1975, with the existing sites being covered with soil, landscaped and made into an area suitable for future reforestation. It should be emphasized that the NCC is not prohibiting waste disposal and dumping, but that the agreement will have expired by the end of this year, that the site is full and better solutions have been found for the disposal of waste on a regional basis.
Accordingly, it might be said that there will ultimately be a solid waste disposal system in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Recognizing this, the NCC and the Department of the Environment are concentrating their efforts in this regard.


HOUSING-ALLEGED POOR CONSTRUCTION OF BAL-MAN HOMES, MEADOW LAKE, SASKATCHEWAN-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Watson) whether, in view of the fact that Bal-Man Homes Ltd. built some homes at Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, of substandard quality, and in view of the fact that this company has not paid some of the subconstractors, this resulting in mechanics liens being registered against the homes, the minister had requested the Saskatoon office of CMHC to conduct a full scale investigation of this matter to ensure that the home buyers are protected. In his wisdom, Mr. Speaker ruled that this question was out of order. Of course, I accepted that. He invited me to participate in the debate tonight which I am doing.
If I had been allowed to ask a supplementary question, it would have been something like this-I hope the parliamentary secretary takes note of it. Is it the policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to require borrowers to pay interest on the full amount of mortgage, in spite of the fact these borrowers have not received the
5910

July 23, 1973
Adjournment Debate
full amount of mortgage money because of a holdback due to improper finishing of a home?
This may sound like a minor problem, but seven householders in one town have complained to me on various occasions. The minister's office has received some letters about this problem, dating back some time. To top it all off, I received a telegram this morning urgently requesting some action on this matter. I feel that action is required.
I spoke to several of these householders over the telephone. I have a rough transcript of what one told me. During 1970-71 and 1972, Bal-Man Homes of Saskatoon built several houses in Meadow Lake. He understands there were several built in other centres, including Biggar, Rosetown and Saskatoon. He said he does not know much about the ones in other centres, but in Meadow Lake it appears the houses are basically structurally sound. However, substandard workmanship did go into the finishing of these houses in many instances. There were things like paint jobs with inadequate sanding, inadequate covering of the material on the gyproc, and so on. Initially, the CMHC inspector passed these homes. He took exception, stating that this was not correct, that the houses had not been painted properly. The inspector came and inspected them and agreed it was not up to standard.
He wrote to Bal-Man Homes and CMHC, but to no avail. Approximately two months after they had moved into their homes they started getting notices from the land titles office in North Battleford that mechanics liens were being placed against the homes by different contractors such as roofers, plumbers, suppliers of materials and so on.
They asked the CMHC lawyer in Meadow Lake what could be done. No one got a satisfactory answer except that it appeared they would have to pay off these liens. They wrote many letters and received a different answer each time. Sometimes they were told they could take legal action against Bal-Man Homes. At other times they were told that Bal-Man Homes was bankrupt, or there was impending receivership and legal action. They were told their statutory declaration was signed to the effect the work was completed and paid for before CMHC approved disbursement of the funds. It seems odd, though, that CMHC did not insist on having receipts as well as a statutory declaration from the contractor. He said they had contacted the manager and assistant manager of CMHC in Saskatoon but had not managed to get any satisfactory answer as to what effect these mechanics liens would have on them. One person was told to forget about them, that they did not mean anything. Others were told that the mechanics liens would stay on indefinitely and collection made either before or at the time of sale.
He said they were paying CMCH the full amount of their mortgage payments, or were until July 1 when he discontinued until he got some satisfaction. He said he notified the minister that he was doing this. He said that CMHC continue to tell them they will have to wait until a trustee is appointed and an investigation conducted, that an investigation is being carried out and that eventually their homes will be fit to live in.
In many cases he said they could not afford to wait. There are three who are subject to immediate transfer by their employers, one to be transferred on August 1. He

must be able to sell his house to some one else with a clear title, except for the CMHC mortgage, in order that he can move and recover his investment. There has just been no action on this at all.
He said they are waiting for the finishing to be done on these homes; they have piles of dirt in the front yards, the shingles on the roofs are not properly fastened down and the venting is not completed properly. He suggested that small things like this will cause the homes to deteriorate and that they have no money right now to fix up what they have already paid for through their mortgages.
I understand the money was loaned directly by CMHC for the purpose of building low-income homes on speculation by Bal-Man Homes Limited. Furthermore I understand that money was held back as homes were not adequately completed, but that the borrowers had to pay interest on the entire principal. I should like to have some comment from the parliamentary secretary on the matters I have raised tonight.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the subject matter raised, the 11 units in Meadow Lake are being built under the assisted home-ownership program, the builder having obtained speculative loans under the program. The 11 units have been sold with the majority being occupied by the purchasers who have been making payments on the mortgages.
Final inspections have not yet been made on any of the houses and the corporation has mortgage moneys on hand sufficient to complete the houses should the builder not be in a position to do so. Under these circumstances the purchasers are not in any danger of losing their equity or the money paid on monthly mortgage payments. I am sure the hon. member will be happy to be able to assure his constituents of that fact.
Incidentally, the purchasers would also be eligible for assistance, as I mentioned privately to the hon. member this afternoon, under Section 8.1 of the new legislation, Bill C-133, although there would seem to be no reason to expect in this case such assistance would be necessary as CMHC has withheld funds.
Although purchasers are making full monthly payments on their mortgages, even though all mortgage moneys have not been advanced, they are not in the final analysis being called upon to pay interest on money not advanced-and this the hon. member can report to his constituents as well-because interest credits will subsequently be made to their accounts.
The hon. member will also be interested to learn that the manager and assistant manager of CMHC, the Saskatoon office, are meeting the purchasers in Meadow Lake on the evening of July 24, that is tomorrow night, for the purpose of reviewing the situation and answering the questions of the homeowners. This afternoon I asked CMHC officals to ask their people in the field to exert maximum pressure on the builder and whoever is responsible there to complete these houses, remedy the deficiencies which apparently do exist and try to bring matters up to the satisfaction of the purchasers.
July 23, 1973


INFORMATION CANADA-SUGGESTED DISBANDMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my comments tonight arise from a question I asked on Friday last of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) concerning Information Canada. I asked it in light of the Prime Minister's expressed view that the agency was now regarded as a propaganda machine and it was going to be disbanded. The minister lamentably replied it was not.
I want to cite three particular reasons for disbanding Information Canada. The first is the waste involved, the second is partisan abuse, and the third, the most important, is the view that it is simply an improper power for the government to have at this time.
I want to deal first with waste. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) introduced Information Canada during the 1970's, he said:
The object will be to increase effectiveness as well as to save money by reducing duplication in the use of staff and equipment and by better joint use of the government's information resources.
I want to draw attention to two particular phrases; the first "saving money", the second, the idea of "reducing duplication". Since the establishment of Information Canada, nine departments alone have increased their own internal information budgets from $19 million in 1970-71 to fully $36 million in 1972-73, almost a doubling of expenditure. There was a commitment at that time that only 150 individuals would be associated with the on-going activities of Information Canada. Now there are 192. There was a commitment then that there would be only 25 information officers; already there are 38.
What is worse, Sir, is that despite this waste and growth Information Canada is not doing its job. Most members in this House are acquainted with the slowness of the agency. Far more important, the director of regional operations said in May of this year that the program, which is designed to reach out to the 43 per cent of Canadians whom the government considers do not know what is going on in Canada, is not working. One of the reasons it is not working is this; the government is running offices of the kind these people never reach. As a bold new initiative they are sending out a salesman on a bicycle in Nova Scotia to try to acquaint people with the work of Information Canada and to drum up business. That is a complete confession of failure of the agency. Much more stark is the Prime Minister's statement the other day. One other indication of that is that Information Canada, which was presumably created to meet a public need for information, has now had to set up its own public relations bureau to create that need that it was designed to meet.
Mr. R. A. J. Phillips, the former deputy director, in a document which the present director said was "never supposed to be published" said, and I quote: "It is urgent to consider some projects to justify our budget and existence." The upshot of that was that he was moved out of Information Canada to a safer haven. That is a clear example of the outright waste that exists in Information Canada. The greatest effort now is to create a demand for its services and to consider some projects to justify its budget and existence.
Adjournment Debate
I want to make a quick reference to partisan abuse. The first director was a very prominent Quebec Liberal who has now moved out. I think probably that capacity has diminished somewhat, and once the suspicion that there is partisan abuse subsides it will be used for party purposes again.
So beyond the waste and beyond the capacity for partisan abuse, what is really wrong with Information Canada is that it represents a power which it is improper for a government to possess. However it is disguised, it is a means by which the government seeks to impose its particular view of what is right and what is real. It is, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, a "propaganda machine". That is clear whether you accept the official defence that there is a "right to know" among the 43 per cent of Canadians whom the government believes did not know much about what is going on, or whether you need the more frank defence, which members of the government party have expressed to me privately, that the government has to have a better means of reaching Canadians than relying on those guys in the Press Gallery. It is, in short, an attempt to get around the normal filters of democracy; an attempt not to present information, but to manage it.
The failure so far of Information Canada does not make it any less sinister, because the government is determined not to let it fail. That was the clear purport of the statement by the Prime Minister, who proposes to conquer the west by reforming Information Canada, and the response by the Minister of Labour that nothing is wrong with what the government is doing. That betrays the complacent, persisting view that nothing is wrong with what the Liberal government has done; the only fault is in telling. All that is needed is a better propaganda machine.
I wish to suggest in passing that if there were a genuine desire to inform Canadians, the government would not hide so many documents, or avoid so many inquiries, or stamp "secret" on so much public business.
Information Canada must be seen as part of the overweighted capacity of the government to influence opinion and restrict options in Canada. It is a clear example of adding power to the powerful. The native people of James Bay have no Information Canada, nor does the small businessman quietly going broke, nor the legions of the unemployed, nor the old. The weak have no weapon. Even the parties in opposition in Parliament have no Information Canada, no powerful means to present an alternate view. Indeed, while the rules of Parliament have been changed to weaken the opposition, Information Canada has been created to strengthen the government.
That is the context in which the idea of Information Canada is truly alarming. It is a terrible waste when it does not work, as it does not work now. But if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ever upgrades it, if he ever succeeds in creating the kind of propaganda machine he wants, there will be less freedom of opinion, less examination of options that we need to survive as a modern democracy.
This question should not end here. I hope the government will have sufficient honesty to refer to the parliamentary committee the whole question of the imbalance of power to influence opinion and express opinion in Canada,

July 23, 1973
Adjournment Debate
instead of staying with Information Canada which is designed to make that imbalance worse.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, Information Canada activities related to the reinforcing of the federal presence are as follows. Federal inquiry centres and bookstores have been established by Information Canada in prominent locations in Canadian cities, namely, Montreal, Ottawa, Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Each is clearly marked with the bar and leaf federal symbol. Some 500,000 inquiries were received last year and the rate is increasing some 20 per cent a year.
Plans for the current year call for the opening of federal inquiry services in the hon. member's province of Alberta, in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Once in place, it can be expected that many more thousands of citizens will avail themselves of the services offered and thus become more aware of the federal presence in this country.
In both Manitoba and Nova Scotia Information Canada is currently working with the regional offices of other federal departments on a development plan to strengthen and support the relationship between the federal government and the people, and in so doing is, of course, extending the federal presence beyond the urban centres to areas where the need for communication is every bit as pressing. Through the activities of the mobile information offices and federal offices, the presence will become manifest in areas previously rarely reached.
Through the launching of the federal identity program, the largest such corporate identity undertaking in the world, Information Canada has made the bar and leaf symbol the sign of the federal presence from one end of Canada to the other. It is seen everywhere on federal buildings, vehicles, aircraft, uniforms, post boxes and so forth. Over 50 federal departments and agencies incorporate the bar and leaf symbol into their letterheads, press releases, on the cover of their publications, and each time it is seen it is recognized as a manifestation of the federal presence.
Given the opportunity to continue the development of its citizen's inquiry service, which is probably unique in the world, the federal presence will become even more manifest in all corners of this country. But it cannot happen overnight and it cannot happen if the agency is not encouraged in its work.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, July 24, 1973