1973-05-29

USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE-STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER

['It is my duty, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Alberta, 1973.']
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will recall, I am sure, the procedural difficulties in which the House became involved yesterday when a charge was made by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate against the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. The Chair intervened to suggest that the words used by the hon. member were unparliamentary. A discussion ensued as to whether the rule could apply where the charge relates to conduct or statements made outside the chamber. I appreciate that the distinction was proposed constructively with a view to being of assistance both to the hon. member and to the Chair.
On reflection, I find it difficult to agree with the proposition that so-called unparliamentary language would be irregular when it refers to the conduct or statements of members inside the House but that the same so-called unparliamentary language would be acceptable when relating to events outside the chamber. Hon. members, I am sure, will want to agree with the Chair when I suggest that unparliamentary language is just that, and requires the intervention of the Chair in accordance with the long established practice of this House. I will not burden the House with a long list of citations or precedents. I simply remind the House of Standing Order 35 which is to the effect that no member shall use offensive words against either House or against any member thereof. I refer also to Citation 155, paragraph 3, of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, as follows:
No Member can be allowed ... to tell a Member that he went about the country telling palpable lies.
This particular citation is referred to in connection with the suggestion that the hon. member's words might not be unparliamentary in that they had reference to statements made outside the House.
Having made these comments, I wish to assure the House that I do not want to dramatize the situation. I realize that members participate in debate in the House under considerable pressure and stress. I consider it to be the duty of the Chair to take this into account. It is easy and, indeed, sometimes natural for members to use words or expressions which, while they may honestly express one's feelings, may perhaps go beyond the limits of parliamentary propriety. Repeating a suggestion which I made yesterday, it seems to me that it should be possible for members to express strong views and to oppose other members vigorously without using offensive expressions which, by long-established practice and tradition and by
the common consent of members, are not acceptable in debate.
These rules and practices are established by the members themselves. They can be changed when it is felt that they are no longer relevant to the times. Such changes are accomplished by the House itself following debate either in the House or in committee. If members feel that the rules relating to the use of so-called unparliamentary language should be altered or that we should change the much-disputed rule that no question should be asked of a minister during the question period in relation to statements he has made outside the House, then it is up to the members themselves to make these changes. In the meantime the rules are there for members to observe. There is no way, I suggest, that the Chair can enforce these rules without the full co-operation of members, and I do not mean only the majority of members but every single member of the House of Commons.
I have always felt deeply indebted to the members of this House who in similar difficult positions in the past have made it possible for this type of procedural difficulty to be cleared up without dramatic confrontations. I am hopeful that, with the continuing assistance and, indeed, with the guidance of the House, it might be possible to soothe hurt feelings and restore a feeling of harmony between aggrieved members and proceed happily to the business of the House.
I think it would be unfortunate if this whole matter were resolved in a climate of emotional tension. I am prepared to leave the matter in abeyance for today in the hope that sweet reason will prevail, while at the same time reserving the proprieties of debate which are essential to the reasonable and orderly conduct of parliamentary business. In other words, I am prepared to make a distinction between the two aspects of this matter.
The first deals with ministerial statements made outside the House and reference to such statements. I myself have had serious doubts about this rule, and I think the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and the right hon. member for Prince Albert had a point when they said that this rule should be reviewed. The hon. member for Peace River suggested yesterday that perhaps this is a question that might be referred to the committee.
Then there is the second aspect, which is perhaps not as important as the matter of substance, that is, the use of unparliamentary language. As I have said, it is important that no decisions should be made in the House by the Chair, by individual members or by the House in general on an emotional basis. I think that yesterday, and perhaps even today, we are still under considerable stress in relation to this very serious and contentious issue.

May 29, 1973
Tabling of Reports
The Chair is quite prepared to leave this matter in abeyance for the time being in the hope, as I have said, that by referring the matter of substance to the committee on procedure we might in due course resolve the other matter, which I really do not think should be made a tragedy. That is my view, and I feel very confident that all hon. members will want to co-operate with the Chair in this respect so we can get on with the business of the House, which I understand is very important business today, rather than spending the day on whether a word is parliamentary or unparliamentary.
I insist on my feeling that certain words have to be judged by the Chair and that it is the duty of the Chair to take action. I suggest it is the duty of individual members to co-operate with the Chair in ensuring that we can proceed on a reasonable basis, observing the proprieties of this chamber. I seek the co-operation of all hon. members, and I am confident that they will extend that co-operation to me as they have in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Alberta, 1973.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report, in both official languages, of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Bechard (Bonaventure-iles de la Madeleine).

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings J

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, speaking in the House of Commons on March 27 I said that the government had decided to extend Canadian participation in the International Commission of Control and Supervision until May 31 and that before that date the government would decide whether to remain or to withdraw.
At that time I said, as will be found on page 2630 of Hansard, that we would withdraw our contingent by June 30 unless there had been a substantial improvement in the situation or some signs of an imminent political agreement between the two South Vietnamese parties.
The decision is a serious one and the government so regards it. Canada has a reputation, I believe, for responsibility in international affairs. We have served in more peacekeeping and peace observer roles than any other country and we remain ready to serve wherever we can be effective. We have also in the course of this varied and extensive experience, including 19 years in Indo-China, learned something about the conditions that are necessary to success in peacekeeping and peace observer activities.
The House will recall the efforts that the government made to establish conditions which would help to improve the prospects for the successful functioning of the International Commission of Control and Supervision provided for in the Paris Agreement on Viet Nam. I shall not repeat them now. The record of Canada's approach to the question of participation in the ICCS up to the end of March, 1973, is to be found in a White Paper that I shall table at the conclusion of this statement.
Stated briefly, what we sought to ensure was that the new International Commission would be an impartial, fact-finding body, supported by the parties to the peace agreement, with sufficient freedom of access to enable it to ascertain the facts about any alleged breach of the agreement and reporting quickly not only to the parties to the agreement but also to the international community as a whole. While we did not achieve all our purposes, I think it is fair to say that we helped to effect some improvements, at least in form.
What we could not ensure, and what the ICCS could not ensure, was peace in Viet Nam. That depends on the parties to the peace agreement and not on the ICCS. Nor can Canada alone ensure that the ICCS fulfils its function of peace observing and reporting as provided for in the peace agreement. That too depends on the parties to the agreement and on the other member delegations of the commission.
Notwithstanding our hesitations and doubts we accepted membership for a trial period of 60 days. At the end of that first 60 days our hesitations and doubts had been reinforced but we were urged by many countries to show patience. So we agreed to another two-month period which is not coming to an end.
May 29, 1973

By and large there has been no significant change in the situation that would alter the view we formed at the end of the first 60 days, notwithstanding the strenuous efforts of the Canadian contingent to support the functioning of the international commission.
Let me repeat that our attitude results from Canadian experience in the old ICSC and the Canadian concept of the functioning of a peace observer body. We are not criticizing the peace agreement. We welcomed that agreement; we regard it as a good agreement that provides as sound and honourable a basis for peace as was negotiable. If the parties will set themselves to applying it, as we hope they may yet do, it can bring lasting peace to Viet Nam. We hope that the efforts of Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Le Due Tho to achieve a stricter observance of the agreement will be crowned with success.
We have come to the conclusion, however, that the Canadian concept of the functioning of the International Commission has not been accepted and that it would be in the interest of all concerned if we were now to withdraw. Nor do we believe that Canadian withdrawal would have any significant effect upon the prospects for peace in Viet Nam. That depends upon the parties to the peace agreement and not upon the ICCS. It is only if the parties are co-operating in a strict observance of the agreement and are willing to use the ICCS as a means of reinforcing the agreement that the commission can perform its function with any hope of success.
Throughout our tenure on the ICCS we have sought above all else to be objective. We have represented none of the contending parties. We have been as insistent in calling for and participating in investigations of alleged violations by the United States and the Republic of Viet Nam as we have with regard to alleged violations by the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam and the other South Vietnamese party. If the RVN or the United States has been at fault we have said so. If the other parties were to blame for cease-fire violations we also have said so. I assure the House that we have no need to listen mutely now or later to any charges that we have acted partially; we can be proud of our objectivity in the commission and of our attempts to see this impartiality as an integral part of commission activities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I also said in my statement to the House on March 27 that Canada would be prepared to return to Viet Nam to participate in the international supervision of an election clearly held under the terms of the Paris Agreement and therefore with the concurrence and participation of the two South Vietnamese parties. It went without saying that our participation would not be necessary if a replacement were found for Canada on the ICCS. I am not convinced that there is much chance that an election will take place as provided for in the agreement, but if it should, and we would want to examine it carefully to make sure it was this kind of election, and if no replacement had been found for Canada, we would consider sympathetically a request to return temporarily to the ICCS for this purpose, in the light of the circumstances
Viet Nam
then prevailing and our assessment of the chances for effective supervision.
The Peace Agreement itself anticipates the replacement of the named members of the ICCS-Canada, Hungary, Indonesia and Poland, or any of them. I have also said that we would be prepared to remain on the commission until June 30 so that a replacement could be found. We have since learned that the discussions which took place recently between Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Le Due Tho will be resumed in June. We want to give those discussions every chance of success and we would certainly wish to do nothing that would complicate them by introducing what might seem to be too short a deadline for agreeing on a replacement for Canada on the commission.
In recognition of that possible difficulty, we are prepared if the parties to the agreement so wish, to stay for a period beyond June 30 but not later than July 31. Canada's decision to withdraw is firm and definite, but the additional flexibility should give the parties adequate time to find a replacement for the Canadian delegation. Should a successor be named and be ready to take its place before July 31, we would be prepared to hand over our responsibilities at any mutually convenient earlier time. We shall, of course, continue to function as we have been doing during the remaining period of our stay on the commission.
In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to Ambassador Gauvin, Major-General MacAlpine and all the members of the Canadian delegation now in Viet Nam and to their predecessors going back to 1954.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Notwithstanding great frustration and serious risks they have carried high the flag of Canada; for some it has cost them their lives. Those who now will be returning to Canada can have the satisfaction of knowing that they did all in their power to help in bringing peace to the war-weary people of Viet Nam. It was our delegation that carried the main burden of organizing the work of the commission and whatever success the commission has had can, in a large measure, be attributed to their professional competence, dedication and energy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned in my preceding remarks, I wish to table in both official languages a White Paper entitled "Viet Nam-Canada's Approach to Participation in the International Commission of Control and Supervision."


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, the very respect of peace as a value, and the very reputation of our country within an international peace force today demand that we regretfully withdraw from Viet Nam, that we cease to be accomplices in an illusory peace, that we do not forfeit our credibility as an autonomous country.
Notwithstanding this choice, and this must be specified, we are not unconcerned about the fate awaiting the population of Viet Nam in general and more particularly civilians, a great number of whom, it would appear, are in

May 29, 1973
Viet Nam
prison for alleged political reason. Nor does this choice make us indifferent toward the task of socio-economic reconstruction of Viet Nam.
Quite on the contrary, we express our deep regret of the obligation to withdraw, and we do hope that this withdrawal will enable us to appeal freely once more within the framework of the United Nations in order that in all justice a lasting and healing peace may at last come about for all the people of Viet Nam.
[ English]
I say to the minister, and I say so with sincerity, that as a nation we should not be discouraged by this episode, either in terms of pursuing peace in Indo-China or of discharging our responsibilities as a member of the world community.
The minister's statement on our withdrawal should be seen by Canadians as something more than an end to a valiant international effort. It should be seen as a beginning of a very real determination to pursue peace in Indo-China through other means.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: There may be those nations that will say that Canada quit when the going was rough. I say to those nations, as I am sure every member of this House would say, that to make this suggestion is to deny the fundamental spirit and international sense of responsibility that have become our nation's tradition in foreign policy. I know that that tradition will be enriched by this experience rather than discouraged by our withdrawal.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) concerning our valiant peace ambassadors who are entitled to hold their heads high when they come home, having well deserved of their fellow-citizens.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party agree with the substance of the decision announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). We agree with the proposal that the Canadian contribution to the International Commission of Control and Supervision be withdrawn.
We regret that the making of this decision was not left to parliament. There are, of course, in the realm of international affairs many things that have to be left to the executive, but major decisions as to war or peace or decisions as to important Canadian international commitments and their withdrawal should, in our opinion, be made by parliament itself.
With respect to the actual decision to withdraw, my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), stated our view in the debate on March 27. The position of the New Democratic Party stated by the hon. member for Selkirk was that Canada should give the 90 days notice provided for in the agreement and make it clear that Canada would be leaving on June 30, 1973, at the end of

the 90 days whether or not a replacement was found. The government has now, in effect, decided to accept this policy, and we will naturally support the government's decision.
This party approved originally of the acceptance of an observer role in Viet Nam in the ICCS by Canada. We believed then and we still believe that there was no honourable alternative. Canada had for a long time maintained a position as a member of the international community ready, willing and qualified to seek, through the provision of peace-keeping forces and observer teams, to maintain peace. But while we approved of Canada's participation we made it clear that we did so on the basis of the conditions formally set out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and we added that we would urge that Canada should make clear its intention to withdraw, unilaterally and promptly, if the parties did not accept the cease-fire or if they indicated by their actions or by their words that they were not accepting the provisions of the agreement.
We do not regret the decision we made to support the original contribution. Indeed, the presence of Canada in the ICCS may have contributed to some of the constructive things that have happened, namely, the withdrawal of American troops from Viet Nam and the exchange of military prisoners.
But the question remains whether the conditions for Canada's continued participation in the ICCS and our acceptance of a role there have been fulfilled. The answer is clearly no. There has been and there is no cease-fire to observe. Violations have continued on both sides. Indeed, the head of Canada's truce observers, Ambassador Gauvin, stated in the last day or so that fighting was continuing and even was intensified since the truce.
Precisely the same report was brought back from Viet Nam by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member for Selkirk in March. There has been no sign of real improvement since. The commission cannot, therefore, fulfil its function.
Canada, as we have stated from the beginning, does not want a repetition of the exercise in futility which characterized the International Control Commission under the Geneva Agreement. The various parties to the present agreement have in fact disregarded its terms, and they are not in a strong position to ask that Canada undertake grave risks to maintain a non-existent peace and a constantly violated agreement.
Both the United States of America and the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam have continued military activities in Cambodia and Laos, contrary to Article 20(b) of the Paris Peace Agreement. We read every day of the violation of this part of the agreement by both sides. The Americans continue the aerial bombardment of Cambodia and Laos, adding to the devastation, death and flood of refugees in those unhappy countries. If it be said that to call attention to this fact is in some way anti-American bias, let me remind the House that both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States have cut off funds for this operation.
Lastly, the spirit, if not the letter, of the agreement which called for national reconciliation between the two
May 29, 1973

administrations in Viet Nam and for the maintenance of civil rights and of freedom of speech, and for holding of elections, has been nullified by the detention of many thousands of civilian political prisoners subject to gross mistreatment.
It has been clear from the beginning that the observer role of the ICCS would not put the ICCS in the position to enforce a peace the parties themselves were unwilling to accept. I think Canada has made an honest effort to make its contribution to the working out of the agreement. I think it has a perfect right now to say that it has discharged its international obligation in this respect.
There is another international obligation which we share with the world community, and in my view it is not in any way discharged or lessened by withdrawal from the ICCS. I refer to the responsibility for humanitarian intervention in respect of civilian prisoners held in jails and camps in South Viet Nam. While there have been denials, a number of completely reliable sources such as the World Council of Churches, Amnesty International and many other reputable witnesses, including some who spoke to members of this House in the last few days, have given detailed statements in support of these allegations.
Imprisonment has been accompanied by torture, by detention after the service of sentence, by detention without trial. The people so held include those best qualified in the country to make a reality out of the process of national reconciliation called for by the Paris Peace Agreement.
Canada, of course, cannot deal with this problem alone, but it can do all in its power to arouse world public opinion. General Thieu and his regime rely entirely on American supplies of ammunition and weapons. The American government contributes a good part of the budget of his regime. That regime could not function without massive American aid.
It is our position that the Canadian government should make an urgent appeal to the American government and the American people to see that the Thieu government is responsive on this humanitarian issue to world opinion. This is not intervention in the internal affairs of South Viet Nam. It is in accordance with the well established tradition of international law of the right to intervene where fundamental human rights are denied on a substantial scale.
I have just two more sentences, Mr. Speaker. I would like to conclude my remarks by saying-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Thank you. I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that peacekeeping-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, some people may not understand the importance of these matters, but I think most members of the House do understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Peacekeeping and the use of observer teams have not been discredited by what has happened. Indeed, the Canadians in particular on the ICCS have conducted
Viet Nam
themselves according to the highest traditions. Peacekeeping and observer teams remain, as they have been in the past and will be in the future, an important instrument in the making of peace.
To say that, after the 25 years of war in Viet Nam and the bitter hostilities there, the present truce is not working and cannot work without a change of attitude on the part of the adversaries is not to devalue peacekeeping and the Canadian policy of being willing to participate and contribute in such efforts to build the world community.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, when Canada was asked by the countries involved in the Viet Nam war to participate in the International Commission of Control and Supervision of the cease-fire, we agreed because we feel that Canada cannot refuse to help maintain peace in the world.
As long as the parties to this conflict showed some goodwill and there was still some hope that the fighting would stop, we supported the efforts of the Canadian delegation within the Commission. However, we must admit that the cease-fire is only a myth. Fighting has started again and it is a miracle that there have not been more prople killed within the Commission, which had to carry out its mandate under the fire of machine guns and bombs.
The infiltration of communist battalions from North Viet Nam, American bombings in Cambodia are all hostile acts which show that the parties involved are not willing to stop fighting.
Therefore, we find it logical to withdraw the Canadian delegation from the ICCS in the hope that such action will give cause for reflection to the countries involved in this costly war.
However, let us be ready to serve and to maintain peace whenever we are asked and our co-operation is really useful.
If there is a real cease-fire in Viet Nam and the countries involved in this conflict put an end to their warlike acts, we will be in a position to return to Viet Nam in order to help establish a lasting peace.
But we believe that this government is wise to withdraw our delegation from Viet Nam before more Canadian soldiers are victims of this continuing war.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should also like, on behalf of my party and my colleagues in the House, to give my respects to our ambassador, Mr. Gauvin, as well as to our brave soldiers who showed so much courage and fair-mindedness.

May 29, 1973
Ways and Means
[ English]


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table two notices of ways and means motions relating to income taxes pursuant to Standing Order 60(1). In part they supersede notices tabled at the time of my February budget and in part they reintroduce proposals which I made to this House in my budget of May, 1972.
Members will recall that last March I proposed that this House deal first with outstanding tax measures affecting
1972	and then with those measures which take effect in
1973	or later years. Just before the Easter recess, all of the tax changes affecting income tax, excise tax and customs duties for 1972 were enacted into law.
Today, I am tabling notices of ways and means motions which deal with income tax measures that take effect in 1973 or later. Members will recall that in my February budget I proposed an increase in personal exemptions for individuals from $1,500 to $1,600 and for married couples from $2,850 to $3,000. I also proposed a reduction in federal basic tax of 5 per cent of tax otherwise payable subject to a maximum of $500 and, most importantly, a minimum of $100. These measures are to take effect on January 1, 1973. It is also proposed to index the personal income tax, starting January 1, 1974, in order to eliminate, once and for all, the automatic tax increase which arises as a result of the interaction of inflation and the progressive rate schedule.


Some hon. Members:: Author!


John Napier Turner: In addition, there are a number of measures of a technical nature arising out of tax reform.
The ways and means motions also call for new measures to strengthen the international competitive position of our manufacturing and processing industries in order to protect existing jobs and create new ones in this vital sector of our economy and in all those industries serving it. As described in my budget of last May, the government is proposing that the rate of corporate tax to be applied to manufacturing and processing profits be reduced to 40 per cent. In the case of manufacturing and processing income which is eligible for the small business deduction, the rate would be reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent.
In my budget speech of February, 1973, I advised the House that the government intended to establish a new procedure to monitor the effect of these measures in strengthening our manufacturing and processing industries. This review procedure would assess the effect of not just the reduction in the rate of corporate tax but also the proposed two-year write-off for manufacturing and processing equipment. At that time I indicated that a report would be submitted to the House before the end of 1974.
The report would be based on detailed information gathered from more than 1,000 individual companies and from an in-depth study of some 200 of the largest corporations.

The report would seek to determine the effectiveness of these new manufacturing incentives in achieving their intended purposes.
Finally, I indicated that in order to better evaluate not just the new fast write-off but all aspects of the present capital cost allowance regime, I proposed to initiate a thorough examination of the entire capital cost allowance system, to be completed by the end of 1974.
I am firmly convinced that these manufacturing incentives are vital to our national interest, for reasons I have indicated on numerous previous occasions. However, I have been carefully following the public debate on this matter and I am anxious to do everything reasonably possible to meet the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about various aspects of these proposals without impairing their effectiveness in achieving our objectives. Hence, I wish to announce that it is my intention to put before this House by April 1 of next year an interim report based on the review and monitoring procedure which I described earlier. This will give members an early opportunity to begin to assess the results of these measures on the basis of facts and figures. Members will also have an opportunity to make constructive suggestions before the final report is submitted by the end of 1974.
In this context, the government will include in the legislation a provision whereby parliament will have a fresh opportunity to consider the incentive measures. Upon the request of 60 members of this House, and after the measures have been in force for a reasonable period of time, namely, after April 1, 1974, the government will take the steps necessary to provide an early occasion for this House to re-examine these tax incentives and, if the House so decided, the measures would be withdrawn thereafter in whole or in part.
Finally, in order that the discussion of the manufacturing incentives may be both meaningful and comprehensive, I am also tabling today a draft of the proposed capital cost allowance regulations. These provide for the two-year fast write-off of manufacturing and processing equipment acquired between May 8, 1972, and December 31, 1974. Under authority provided by parliament, capital cost allowances are a matter of regulation. However, during the course of the debate on the bill, members will be free to discuss the incentive proposals as a total program.
With the permission of the House, I would ask that the notices of ways and means motions and the draft capital cost allowance regulations which I have tabled today be printed in Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling on the hon. Leader of the Opposition I would inquire whether it is agreed that the documents referred to by the hon. minister will be printed as requested.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Baldwin:: Put them in the museum.
[Editor's Note: For text of ways and means motions and draft of proposed capital cost allowance regulations, see today's Votes and Proceedings.\


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed the culmination of an
May 29, 1973

exhibition of courage and determination that the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -has followed without swerving since May 8, 1972. He has brought in some sort of measures relating to corporate tax cuts, measures which he announced on May 8, 1972, as being of the very greatest importance to the country, but they were not sufficiently urgent to be introduced before the House was dissolved and an election called. Following the election I stated my assumption that, because the minister had mentioned these measures in his budget of May 8, Canadian businessmen had probably acted on these proposals and consequently they ought to be implemented for the time being at least. However, the minister took no action on these or any other tax measures. On March 21 of this year I elaborated my position in order to try to break the log jam.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: At that time the minister did not even have the courage to move on personal income tax measures for 1972.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I stated on March 21 that we had no difficulty with the proposal for fast write-offs for 1973 and
1974.	I gave reasons why we took objection to the proposed cut in the corporate tax rate in respect of manufacturing and processing profits and why we could not agree to accept this as a permanent part of our tax structure. I said we would support these measures for the year 1973. I have examined the minister's proposals as of today and I find that he has accepted my position-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -of implementing these measures for the time being at least. The minister is not terminating the proposals as of December 31, 1973, but is asking parliament to commit itself definitely for a further period of three months. Ordinarily an opposition party or groups of opposition members in the House could not initiate the termination or readjustment of any tax measure in 1974 because, among other things, of the requirement of a Governor General's recommendation. Under the minister's proposal, whether the tax cut he now proposes will remain in operation after April 1, 1974, will depend upon the will of the House at that time without the requirement of a Governor General's recommendation. It is evident that in these proposals the minister is not asking us to adopt as a permanent part of our tax structure a cut in corporate taxes which, of course, is what I object to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not wish to take too long because we will have a lot of time to discuss these matters.


An hon. Members:: Four years.
Ways and Means


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As I say, the minister has not precisely accepted my proposal. He is asking for three months more than I proposed. The minister is asking us to accept the arrangement he has put forward for a review of the tax cuts after April 1, 1974, rather than accepting a definite termination as of December 31, 1973.
We will certainly want to examine very carefully the mechanism of the review process that the minister is proposing. We will want to know, for example, whether it can be counted on to work, whether we can rely on it or whether we will have to dismiss it as something that the minister has put forward as some kind of ploy. I want to emphasize that I approach this matter on the basis that I have absolutely no confidence in the gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They say one thing one day and do exactly the opposite a few months later. For example, included in the minister's recommendations is a proposal to index incomes for the purpose of the calculation of income tax. A year ago the minister ridiculed this proposal which he is now bringing into the House with such pride. This is why I say I have absolutely no confidence in these gentlemen. It is in this light that we will want to examine very carefully the recommendation with regard to proposed tax cuts that the minister has put before the House today. The minister is proposing implementation for the time being. I could use words such as-


Mr. Nielsen:: Totally unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -totally unacceptable. I could say that the minister is backing down and that this represents a complete surrender.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Or should we just content ourselves by saying that the minister has adjusted his position?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister wants a commitment for an additional three months. I remind Your Honour that even a cat is entitled to three months. Since the minister has moved so far, my colleagues will want to examine carefully the mechanism the minister is proposing to accomplish his purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), whose statement I had read earlier, and to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). At the end of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, I was not quite certain what his position may be. I understand that he is going to examine carefully the review mechanism and something else, but I am not quite certain what his position may be.
The Leader of the Opposition has complained for some time that the government's lack of action with regard to the May, 1972, budget has caused uncertainty in the business world. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that

May 29, 1973
Ways and Means
his shifting back and forth for some months has added to that uncertainty in the business world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: How did you vote?


David Lewis: But if there is any uncertainty in your mind, Mr. Speaker, about the position of the Conservative Party in this House, there will be none about the position of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Everyone in this House, everyone in the media, everyone in the country knows that we supported the budget of February, 1973. We supported it because it provided among other things a progressive cut in the income tax for individual taxpayers. I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Official Opposition voted against that budget which we supported. But I want to say to the Minister of Finance that his attempt to package the honey of February, 1973, with what we consider to be the poison of May, 1972, will be opposed by us if the bill contains corporate rip-off provisions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I suggest that in all honesty and decency the minister should provide the House with two separate bills so that those of us who consider the corporate rip-off unjustified and unnecessary will be able to vote against that aspect, and those of us who wish to support, as we do, individual income tax cuts will be able to vote for them. But if the minister is trying what I consider to be a trick in order to catch those who are opposed to the corporate tax concessions by adding the individual income tax cuts to the measure, he certainly has not learned that the members of my party are tough enough to oppose it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Tough enough to oppose the bill, even if it contains individual income tax cuts, as long as it contains the corporate rip-off of May, 1972.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I am not surprised at the noise that certain gentlemen in the House are now making. They have been caught by a smart ruse on the part of the Minister of Finance. The Conservatives did exactly what we knew they would do. We knew that, come the crunch, they would get together with the Liberals-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -to support the tax cuts for corporations.


Mr. Muir:: Bring Woodsworth back!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. *This is obviously a very healthy House. However, hon. members should allow the hon. member for York South to pursue his statement.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, some have suggested that I was in bed with the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might continue his remarks.


David Lewis: When that was suggested, I pointed out that neither of us is a consenting adult. But I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is a consenting adult enjoying the bed now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: As far as I am concerned, there is no need for a study of the effect of fast write-offs. We have had years of experience. They have not produced employment in the past and they will not do so in the future. They have only deferred taxes for corporations, mainly large and mainly foreign owned. This is a colossal rip-off at the expense of the ordinary taxpayers of Canada. There must be a halt to this rip-off, and we do not intend to support it no matter how it is packaged before the House.
It is a fact that the manufacturing industries of this country now have in their coffers over $2 billion by way of deferred taxes. Yet the minister wishes to add to this amount. This is unjust and unfair to the ordinary taxpayers. As far as I am concerned, we do not need any study of the effect of the cut in the tax rate on corporations. Corporation profits, without extra concessions from this parliament, have increased rapidly. They went up by 20 per cent in 1972 compared with 1971; they went up by 16 per cent in 1971 compared with 1970; they increased by 35 per cent in the first quarter of 1973 compared with the first quarter of 1972. The profits of the corporations in this country are already too high and we have no right to increase them by making further tax concessions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: On May 8, 1972, when the Minister of Finance presented his budget, he informed the House that the cost of these concessions to the federal treasury would be about $500 million. Let me take a few moments to indicate what that means. I hope Your Honour is not becoming impatient because there has been a great deal of interruption and I should like the time in which to finish my remarks. They will not take too long. I want to indicate to the House what the figure means. That amount of $500 million is $100 million more than the total cost of the increase in pensions and the adjustment for the cost of living in the guaranteed income supplement. Instead of $500 million for the corporations the government could have used the money to increase pensions by a further $20 a month and still have money left over. We could have used that money to increase the individual income tax cut by at least 50 per cent so there would be a minimum of $150 instead of $100. We could have used it to reduce freight rates for the Atlantic provinces and the western provinces of Canada in order to stimulate the economies of those regions. We do not need any studies. The proposals of May, 1972, for concessions to corporations are unjustified economically and immoral socially. We do not need
May 29, 1973

any studies to prove what has already been proven over the years.
Finally, a word about the monitoring agency which was mentioned and which I assume will be inside the Department of Finance. I have no confidence in the people in the Department of Finance monitoring a policy which they themselves have promoted and supported for years. They will no more come up with any real, valuable results from their study than anyone responsible for policy is likely to be objective about it.
I think it is wrong for the minister to package the 1972 and 1973 budget income tax proposals in one bill. If he is going to be fair and honest about it, I believe he should have two bills. But whether there are two bills or only one, the New Democratic Party will support nothing that involves further corporate concessions.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, we hear the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) accuse the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of going to bed with the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) and on the other hand, we have just heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party say that the Prime Minister is sleeping with the Leader of the Official Opposition. We must conclude then that the Prime Minister has become a bigamist.
You may be assured, Mr. Speaker, that as far as we are concerned, we have not slept with the Prime Minister.
However, I have closely listened to the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) where he seems to be deliberately confusing, referring to personal income tax exemptions that will be raised from $1500 to $1600 for single persons and from $2850 to $3000 for married couples, and going on to say that we should help the big corporations and grant them tax reductions up to 40 per cent in order to enable them to stimulate the Canadian economy.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) says this is a complete surrender by the minister.

Then, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said: [English]
There is no confusion at all; we are going to vote against those corporate welfare bums again.

Mr. Speaker, for example I would like to hear the minister talk about abolishing the sales tax on building materials which would have resulted in the creation of jobs in Canada.
I would have also liked to hear him say that not only professionals but miners and workers could deduct from their income tax the cost of the tools they need to work.
We overlook those aspects. When we deal with them we do so very parsimoniously. On the other hand, in order to help corporations become more competitive on international markets the government says: we are going to have
Ways and Means
a trial shot for a while and if 60 members express the wish to have the whole question discussed again in the House it will be brought back before the House so it can be decided.
Mr. Speaker, I have no compromise with any corporation in Canada. When we hear the Leader of the Opposition say that the government gives in to his wishes I say quite honestly that the two parties can hardly be separated from one another because their election campaigns are both financed by big corporations. If we are against socialism and for private enterprise it is not to get election funds but to allow this country to develop and be competitive across the world.
When I hear the leader of the New Democratic Party say: we are going to vote against corporate bums, I cannot help recall that the new NDP premier of B.C. is grovelling before European financiers to borrow funds to develop his province. I wonder if he goes to bed with European financiers.
Mr. Speaker, we must put an end to this hypocrisy of saying things here and doing the opposite elsewhere. The same thing goes for Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, as we advocate in our basic policy, the first role of a government is to stimulate personal initiative and not to crush it. When I hear these people say: power to the people! The power is in the hands of the people, in Russia and in Czechoslovakia, and look at the kind of power they have!
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this measure which encourages personal initiative and private enterprise, even though it is incomplete as far as individuals and workers are concerned, will contribute to the creation of jobs in Canada. It will help the country to be a better competitor on the international market. However, I would like the hon. Minister of Finance and the government to think of helping Canadian workers, especially the low income group in the area of income tax.
For example, not long ago when we moved a motion to grant old age security pensions at 60, how come the New Democratic Party voted against it?
How come the Progressive Conservatives also voted against it? And the Liberals who shout "It is true" voted against it too.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the independent member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) voted with us.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say as a measure of precaution that the motion of the government could be discussed anew within a year and a half, twenty months. So, let us make the experiment, let us see what happens: if there is no result, we will say so. If nothing comes out of this, we might possibly convince the New Democratic Party leader (Mr. Lewis) to back private enterprise.

[ English]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the House

May 29, 1973
Kilts for Highland Militia Units that, following consultations, we have agreed to have an opposition day tomorrow.


PROPOSED OIL TANKER ROUTE ALONG EAST COAST OF NEW BRUNSWICK-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43. On May 15 of last year the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) sought and obtained the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion relating to the proposal to move oil by tanker down the coast of British Columbia from Valdez, Alaska, to Cherry Point in the state of Washington.
I rise today also to seek the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 on a related matter, namely, the proposed movement of oil by tanker along Canada's east coast through channels less than 250 feet wide to a new refinery at Eastport, Maine. I should like, therefore, to move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this House herewith declares that the movement of oil by tanker along the east coast of New Brunswick to the proposed refinery at Eastport in Maine is inimical to Canadian interests, especially those of an environmental nature;
And further, that this resolution be forthwith transmitted to the government of the United States of America in order that that government be apprised of the concern that the House of Commons of Canada has about the proposed movement of oil.
I might again stress, Mr. Speaker, that a motion almost identical to this one received the unanimous consent of the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has proposed his motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: How can you say no to that?


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.


An hon. Member:: You blew it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave, under Standing Order 67, to present a petition for the retention of Highland uniforms at government expense for Highland units in the Canadian militia.

The petition has been received from the St. Andrew's and Caledonian Society of Victoria, the Regimental Association of the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa and the Saltire Society of Victoria. There are some 4,000 signatures on the petition.


An hon. Member:: Did you sign the petition, Allan?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions. Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. Leader of the Opposition, perhaps the Chair might be permitted to recognize the hon. member for Wellington on a point of order.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order dealing with a letter the Secretary of State for External Affairs agreed to table following your ruling yesterday that it should be tabled. To the best of my knowledge it has not been tabled yet.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention to table the letter today but apparently the rules require that it be translated, so it will be tabled tomorrow.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I find I must do so as I do not think there is any excuse for not having a two-page letter translated into both official languages between three o'clock yesterday afternoon and now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Dryden Hales: There is no excuse whatsoever for this. I must say that it is two weeks today since this tragedy occurred in Rhodesia and I must now demand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs complete a comprehensive and factual report on this whole situation as I am advised


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the hon. member was rising on the original point of order relating to the possible tabling of the letter. The ruling of the Chair yesterday was that perhaps there might be discussion between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member but that if I were to rule only on the point of order, the document clearly having been quoted by the minister, it was the duty of the minister to table it. Perhaps it might be easier if the document were tabled in its original form, subject to the House officials looking after the translation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would have done this except I am advised that under an act of this parliament all documents must be tabled in both official languages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: But not at the same time.
May 29, 1973



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising from the fact that the number of unemployment insurance claimants was some 10 per cent higher during the first three months of 1973 than in the first three months of 1972, although Statistics Canada reported some 34,000 fewer people unemployed in the month of March. Has the minister prepared or had prepared any detailed explanation of the fact that the claimant rate and the unemployment rate seem to be moving in opposite directions during these three months and, if so, is he prepared to table that explanation in the House?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there are several factors involved here: the length of time of benefit, the accelerated or speeded up treatment of claims which has condensed the pay-outs in the first quarter this year compared with last year, the maturity of the plan, the increase in sickness and maternity benefits and several other factors which explanation was placed before the standing committee recently and which will be in the transcript that will be available to this House very shortly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I appreciate what the minister has said about maturity of claims, maternity claims and so on, but I should like to ask whether he is having any accurate study made of the total number of claimants and the fact that the number seem to have been going in a direction opposite to the unemployment rate as reported by Statistics Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, these kinds of statistics are under constant examination.


REQUEST FOR PROJECTED EXPENDITURE FOR 1973
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the minister will give us some information on this. In light of the cost of the program being $150 million higher during the first quarter of 1973 than in 1972, and the total cost of some $2 billion during 1972, can the minister give us any revised estimate as to the projected expenditure under the plan during 1973?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this too would depend on very many factors: the rate of unemployment, the length of benefit pay-outs and several other factors which have been stated in this House many times. The actual pay-out will be made known and will be approved or otherwise in the main estimates for 1974 as provided for in the recent amendments contained in Bill C-124.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Trinity on a supplementary question and then the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION 2086 CONCERNING NUMBER RECEIVING BENEFITS
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could indicate whether he will be in a position to answer question 2086 tomorrow so that the House will know how many people were actually receiving benefits in January, February, March and April?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will see if that answer can be expedited.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should likeAo direct a question to the Minister of State in charge of multicultural programs in the absence of the Secretary of State. I should like to ask whether he or the Secretary of State has had discussions with officials of the CBC about representations made to the minister in the past week in connection with the CBC limitation of programs in other than the English or French languages which have been carried on Station CKSB, St. Boniface, now taken over by the CBC, and which the CBC proposes to eliminate after a year's operation?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any personal meeting with the President of the CBC since last Friday, but since the Secretary of State is here now perhaps he might answer the other part of the question.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the question to the Secretary of State who has just come into the House. Has he had any discussions with the president of the CBC in the past few days in connection with representations made to ministers of the Crown and other members concerning the proposed cutback by the CBC of programs in other than the French or English languages which have been carried by station CKSB in St. Boniface?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: No, I have not had a discussion with the president of the CBC.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF LANGUAGE COMMISSIONER ON MULTICULTURAL PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he has learned of the representation made to the CBC by the language commissioner on this subject, and the subsequent rejection by the CBC of the suggestion made by the

May 29, 1973
Oral Questions
language commissioner, and whether he intends to take any steps to implement these suggestions which are in line with the government's program on multiculturalism?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had a chance to briefly review the letter, which I believe was from the deputy commissioner. I want to make sure we are talking about the same letter. However, I have not decided on what steps I will take beyond that.


ARRANGEMENTS RESPECTING CONTINUATION OF MULTICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Boniface on a supplementary question.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Secretary of State.
I would like to ask him if he can tell whether the manager of CKSB, Mr. Couture, has informed him that he had reached agreements with other radio stations of the Metropolitan Winnipeg area to provide the same service to all ethnic groups referred to, namely Jews, Ukrainians and others? Has that service already been offered to the groups concerned?
[ English]


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Again I am not sure of the latest details, but in fact that type of negotiation has been going on and, as the House knows, the corporation itself has agreed to continue third language broadcasting over station CKSB for a period following the takeover of the station to allow for these negotiations to be completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will have to try to move on. However, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North on a last supplementary and then recognize the hon. member for Champlain.


POSITION OF CORPORATION ON MULTICULTURAL PROGRAMS-POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO BROADCASTING ACT
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the CBC has insisted it cannot provide the broadcasting time for programming in languages other than English and French because of its interpretation of the Broadcasting Act but the CBC is in fact, on its stations at Yellowknife, Inuvik, Churchill and Frobisher Bay, now carrying broadcasts in various Indian and Eskimo dialects? If this is so, why is there this contradiction?


James Hugh Faulkner: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this matter of third language broadcasting at some length in the committee. We are aware of what appears to be a contradiction, namely,

that in the Northwest Territories there are third language broadcasts taking place. As the hon. member knows, CBC affiliates are allowed to broadcast third-language programs as of course are private stations. It seems to me if there is to be a change in this basic policy then it is something the House must direct itself to in terms of the Broadcasting Act itself.


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell whether the government of Quebec has submitted a formal request for the transfer to the provinces concerned of the tax amounts paid to the federal government by Bell Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. The Minister of Communications also tells me that as far as he knows such a demand has not been made.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the fact that last Friday, in the absence of the minister, I believe the acting Prime Minister rejected the suggestion of the hon. member for Regina East that the Food Prices Review Board investigate farm input costs and, as a high priority, the escalating farm machinery costs, would the minister now tell the House whether it is the position of the government that it would be outside the terms of reference of the board to investigate these increasing farm production costs? If that is so, would the minister tell the House how the board will be able to decide what are justified food costs increases and what can be done without reviewing farm input costs?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference of the board are a matter of public record; certainly as of yesterday. It is my own view that in looking into food price increases the terms of reference are broad enough to enable the board to examine any of the relevant factors, but the interpretation of the terms of reference in the final course of events I believe would be for the board itself.
May 29, 1973


RECRUITMENT OF STAFF-POSSIBLE USE OF EXISTING GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister related to the appointment of the chairman and members of the Food Prices Review Board. Is it the intention of the government to utilize the existing organization that was brought together for the Prices and Incomes Commission or does the government propose to establish an added bureaucracy for this board?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Well, Mr. Speaker, the organization to which the hon. member refers essentially went out of existence with the Prices and Incomes Commission. In order to make sure that the board is able to carry out its responsibility in an independant manner, as the food trends committee recommended, it is our view that the board should have its own staff.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he can assure the House that the staff necessary for the functioning of the Prices Review Board will be taken from existing government organizations and that a new bureaucracy will not be created?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot give the hon. member that assurance. I am not certain that this would be desirable. The decision in this regard in my view is something to be worked out between the review board and the government.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. In light of the unanimous concern by farmers in all parts in Canada about rising machinery costs and in light of the 6.1 per cent increase in farm input cost in the first quarter of 1973, does the minister intend to undertake a separate and special investigation under the Inquiries Act into farm production costs, and if not, why is he reluctant to do so?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think all I can say is I will take the hon. member's suggestion under advisement.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPERTANKER PORTS ON ATLANTIC COAST-POSSIBLE PROTEST TO UNITED STATES
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Since an aide memoire of protest was forwarded to the government of the United States in respect of the proposed Alaska to Cherry Point route, will a
Oral Questions
similar memoire of protest be forwarded to cover the Eastport proposal.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: I hope so and very shortly, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that scientists believe that by the end of the 70's some 35 per cent of the world's oil requirements will be met from offshore production, while pressure mounts for increased control over deep-sea mining, transportation and fishing problems, is the government giving any thought to proposing the establishment at the United Nations of an international agency to regulate, supervise and control all activities on the high seas or under the sea bed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will consult with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to ascertain the final answer on that.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the possible danger that a decision which was reached yesterday might be misinterpreted as lack of support for the ICNAF delegation which is meeting in Copenhagen on Sunday, would the Prime Minister be prepared to bring before the House a resolution of support for Canada's position at the ICNAF conference on June 3 at which time the conference hopes to bring back a better deal for the Canadian fishery. I am sure, Your Honour, all members of all parties would be willing to work toward such a resolution.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that a delegation of the Canadian government would have the authority to speak on behalf of the government and I am happy to see that the opposition joins itself with this position.


John Howard Lundrigan: Your Honour, my question had nothing to do with the support of the government. It is the support of the House of Commons. I am asking the right hon. gentleman whether the government will bring forward some form of resolution that can be unanimously accepted by the House giving the Canadian delegation led by the very competent Dr. Needier an assurance that the position

May 29, 1973
Oral Questions
they are to take requesting that Canada harvest as much marine resources as it is capable of harvesting will receive the support of the political and parliamentary system of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have delegations in various parts of the world speaking for the government and expressing its policies all the time. If the opposition wants to support the government in this, I think we would welcome it very much, and perhaps they could use their opposition day tomorrow to do this.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. The hon. member has put two questions. If there is time, I will return to him in a short while. The Chair would like to recognize the hon. member for Scarborough West.


PROPOSED SUPERTANKER PORT IN ISLE VERTE REGION OF QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR ECOLOGICAL STUDIES
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the minister's expressed justifiable concern over dangers to the Canadian environment in the building of a supertanker port at Eastport, Maine, and in view of the recent statement by the Quebec minister of natural resources that environmental studies with regard to the building of a superport at Isle Verte, Quebec have not begun, could the minister express to the House the concern of his ministry by indicating that the department has begun ecological studies surrounding the building of the superport in Isle Verte, Quebec?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have already completed an environmental impact assessment on the Lorneville project in New Brunswick, and a joint investigation regarding the Canso project is under way. We are happy to join with the provinces in these kinds of appraisals at any time.


PROPOSED SUPERTANKER PORT IN ISLE VERTE REGION-INQUIRY RESPECTING ALLEGED APPROVAL GIVEN QUEBEC BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
John Paul Harney: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I address it to the right hon. Prime Minister?

Could the Prime Minister inform the House of the answer to the question I put to the Acting Prime Minister last week, when I asked him what department or government branch had approved Quebec's participation in the supertanker port project at Gros Cacouna-Isle Verte, since the Quebec department of natural resources had admitted earlier this year that such approval had been received from the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall be pleased to inquire about the answer to this question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the hon. member put it while I was at the federal-provincial conference last week. I apologize for not having been informed of this question and I shall see to it that it is answered as soon as possible.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS LACK OF SUCCESS OF RECENT CONFERENCE OF FIRST MINISTERS-CESSION TO PROVINCES OF CERTAIN TAX FIELDS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the qualified success of the recent federal-provincial conference as to the fair sharing of the taxation fields, and to put an end to the provincial premiers' periodic "marches" on Ottawa, could he advise the House whether he is seriously considering the possibility of declaring World War II officially terminated, thereby automatically surrendering to the provinces the taxation fields granted to the federal government in 1942, pursuant to section 23(1) of Bill C-16, which was given Royal Assent May 13, 1942.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without going into details, I should like to tell the hon. member that, if he carefully examines the documentation submitted to the conference as well as the positions taken respectively by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), he will realize that the government's position was in fact to surrender to the provinces the taxation means which they need to finance the two programs under discussion, namely health services and post-secondary education.
Therefore, should the hon. member examine the documentation, he will see that this is our position, and I am delighted that he should support the government on this issue.


AIR TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether or not the government is about to put an end to the system now in effect in respect of air passengers out of Toronto and Montreal not being able to secure their customs clearances before departure.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is part of the negotiations which are taking place now with the United States. As soon as the negotiations are completed, I will be happy to inform the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the minister consider that Canadians should be used as pawns in an
May 29, 1973

endeavour on the part of the government of Canada to force action by the United States for what they require? Are Canadians not entitled to more consideration than that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: I think that Canadians deserve consideration. I believe the right hon. gentleman will agree with me that if we have a national airline here, which is important, we should protect it against unfair competition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister means to imply by that that he places corporation requirements ahead of human needs, surely he is not that hard toward the people of Canada, or is he?


Jean Marchand: I know the right hon. gentleman is very sensitive and probably would like to help the American airlines, but at this moment I think it is the Canadian airline which should be protected.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is nonsense.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that a few weeks ago the Department of Transport almost exulted over the fact that tests had been taking place unknown to the public with respect to STOL aircraft and that these tests showed that in fact people were not complaining about the noise, may I have the minister's assurance that no similar tests are taking place at the Vancouver airport relating to the new proposed runway at that airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is something surprising there. Surely, the new runway cannot be used because it has not yet been built.


John Allen Fraser: The department might try even that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And you will be the first passenger.


John Allen Fraser: My question to the Minister of Transport is quite simple. Are any tests being done now, the results of which will be brought forward later with the suggestion by the Department of Transport that they took these planes on exactly the same route as the new runway would require and nobody complained? I am sure the minister knows exactly what I am getting at.


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, the problem now at the Vancouver airport is the problem of the new runway. I really do not know whether there are some
Oral Questions
Twin Otters which land on the runway at present, but I can inquire. I do not know of any regulations that would prevent Twin Otters from landing anywhere in Canada.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister assure the House that no secret runs are being made by aircraft to simulate the patterns that would be required if the new runway were built with a view to bringing out this fact later and saying to the people: You did not complain when we were carrying out these secret tests?


Jean Marchand: If it is so secret that nobody notices it, I do not think it is a successful experiment. However, I will inquire and make a report.


Gerald William Baldwin: Ask Turner. He's the minister of simulation.


MEDICARE-ALLEGED RECOMMENDATION OF COUNCIL OF HEALTH TO LIMIT AVAILABILITY OF INSURED SERVICES
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the federal government's failure to buy itself out of the responsibility of health care costs, is the minister aware of the recommendation being made by a committee appointed by the Council of Health which would limit the quality and availability of insured medical services?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of a report in Ontario limiting the quantity of services. I am not sure it is the right conclusion to say it would limit the quality of such services. I will look into this particular report. I am aware of it only through press reports, and I want to make sure that such proposals would meet the four basic criteria for federal financing of health services.


MEDICARE-POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF ACUPUNCTURE IN INSURED SERVICES
Philip Bernard Rynard: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he is going to include acupuncture in insured medical services?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think it is too early to give an answer to that particular question. I will give an answer later.

May 29, 1973
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


ALLEGATIONS BY ESCAPED CONVICT McCANN-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General in the hope that I can provide him with an opportunity to provide an answer that will prevent the penitentiary service from falling into greater disrepute than it is in now. Is he aware of comments, reported to have appeared today in the Vancouver Sun, by escaped convict McCann, who escaped from the B.C. penitentiary, to the effect that he spent 25 months in the hole while there, that he waited for four months for a reclassification, and that while in the hole he was able to obtain illicit drugs? Is the minister investigating these allegations and will he say, with respect to the 25 months reportedly spent in the hole, whether they were largely the result of the request of McCann himself?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of these statements made by inmate McCann to certain newspapermen. I must say, according to the report I have had, that he spent 25 months in the hole because he offered a $1,000 bribe to the guards. We are now investigating the different statements he made to the press, and I will have a more complete report in a few days.


HARBOURS
Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the importance of the port of Churchill to the economy of western Canada, is the minister now prepared to table the study just recently completed for the port, as requested by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, actually I have received the report on the port of Churchill. There are many aspects with which I am not satisfied, and I have returned the report to the marine administration of my department for further details and comments.


Charles Keith Taylor: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that the Chairman of the National Harbours Board does not yet know what work will be carried out at Churchill, is the minister prepared to advise the House as to what improvements and up-grading will take place at the port of Churchill for this season?


Jean Marchand: This decision will be made as soon as I have received the second report for which I have asked on the first one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of hon. members who wish to ask supplementaries. I will recognize the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley on a sup-
[Mr. Lalonde.J
plementary, and then the hon. member for Calgary North on a supplementary to the previous question.


INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW DEEP WATER PORTS
Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Canada does not now have deep water ports that can handle ships presently being constructed by some of our grain customers, and in view of the recent statement made by the President of the United States when he called for an ambitious program to create new deep water ports in that country, can the Minister of Transport inform the House if any deep water ports are being planned by the government?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that there will be a vote on second reading of the capital punishment bill this evening. I would like to put this question to the Solicitor General. Would he advise the House and the country whether Mercier, who escaped from St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary with three other inmates, has been caught? I know that the three others have been caught, but I ask the question because the last time Mercier escaped he was later found guilty of murdering two game wardens?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have no report that he has been caught to this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that Mercier and probably some others with similar records are at large, has the Solicitor General, working in conjunction with the attorneys general of the various provinces, done anything or offered any assistance to the RCMP or others to bring about that kind of administration which would ensure these people will be caught and put back into custody?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Provincial Police, the Montreal City Police and other police forces in the Montreal area, together with the RCMP, have been doing everything possible since Mercier's escape to capture him.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the continuing confusion which surrounds air charter
May 29, 1973

travel in Canada, and in particular the recent evidence that a number of Canadian students will be deprived of the opportunity of fulfilling their air charter travel as previously organized under the old affinity rules, can the minister advise the House if he is actively conferring with officials of the Canadian Transport Commission with a view to drawing up a set of workable regulations concerning air charter service in this country because there has been a failure of the ABC's, and in particular is any consideration being given to accommodating these Canadian students affected by the ABC's?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the House knows that the Air Transport Committee of the CTC was formed in order to protect the ABC's against outside influence. I think this committee must make its own decisions. However, I am ready to check into the case referred to by the hon. member and will try to help everybody.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister did state in the House that he would be prepared to examine these regulations personally after they were implemented for some time, and improve upon them or recommend improvements to the ABC's, will the minister now take that course of action and confer with officials of the CTC with a view to up-grading these regulations into a set of working rules?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in many cases I have drawn the attention of the CTC to certain effects and shortcomings of the regulations, and I hope everything will be taken care of.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Justice.
As notary Geoffroy's lawyers asked the department for a second trial a few weeks ago and as perjury charges were directly related to his trial and laid before the court a few days ago, does the minister intend to wait for proof of perjury before ruling on the possibility of ordering a second trial in the Geoffroy case?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of carefully assembling the facts relating to the request for reconsideration. The events now unfolding in the courtroom will also be taken into consideration in dealing with this request and, as a result, I do not anticipate giving a definitive answer at the moment.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO ALLEVIATE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY GREY SEALS IN CERTAIN AREAS OF ATLANTIC
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries regarding a matter on which I have made representations to his department for some time. In view of the great difficulties caused by grey seals to fishermen in certain areas of Atlantic Canada, including the constituency of the government House leader, does the minister have under active consideration any measure to aid the fishermen at this time, and would he undertake to send some of his departmental officials to the area to seek some practical ways to solve some of the problems of the fishing industry there?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, each time I visit the area fishermen make representations about this problem which they encounter. The department has had a program in effect there for a number of years, and it is being reviewed.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General who mentioned investigating the statements made by the convict who escaped from the British Columbia penitentiary. Is the government considering investigating how a reporter for the Vancouver Sun could find this escaped criminal, and is the government contemplating any charges against the interviewer for not reporting where the convict was when he saw him?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the escaped inmate telephoned the reporter. It was not the other way around; the reporter did not contact the inmate. We will be looking into the question of whether the reporter could be charged with any type of offence.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON PENAL REFORM-REPRESENTATION OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Erik Nielsen: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the answer given by the Solicitor General to the member for Hamilton-Wentworth yesterday concerning the federal-provincial conference of attorneys general. Can the Solicitor General tell the House whether the Yukon and Northwest Territories are going to be represented at that conference, which I understand will be discussing penal reform, and if not, why not?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I understand that they will be included.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
May 29, 1973

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Does the minister intend to transfer jurisdiction of his capacity as Attorney General for both northern territories to those territories so that they may participate actively in such conferences?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no present intention to make such transfer.
* *
*


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State and, in essence, is supplementary to earlier questions asked about the third language broadcasts by CKSB, St. Boniface. One of the recommendations associated with the reports on discontinuance of those broadcasts after one year was that the existing English language stations in Winnipeg could perhaps take up some of the slack which would result. I wondered if the minister would make active representations to English language broadcasting stations in Winnipeg himself in an effort to encourage them to undertake some third language broadcasting?


James Hugh Faulkner: I have not, Mr. Speaker, but I am certainly prepared to do so. That was the point raised by the hon. member for St. Boniface. Frankly, my impression was, up to this point, that these negotiations were going very well but if it is felt by the hon. member and the hon. member for St. Boniface that my intervention would help I would be pleased to do so.


MULTICULTURAL PROGRAMS-ALLEGED LACK OF GOVERNMENT DIRECTION-POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO BROADCASTING ACT
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The President of the CBC indicated recently that he is willing to use a third language in broadcasting, provided some direction comes from the government in keeping with this idea. Could the minister tell the House why no such direction has come from the government so that the CBC could proceed?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I think we should be clear on this point. At the present time, the issue on language policy is abundantly clear. The fact is that the CBC interprets its mandate to broadcast in this country in English and French and CBC affiliates, as well, private stations, are allowed under regulations to broadcast in third languages. If we want changes, and the House of Commons can change this, let us address ourselves to the Broadcasting Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a few minutes left to the end of the question period. We have already had a few supplementaries on this subject and it might be pursued tomorrow.
*
* *


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
With regard to the many releases the minister has sent to us on safety standards for motor vehicles, can he tell us whether those standards are set as a result of studies and research conducted in Canada under Canadian conditions, or are they only set in accordance with American standards?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. The research bureau of the motor vehicle section has its own investigation and checking facilities; it sends a great number of investigators on the highways and conducts its own tests. Now it is possible that sometimes procedures used in other countries are followed here.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the government's decision to withdraw the Canadian peace force from Viet Nam, will the minister make a statement on motions soon indicating specifically how Canada can augment its contribution to world peace and justice through, for example, increased support of United Nations programs and more equitable trade policies with underdeveloped countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is part of the government's policy. Our contribution to external aid is increasing more rapidly than any other country in the world at the present time. We have been a very strong supporter of the United Nations, and I believe our action today underlines our real concern for peace in the world.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that the Hamilton Academy of Medicine has asked the city of Hamilton to seek a moratorium on
May 29, 1973

the expansion of Mount Hope airport for health reasons and in view of the fact that the council has no assurance that if they do seek a moratorium the funds will still be available for expansion, will the minister inform the Hamilton city council in writing how long the funds for expansion of this municipal airport will be available?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it might take rather a long time to give here all the details of what is known as the revolving fund of airports. In any case, we are now reviewing the whole situation at the Hamilton airport, and we will certainly be able to get in touch soon with the city council.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would recognize the hon. member on a supplementary, then perhaps we might have time for two last questions by the hon. member for Battle River and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


MOUNT HOPE-POSSIBLE CONSULTATION WITH CIVIC OFFICIALS AND CITIZENS ON EXPANSION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: A short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, there has been a statement made by the Minister of Labour that he is seeking citizenship participation by holding a meeting in Hamilton to deal with this entire matter. Can the minister advise whether, in fact, the data has been sought? Has there been consultation with the officials of the city of Hamilton, as well as others, as to a suitable date and, if so, what is that date?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I might ask what meetings took place. I asked the department to see all the persons concerned and also to look into some new proposals which had been made, so as to satisfy the entire population of Hamilton.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Harry Kuntz (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that there is an ever-increasing number of deaths by fire when the gasoline tank ruptures on a motor vehicle involved in an accident, resulting in the surrounding area being sprayed with gasoline, will the minister tell this House whether his department has any intention of investigating this very serious problem to determine if these gasoline tanks are being manufactured to a sufficient strength to lessen the possibility of them rupturing in an accident?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know my department has been working hard in
Oral Questions
the field of safety as far as cars are concerned. From memory, I have no indication that they worked particularly on this aspect of security. I will inquire. I may profit by the occasion to say that since the department undertook this responsibility four years ago, the number of accidents in Canada in relative terms has declined quite sharply.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since the minister indicated to the House on May 10 that a team of doctors from his department had carried out tests on the effects of mercury contamination on fish food sources for the Indians of the Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves, and in light of the fact that 60 of these native people have been informed by provincial agencies that they have an excess of mercury in their system, can the minister tell the House if the result of the federal tests have shown a high incidence of mercury contamination? If so, what steps are planned to deal with this serious matter affecting the health of our native people?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the federal team has been working jointly and in very close co-operation with the Ontario government team, and I have no reason to believe that the figures quoted by the members of the Ontario team are different from those that may have been compiled by the federal team.
As to the action required, it is a responsibility that the Ontario government has assumed for some time, and it is up to the provincial government to make sure that food and other necessities are available to the people on this reserve.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. There are a number of hon. members still seeking an opportunity to ask questions. The hon. member will be given priority tomorrow to pursue the matter, but we have gone four or five minutes beyond the question period. Perhaps we should call orders of the day now.
The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that for six days I have risen, and on more than four occasions have caught your eye. I noticed you have known I have been rising, but I have not been granted the privilege of asking a question which is of some urgency. I request that tomorrow I might be given some consideration. I have only asked five previous ques-

May 29, 1973
Capital Punishment
tions in this House. I have risen 20 or 30 times a day for six days and I would like to draw that to your attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Ellwood Madill (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at 10 o'clock on Thursday night, May 24, I was speaking on Bill C-2. In continuing the debate, I wish to put on the record a table indicating the murder rate in Canada per 100,000. The source is "A Study of the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment with Special Reference to the Canadian Situation" by E. A. Fattah. The two years to which I will be referring will be 1962 and 1970. The rates are as follows: Newfoundland, 0 in 1962 and .2 in 1970; Prince Edward Island, 1.1 in 1962 and 1.1 in 1970; Nova Scotia, 1.6 in 1962 and 2.2 in 1970; New Brunswick, 1.6 in 1962 and 1.5 in 1970; Quebec, 1.4 in 1962 and 1.9 in 1970; Ontario, 1.4 in 1962 and 1.7 in 1970; Manitoba, 2.5 in 1962 and 3.3 in 1970; Saskatchewan, 1.7 in 1962 and 2.9 in 1970; Alberta, 1.7 in 1962 and 3.1 in 1970; British Columbia, 3.9 in 1962 and 4.1 in 1970. These figures indicate a growth over the years. Ezzat Abdel Fattah draws the conclusion that this increase is no greater than the general increase that was occurring prior to temporary abolition.
In the February 20 issue of the Brampton Daily Times, there is an editorial headed "Death Penalty Demand AntiLiberal Backlash". It reads:
Our readers have voted overwhelmingly for retention of capital punishment in some form.
A Daily Times survey now compiled and tallied indicates 73 per cent of those replying wanted retention of capital punishment as it was before the five-year trial ban and another 10 per cent wanted a limited form of capital punishment.
Any sort of liberalism which brought the ban into effect in the first place appears to have been dispelled, judging from the fact that only 17 per cent of those replying wanted total abolition of capital punishment.
It was clear while compiling results that our readers freely relate bail reform legislation and other liberalizing trends with capital punishment.
Quite frankly, we're not sure these can be related. However, it is clear that what is being said is that "enough is enough" and we're inclined to agree.
We would suggest that through abuses of current bail and penal legislation, Canada has sold out on its prerogative to abolish capital punishment.
We are not sure that capital punishment deters crime but we are now very certain that liberalized prison and bail procedures certainly don't. The general public, however, sees a parallel between the two areas in question and the cry is out for capital punishment.

Considering the number of brutal murders of police officers and citizens generally, one can hardly blame the public for being incensed.
You may call capital punishment a "revenge" motive and point out that innocent people are hung, too, but it will do little to deter the tide of public opinion.
We think an alternative is to tighten the legal controls on bail and assure that sentences as they exist are carried out.
We would further suggest that if this were done, many capital punishment advocates might change their mind. On the other hand, the vote we received is undeniably clear . . .
Needless to say, our social order is in sad shape when the public cries for death but we understand the reasoning behind the cry and we would have to ascribe it to a situation where such a demand was predictable.
In discussing the pros and cons of capital punishment, one would be wrong not to consider facts lest one be carried away by strong emotion. Thus, when the facts suggest some conclusions which do not support a person's feelings, a great conflict might arise. However, we should look again at those figures and ask why there is a rise in the crime rate at all. Murder is the most glamourized of crimes, but other crimes are on the rise, even faster than murder.
If the liberal attitude taken in the last dozen years regarding crime and criminals had been the correct attitude, surely the crime rate would not be rising. Our leniency has led to a grave situation. The argument that abolition of the death penalty has not caused an increase in murders, especially when compared to other crime rates, cannot be fully accepted because our liberalism has led to a general easing of punishment for all crimes. Murder, as mentioned above, is only one portion of an overall horrendous picture. By retaining the death penalty and enforcing its use Canadians will be returning to a more common sense attitude. It is not so much the execution of the murderer but the self-realization that we are prepared to deal sternly once again with all criminals that will help society. As with the proverbial camel who has worked his head and neck into the tent, so it is with our leniency towards those who commit capital crimes. We must take a strong stand now.
The crime of treason against our country should never be removed from our statute books. Any one who commits treason against this country deserves the death penalty. Hijackers, who endanger the lives of hundreds of people, should not have a second chance because they do not consider the passengers on the aircraft or what this act means to society. If life imprisonment meant at least 25 years for those convicted of murder, whether it be a policeman, guard or any citizen, we could probably take a second look at this bill. However, there are those who consider that 25 years in prison is not humane punishment.
Those of us who served our country in World War II did so in order to protect our democratic way of life and to keep Canada a safe place in which to raise our families. There could be a much more humane method of execution than hanging, such as the electric chair, the gas chamber or the needle which we use on our pets when we put them permanently to sleep. However, since during the five year trial period the murder rate in Canada has increased, it is necessary to have a strong deterrent as well as a punish-
May 29, 1973

ment. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against Bill C-2.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take much of the time of the House, partly because I do not think I have much to say that will be particularly fresh. However, this issue is of such interest and concern in my constituency that I feel obliged to say how and why I intend to vote. I want to make clear my view that the major value of the bill before us is that it gives us something to amend. I intend to vote for it on second reading to get it into committee so that it may be amended. A second question has almost been introduced into this debate. While the vote concerns capital punishment of a sort, the way we vote has raised questions of responsiveness to the wishes of constituents. I want to deal with this important question as much as with the substance of the bill.
I was asked by a constituent just last weekend whether on this vote on capital punishment I would follow my conscience or my constituents'. Put in these terms, the decision is relatively easy to make. Most people would want their Member of Parliament to follow his conscience on any question, not violate it. However, there is a suggestion of stark choice that I do not believe is exact. It is possible to serve both conscience and constituents even when, as in my case, the member is reluctant to sanction the taking of a human life by execution and his constituents have indicated a strong preference for capital punishment.
That is so because the advice of constituents, for or against capital punishment, is advice on a question which is not before this House. The choice we face in this bill is not a choice between the death penalty and abolition. The death penalty provision in this bill is very limited in its application. It is limited even more in its application in practice and, despite the assurances of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), there is no evidence at all that it would be applied in practice in the future. The choice offered here is not even a choice between a hard and a soft approach to murder. The approach in this bill is hard on paper and soft in practice. So, many members of parliament are faced with a mandate from their constituents to deal severely with murder and a bill which makes that impossible.
In the circumstances, I think it is necessary for a Member of Parliament, since he cannot act exactly on the advice given him, to interpret that advice for guidance in his own vote. The specific advice given to me by more than
3,000	people responding to a questionnaire, showed that 82.8 per cent were in favour of capital punishment and only 17.2 per cent opposed. Virtually all of those who responded, 96.7 per cent, wanted any penalty to apply to all convicted of murder, not only those convicted of murdering policemen or prison guards. But in addition, 49.1 per cent indicated they would support a policy which meant the imposition of prison term which really meant life imprisonment, or long imprisonment, instead of the death penalty. As applied to the empty bill which faces us today and on which we are to vote tonight, it seems to me the main desire is for a penalty severe enough to stop murder, or at least to make murder less likely to be tried.
Capital Punishment
Most of my constituents do not necessarily want to have the state kill people. But they want some sanction, and the sanction they know is the traditional sanction, the death penalty. That is the guidance they have given me.
I emphasize the word "guidance" because this issue is the first in my career in parliament upon which I am required to state my view of the relation between the advice of a constituency and the action of a member. It seems to me that a special duty grows out of the special nature of this chamber as the only place in which the whole nation gathers, not just to state strong views but also to work out ways of reconciling the strong views of one part of the country with the strong, but often contrary, views of another, and to reconcile them all with the goals and traditions of the nation as they are understood by those who have a responsibility to think about them. In an age of computers and questionnaires, and in an age, also, when it is the style of interest groups to demand that parliament adopt selfish policies which it is our duty only to consider, it is important to reassert and respect the responsibility of parliamentarians to decide ourselves, in the final analysis, what course the country should take.
We can use questionnaires and similar means of gathering evidence. I, for one, intend to do so. But if we abandon the responsibility to assess on our own account what to make of the evidence, we might as well be replaced by calculating machines or crystal balls. And if our judgment conflicts too often with that of our constituents, they have the sovereign power to replace us. A strict reliance upon questionnaires and other devices of so-called direct democracy is really not a long way removed from the kind of consultation MacKenzie King employed to divine, if that is the proper word, the best interests of the country. This is modern, and his was mystic, but neither is exact and neither excuses the Member of Parliament from performing the elemental exercise we are sent here to perform, the exercise of judgment.
In fact, in my view, this aspect of the duty of a member of parliament is one of the things which distinguishes our system from that of the United States. The United States system has been described as representative government, while ours is responsible government. This implies that the Congressman has a duty to represent more exactly the views of his constituents. The member of the Canadian parliament has a different and more difficult duty-the duty to be responsible to his constituents-to act in the way in which his judgment and conscience direct, and then to be judged. Our job is to judge; our fate, and restraint, is to be judged.
In making a judgment on any particular issue, one major consideration to be taken into account must be the expressed wish of our constituents. But we cannot rely exclusively on the evidence that is sent us. We must seek all the evidence which applies, thus assuring ourselves that our decision will be right, and not just popular. This is what I committed myself to do when this question came up during the election campaign-to consult with my constituents by means of a questionnaire and consult with those who have made it their business to study the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent. I have consulted both now, and the evidence concerning the deterrent is such that I must place on the record my view
4214

May 29, 1973
Capital Punishment
that, even if we had before us a bill which would apply the death penalty in practice, even if we had the kind of penalty this bill does not provide, I would have to vote against it or try to amend it. This is not because of an unwillingness to execute, which might be interpreted as naive or sentimental; I am quite prepared to have society take a life if that would serve a necessary social purpose which no other instrument can serve. It is because the evidence I have sought suggests that the death penalty does not do the job my constituents want to see done. I would have to vote against any legislation which came forward, even legislation with teeth. This bill does not do that job. It does not do what my constituents want to be done. It does not stop murderers who want to murder. It does not add to public safety in any real sense, although it might offer a temporary psychological security.
What we have to do here-and more particularly what those of us whose constituents clearly want an effective deterrent to murder have to do-is try to find some deterrent which will be effective. The bill before us will not do that job. Nor would a more widespread application of the death penalty, if we believe the studies made by people whose business it is to know. A long fixed term might. It would at least provide some psychological security to society without making the government a killer or without indulging in the fraud this bill involves when it promises a penalty which, will not be implemented.
Others in this House have noted frequently a concern for order and a desire to stop-with this legislation, and symbolically-what is called permissiveness. I believe we must take this concern seriously. I am no sociologist, but politicians do their own kind of sampling and I think it is fair to presume that many of my constituents who are most anxious to see capital punishment reinstated are people whose lives are still based on things that do not change. Some of them farm. Others live in view of the constant mountains. Many practice a strong, firm faith. They are settled people. This is not to say they are outmoded or inept at meeting modern challenges. Indeed, some are highly skilled, innovative, imaginative. What distinguishes them is that they have grown accustomed to having something to come back to. And they are worried, now, that what they knew is being broken down-not just some of it, but all. They are apprehensive of the day when there will be nothing to come back to-no respect for law, no respect for faith, no familiar landmarks. This is not intended as a eulogy for these people. Quite the opposite.
I believe we must begin to pay much more attention, when deciding on national policies, to the values and aspirations of these settled Canadians, not just because they pay the fare for many of the programs we propose here but also because in many cases they possess a special expertise which comes from experience. They know about things we only talk about. Whether or not we see it, they see plenty of evidence to show that government today is moving to exclude them from influence. There is a very real feeling in my constituency that power in Canada has passed to a narrow, insensitive, metropolitan elite, and while the people of Rocky Mountain are prepared to give that elite some voice, they also want a voice of their own. The danger is that they feel passed by.

If I might reiterate a theme I have raised before, let me just say this: when parliament becomes preoccupied by the need to build great cities we seem to overlook the equal need to preserve existing communities, whether they are neighbourhoods in a metropolis or small towns in a countryside. When we become preoccupied by the demands of the venturing young, we sometimes forget the desire of older Canadians for a sense of stability or even for an adequate income. When we devise fancy new programs to give young people summer jobs they will enjoy, we overlook the resentment such programs can cause among people schooled to believe in the virtue of an honest day's work. I do not intend to devalue the importance of programs for transient youth, or of Opportunities for Youth or of help to build great cities. My point is simply that if our emphasis on these goals seems too complete, if we seem consistently to ignore the requirements of the settled people of the country or to demean their values, we make them feel less at home in their country. Those of us who are genuinely concerned about a sense of alienation, or even of disorder, should look in this direction for solutions rather than try to redress such a problem under the guise of amending the criminal law.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, having heard many of the speeches made on Bill C-2 during the present debate, and having, also, heard many of the speeches made five years ago on what is basically the same measure, I wish to speak briefly to explain my reason for voting against the legislation before us when the question is put.
Basically, this bill deals with the age-old question of the sanctity of human life on the one hand, and the security of society on the other. The debate on this issue symbolizes the confusion in which parliament presently finds itself. Once a question of conscience arises there will, undoubtedly, be confusion and differences of opinion. Bill C-2, on which we are going to vote tonight, to me completely symbolizes this parliament. It symbolizes a government that refuses to lead and leaders who are afraid to govern. This bill is a sham, a farce and a charade. As the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) said a moment ago, this bill stands not for abolition and not for retention. We are going to send to the legal affairs and justice committee a qualified abolition bill or a qualified retention bill, depending on how you interpret it, so that for another five years we are going to have what we have had for the last five years. As long as a man murders a policeman or a prison guard, there is a chance he will have to pay the supreme price; if he murders anyone else, obviously he does not pay the supreme price following due process of law.
I listened to the leaders of the parties who spoke last Wednesday. I was very glad that they entered into the debate because this was the catalyst that decided me to participate. All three leaders of the national parties, in effect, supported the sending of Bill C-2 to committee. If you follow their arguments, Mr. Speaker, basically they support a form of abolition as contained in the bill, if not total abolition. But I suggest in all seriousness that the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader
May 29, 1973

of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) again illustrate the symbolism of this parliament and its confusion.
Let me take their remarks in synoptic form and deal first with the remarks of the Prime Minister, who I thought gave one of his more sensitive speeches in this House. I did not say "sensible" but "sensitive". He said that members must take their responsibilities seriously. He said let us not avoid the issue; let us face up to the responsibility of voting. Yet we know from his very next words that we are not voting for abolition or for retention; we are voting for a sham. I say it would have been much more forthright of the Prime Minister not to have produced this hybrid bill.


William Warren Allmand: Would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member says that if we vote for this bill we are voting for a hybrid bill, a sham that is neither abolition nor retention. Does not the hon. member realize that if he votes against the bill he will also be left with a law that, in itself, is a hybrid? The law now in effect is the law of 1961, which divided murder into capital and non-capital for different reasons. The only difference is that the bill now before the House provides for a much more restricted retention. If the hon. member votes against the bill, does he not realize that the situation will still be a hybrid?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: All I can say to that, Mr. Speaker, having listened to the speeches of the three leaders, as did the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), is that I am prepared to accept the premise of the Prime Minister that we take our responsibility. I am against a hybrid situation. The Leader of the New Democratic Party never once mentioned the distinction between capital and non-capital crimes. The debate we had in 1961 was the culmination of much anxiety and soul searching on the part of members of the House in putting into the law provision for capital and non-capital murder. Very few members have mentioned this distinction between capital murder and non-capital murder, and it is only in the popular definition of capital murder that you invoke the supreme penalty. I fully appreciate that the fact that we have capital murder and non-capital murder leads to a hybrid situation, but I think members of the House are prepared to face that fact, as the Prime Minister suggested. It is a question of whether they want the law of 1961 or whether they want to vote for full abolition of capital punishment.
I interpret the present bill as providing a qualified abolition or a qualified retention. The bill still recognizes capital punishment, but its imposition, is limited to the murderers of policemen and prison guards. I appreciate the intervention of the Solicitor General, but what I am saying is that I would have followed with more conviction the premise of the Prime Minister regarding members facing their responsibility, rather than trying to hide under a sham bill which can be interpreted as providing for either abolition or for retention.
After having had a five year trial period, I ask, why have another five year trial period when we should be
Capital Punishment
prepared to face the question squarely? I agree with the Prime Minister that the question posed in this bill is eternal. But we do not need another five year trial period. We had a false trial period previously, but let us assume that we do have another so-called trial period. What statistics or philosophical argument that we know of today is going to change over the next five years? This is my point. This House could make a definitive decision tonight and vote either for or against abolition, instead of hiding the vote under this sham bill. To the fervent abolitionists, I say that by voting for the bill they are creating a sham for their constituents. They want to hide under the cloak of the bill and have another five year trial period. The question of the sanctity of life as measured against the security of society is an eternal one, and we do not need another five years to determine it.
As far as the speech of the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, he used the basic argument that is used by all of those who support this bill, namely that there is no statistical evidence to show that capital punishment is a deterrent to the commission of murder. I am prepared to agree that that is so. Equally, I do not think he could disagree with me that the converse of the situation is true, namely that there are no statistics to show that the absence of capital punishment eliminates or reduces capital crime. As far as I am concerned, the statistics prove neither one side of the issue nor the other.
What bothers me about the argument that the statistics show that the commission of murder is not deterred by capital punishment, is that if you follow this to its logical conclusion we might ask why we impose any penalties or have any deterrents at all. Why not throw the whole thing into the laps of the sociologists and the philosophical do-gooders so we can all have an ideal society, try to rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated, and then keep our fingers crossed when we let them outside prison walls?
With regard to the proposed amendment that may be moved in committee to provide that anyone convicted of capital murder be put behind bars for at least 25 years- indeed, some say a convicted murderer should stay in jail for life-frankly, I am wondering whether that is not even more inhumane. In this country there have been no executions since 1962. I do not know whether it is more humane to keep someone behind bars in a cage for the rest of his life than to resort to the law of 1961 of capital and noncapital offences.
I do not want to get into a dissertation on the law, but following some of the arguments that were raised at the time in this House concerning instances where juries were reluctant to convict if they thought the accused would hang, we decided to divide the category of murder into two and to provide capital punishment only for crimes of capital murder. It is only in such cases that a convicted murderer may be exposed to the threat of execution, but in such cases there is the royal prerogative of mercy which the government of the day can exercise at its discretion.
Coming back to this question of deterrence, I suggest you cannot say that statistics indicate a deterrent or, conversely, that the threat of capital punishment has not
4216

May 29, 1973
Capital Punishment
been a deterrent to murder. The important point is that if you dilute the effect of deterrence, you must wonder why we should impose a penalty in respect of any lesser crime. That is why I find it difficult to follow the words of my leader. Immediately after referring to the deterrent effect, he castigated the government for being too liberal in its use of the royal prerogative of mercy in the commutation of sentences. I do not understand the connection. If capital punishment has no deterrent effect how can there be any deterrent effect in the penalties for lesser crimes?
The leader of the NDP presented a basic argument that statistics cannot prove that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. He also referred to the inhumanity and brutality of the state in taking a life. He supported his case by developing the argument that juries are reluctant to convict when there is the possibility of a murderer paying the supreme price. He did not once mention the fact that there is a distinction between capital and noncapital murder. Juries can convict a man of a non-capital murder where there is no possibility of execution. That hon. member did not mention that fact, and for that reason I think his argument is a little confusing intellectually, as no doubt he will think my argument is intellectually confusing, if he takes the time to read my speech.
The leader of the NDP then went on to say there were no statistics to prove the deterrent theory, and advanced his own argument that juries would be reluctant to convict if they knew the man would swing, without pointing out the distinction between capital and non-capital murder. What the hon. member did not mention, and what has not been mentioned often during this debate, is the other side of the coin. This is the situation which exists when you do not have capital punishment for capital murder, those murders being of a very different kind from non-capital murder.
Perhaps a sociologist or a student of penal reform could use this subject as the basis of a thesis. Perhaps such a thesis has already been written on this subject. You might have the situation in which a man, alleged to have committed a murder, is being apprehended and in the process kills a policeman. Perhaps the policeman is attempting to apprehend him and there is a shoot-out. Who is to say that, because the policeman knows there is no possibility of this man paying the supreme penalty, he will not take the law into his own hands? There have been cases in the country to the south of us involving policemen who have broken into the residences of members of the Black Panther organization, and have caused a shoot-out which has resulted in the death of several people. Investigations have shown that guns were drawn and people were killed. I suggest that where there is no supreme penalty at the end of the judicial role, there will be a possibility of an increase in the number of incidents of this kind. Such incidents will result in the quick administration of justice and the snuffing out of more lives than would be the case if the proper judicial process were followed.
My personal dilemma lies in the fact that I have been on both sides of this issue. The first time the bill came before the House I voted for retention. Five years ago, I voted for qualified abolition or retention as long as capital punishment was invoked in the case of the murder of a policeman or prison guard. Perhaps there was no logic at
[Mr. Nowlan.l
all in my support on that occasion of qualified abolition or retention, because we ended up with an unnatural discrimination as between policemen and prison guards and other citizens across Canada. I have come to the conclusion that I must face this issue on the straight basis of abolition or retention, without trying to descriminate between citizens; in other words, making out that policemen and prison guards are in a different category than other citizens. That is the way we must face the issue, hence my dilemma.
I might suggest I am a reluctant retentionist. I am reluctant because I have no more fervour for retention than I have enthusiasm for abolition. Therein lies my quandary. When we change the law there should be an onus on those who want a change to show a positive reason for the change. The abolitionists suggest you cannot support the deterrent theory of capital murder statistically. If you cannot support abolition statistically, on what grounds can you support partial retention? I suggest more evidence is required to bring about a qualified state of abolition than the mere suggestion that this would result in a blissful and ideal society which we would all love to see in existence. At this very moment throughout the world many people are not dying peacefully in their beds. Men have not died peacefully in their beds since the beginning of history. Without being cynical, I would venture to guess that it will be a long time before mankind can be assured of a peaceful death in bed. I would guess that more people have died as a result of some kind of armed conflict somewhere in the world during one day of this debate than will ever face execution under this bill.
In times of emergency, crisis and war, it is necessary for the state to protect itself against attack. It is abhorrent that we train men to kill for the defence of society, but this is a necessity. Cold-blooded and calculated murder by execution is a form of defence, just as cold-blooded and calculated murder itself is a form of war against society or a form of war by individual against individual. Anyone who engages in this form of war should face the possibility of paying the supreme penalty after due process of law. This is retribution, revenge or reality, and frankly I am not sure which. We have laws that must be obeyed and penalties that must be paid in respect of breaches of those laws. If there is logic to the idea of penalties in respect of lesser laws, there must be logic to the penalty of capital punishment for capital crimes, keeping in mind always the royal prerogative. If it is logical to have penalties for infractions of lesser laws, then it must be logical and reasonable to have at least the possibility of the supreme penalty for the supreme crime. Surely, that must follow.
It is for those reasons I intend to vote against Bill C-2 tonight so that the government can bring in a bill, either for or against capital punishment. Then, Members of Parliament can make up their minds on that issue, and not try to hide behind the sham that is implicit in this bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to this debate and what I have not been able to hear I have read. This will be the fifth debate on this subject in which I have participated in
May 29, 1973

this House. This matter, as usual, presents a host of problems to a political party, despite the fact that it is described as being a free vote, and many problems to members. For 40 years I have been opposed to, have voted against, have spoken against and have worked against capital punishment. Many other members on both sides of this House have participated in this debate. I must say at once that I find the measure we are discussing falls somewhat short of the ideal I would like to see as the law of this land. It would be easy to rationalize voting against it on second reading, although one might be an abolitionist. Members on both sides of the House could do this and come out nicely. However, I believe it would be wrong to do that.
I must indicate I will vote for the bill, despite its defects. I am reinforced in this view as a result of the procedure which has been adopted in this House. The vote on second reading of a bill, has lost some of the significance which at one time was attached to it. The vote on third reading is, of course, the most important in respect of many bills, and certainly in respect of this bill. Assuming the vote on second reading is a yea vote and the measure is referred to a committee, then in the committee there will be an opportunity for members, the total retentionists, the total abolitionists and those in between, to put forward their views. There are members who have indicated some preference for a 25-year mandatory penalty. They will have a right to put forward their views either themselves, if they should be members of the committee, or through substitutes.
My guess is that a great variety of amendments will be moved in the committee. I do not know what procedure the committee will follow, whether or not it will decide to hear witnesses. This, of course, is a matter for the committee itself to decide. After this debate, after the national discussions which have taken place, I personally do not think there is a great deal to be gained by having the committee examine witnesses and accept briefs. I do not think there is one member in this House who has not had some form of communication from either a group or individuals concerning their views on this issue. However, I leave it for the committee to decide. When the bill is reintroduced into the House in its new form after having passed the committee, every member will have an opportunity to initiate further debate on the basis of the amendments at the report stage.
I fully expect that almost every amendment which will be moved in the standing committee will probably be re-introduced in the House at the report stage. We will then have a debate, or possibly a series of debates, on these issues after which the bill will appear in its final form. Then, knowing what is in the bill, what its final form will be and what its terms are, that will be the time to test the views of members of this House. If abolitionists feel that the bill contains elements which are repugnant to them, they may be compelled reluctantly to vote against it, despite their views on abolition. The same situation may apply to those who are retentionists. At that time, in that way, in this House we will come to the final challenge on this measure. I must say that as yet it is not a perfect bill. If one waited in this House for perfection before deciding to approve a proposal, one would wait here for a
Capital Punishment
much longer period than you and I, Mr. Speaker, have left in these mortal portals before we shuffle off.
I am not being partisan in making these comments. I think all governments fail to achieve perfection in respect of a bill which is moulded to the economic and social needs of a country. There are too many tensions. I must say that this government shows itself far more able than most governments to avoid that degree of perfection which would appeal to me. I have been waiting for ten years. I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of bills which in that period have come even half-way toward reaching the degree of perfection I believe a measure should reach. I am hoping that by the process of bringing in amendments we can go forward by stages, accepting partial remedies and reducing or eliminating some defects, and hope to do better next time. Thus, believing capital punishment to be wrong and just as inconsistent with the improvement of human society as the killing which leads to the infliction of hanging, I say any proposal which limits the extent to which the state, acting on behalf of the people who constitute it, deliberately takes the life of one or more of those people, ought to be supported. So, I intend to support this bill and hope to give more of my reasons at eight o'clock, since Your Honour probably has other purposes in mind for the time between now and six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Peace River. He will indeed be recognized at eight o'clock. Perhaps it might be agreed-it was not agreed the other day when the original order was passed-that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) should have 15 minutes, or more if the debate should be completed beforehand, to reply. Members would have an opportunity to speak up until 9.15, and then the Solicitor General would have a right to reply to the various arguments which have been adduced, since he is the sponsor of the bill, from 9.15 until 9.30 at which time the order states the debate shall expire. Is this agreeable to hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



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 York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-regional economic expansion-Atlantic Canada-request for massive capital investment in large infrastructures; the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe)-public works-construction of new post office in Lac Megantic- inquiry about when tenders will be called; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-post office-re-examination of requirement for establishment of rural routes in western Canada.

May 29, 1973
Senate and House of Commons Act 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 public bills.


Mr. Reid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there would be agreement to call Bill C-30 in the name of the hon. member for Cochrane.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should call the order. I understand there is an objection to the bill.
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization of Bill C-30, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I want to be brief and refer hon. members to the remarks of Mr. Speaker on January 18, 1973 when he served notice of an objection to this particular bill. Mr. Speaker made the comment at that time that this bill would infringe upon the financial rights of the Crown. He argued, therefore, that when it came up for debate this procedural point should be considered. I want to refer Your Honour to the remarks made by him and to ask for a ruling on the point.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. There does not seem to me to have been a clear ruling by Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as there was some question in his mind regarding whether this is a money bill. He felt that it may, perhaps, infringe upon the financial responsibility of the government. In my opinion, the bill is quite clear and does not transgress in that way at all. It has nothing to do with money or the responsibility of the Crown in that regard. It simply provides that a Member of Parliament will not be liable to disqualification if he is a member of a board of directors of one of the Crown corporations, whether or not it is a remunerative position. In that respect, I suggest with great respect that this bill has nothing to do with the financial responsibility of the Crown.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interfere in this family argument, which is very interesting, and I do not want to get involved in technicalities. All I can say on the question of substance, having in mind the recent report of the Auditor General, is that I am amazed to see the government take the position that they should be very careful about how the Crown flings away its money. I make this comment in view of the Auditor General's version of the mis-spending, extravagance and waste of this government. However, I will let Your Honour decide that issue.


John Mercer Reid: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since this is a rather interesting case, and probably a marginal one, I wonder if Your Honour might want to take a few minutes to consider it. In that period of time, we might proceed with amendments to the Judges Act which, I understand, can be dealt with in a short time, following which it might be possible for Your Honour to make a ruling. I think there would be agreement in the House to that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the House is agreeable to this course I must say I would be eternally grateful. I do not want to be peremptory in my decision on a matter which I know the hon. member has pursued in other ways over a number of years. I just do not want to make a quick decision on it. So, if the House is agreeable to the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary, the Chair would certainly be agreeable also. Is it agreed that the ruling be made later?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) agree to this course? It is his bill.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed then, that we return now to public business and that we deal with the Judges Act.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-177, to amend the Judges Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Otto Emil Lang: That Bill C-177, an act to amend the Judges Act, be amended by striking out line 11 of clause 5 on page 2 and substituting the following:
"(b) One hundred and four judges and"


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-177, to amend the Judges Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
May 29, 1973

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House revert now to Public Bills, order No. 26?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization of Bill C-30, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, may I again rise on a point of order on this bill. I have reread the bill, and I have come to the conclusion that the remarks made by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) are more apt in this case than those made by Mr. Speaker, because if the bill does affect the financial prerogative of any agency of the government it would affect the financial prerogative of the House of Commons more than that of the government.
What the bill apparently seeks to do is to remove the prohibition from Members of Parliament and permit them to accept fees and expenses when they are able to obtain seats on government commissions and boards. Therefore, it does not seem that the funds flowing to a Member of Parliament in such a case would come from the government but rather from a Crown agency, and second, Members of Parliament are not funded by the government but by the House of Commons.
Under those circumstances it would seem to me that the bill would be admissible on procedural grounds. My point in rising originally was merely to remind Your Honour of the caveat that Mr. Speaker, had placed on the record on January 18. If Your Honour finds that the matter is to be decided so closely that, in effect, it is a marginal matter, I believe it has been the practice in private members' hour to permit the bill to proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the parliamentary secretary makes a good point, especially as it has become a marginal matter for the Chair, and the hon. member for Cochrane should be allowed his moment in the sun. I say this without making a definitive ruling on it. I think that justice, or at least common sense, would say that the hon. member should be allowed to put his argument. Does the hon. member for Peace River have a better way out?


Gerald William Baldwin: No, Mr. Speaker. I was just going to say that this was a very wise suggestion, and to call your attention to the fact that very significantly on May 29 the government has made three retreats, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), by the Minister of
Senate and House of Commons Act Finance (Mr. Turner), and now by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next retreat is about to be made by the Deputy Speaker when he vacates the Chair.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: that Bill C-30, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
He said: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, particularly for your graciousness in permitting this debate to continue. Hon. members who were members of the House in the last parliament will recall that I sought various means in order to include on the boards of directors of Crown corporations and agencies some representation from the elected representatives of the people, the reason being to have a watchdog effect on the spending of government through those agencies and in order to have a political in-put, political with a capital "P" rather than with the meaning of partisanship, to provide a greater understanding from the point of view of the grass roots of the country. Who better than the members of this House are in the position to know and understand that feeling?
There are all kinds of complications to bringing this about, because of rules, regulations and laws that we already have on the books. When I brought forth a bill that would permit a Member of Parliament to sit on the board of a Crown corporation, it was considered not to be in order because there is a regulation to the effect that a member can lose his seat if he receives any kind of remuneration, whether it be in the form of fees or expenses, from any agency of the government. For that reason, it was difficult to get anywhere with the proposal.
We tried another method by putting the proposal forth as a motion. It was debated in the House but that was as far as it got. I do not wish to debate the merits of placing Members of Parliament on the boards of Crown corporations today. I simply want to debate the actual bill in front of us, which would remove that regulation which provides that a member can lose his seat if he is in receipt of any kind of stipend from a government agency. This is a silly regulation.
Members of parliaments are appointed to boards in other jurisdictions, in the province of Ontario and elsewhere. At present, if a member of this House were appointed to the board of Air Canada, and a meeting of that board were to be held in Montreal on a Thursday morning, the Member of Parliament would not be allowed to have his way paid there by Air Canada, as other members of the board are paid, simply because of the existence of this regulation that I seek to have changed. If it should so happen that one of us would be required to appear on television in Toronto, and if it happened to be the CTV station there would be no difficulty. That member could travel down to Toronto at the expense of CTV. But if it were for CBC television he could not do so. This is ludicrous. The only reason he would not be reimbursed for the expense in going to Toronto is this Provision in the House of Commons Act. That is why I feel this bill is extremely important and why it should go to a committee where it could be examined properly.

May 29, 1973
Senate and House of Commons Act It is not a question of wanting to have members receive remuneration for something. That is not the point. The point is that a member should not be liable to lose his seat should he be in a position where he could receive expenses or other fees that go along with being on a government board. So, I ask that the members of this House allow this bill to proceed to a committee where it can be properly examined.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot approve the principle of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). As I understand the bill, it contemplates that Members of Parliament can, without the normal disqualification, be appointed to boards or agencies of the government. I have three reasons why I think that would not be a good principle.
First of all, it seems to me that we in this House have enough to do already, perhaps too much to do to discharge the functions that we have here. If we are going to sit on boards and commissions, which are often very demanding jobs, we would be over straining our capacity and not doing justice to the primary task we have, which is to be elected members of this House. It is one thing to say that we sit on committees and learn about these things, and perhaps criticize deeply these boards and commissions. That is the watchdog function to which the hon. member referred. But when you sit on a board, you are not just a watchdog. You are part of the whole machinery. You are part of the internal machinery that is running the board or agency, and at that stage you have loyalties and demands which I think would be inconsistent with being a member of Parliament.
I suppose all members of the House have different degrees of business in their tasks, but if the recent experience of most members is like my own, I find a great multiplication of work in this House. There are more committees. There are more people coming to see you all the time. There are greater demands by constituents. Even for the private member, whether he be on the government side or on the opposition side, this is an increasingly taxing job we assume when we become elected representatives. To suggest that we mix that up with responsibilities to a public utility, to a great corporation like Air Canada, or to others of these companies, organizations and agencies of government, would be to overtax our ability, and I do not think would be a constructive approach.
The second thing is related to the first. I am not sure that it might not create conflicts of interest-if not conflicts of interest, at least clashes of loyalty. If you sat on a board of a great utility like Air Canada or like a provincial hydro board, you would acquire not only inside knowledge of the operation and management, but loyalties to the organization. When the legislation comes before the House you must be thinking of the dual interest, the interest of the country as a whole and the interest of the board, institution or agency of which you are, presumably, a loyal and industrious member.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I do not like the suggestion in this bill that those who sit on these commissions should get extra remuneration. I call attention of the House to the

fact that this principle was applied in the province of Ontario, and for all I know in various other provinces, where various members of the legislature-nearly always members of the government party-were associated with various boards and drew salary considerably in excess of their ordinary indemnities as members of the legislature. I do not think we need that. I see no objection to having cabinet office or duties as a parliamentary secretaries, those who serve a particular function in the House, recognized by extra salary. I think, however, for extra salaries in the gift of the government to be made available to people whose primary job is that of a Member of Parliament, is a mistake.
I do not like to differ from the hon. member for Cochrane, and I know he has given a lot of thought to this matter. I am sure the bill has some merit but as far as I am concerned the merits are dwarfed by the disadvantages. If the bill ever comes to a vote-which I doubt even the hon. member expects-I shall have to vote against it.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) when he introduced his bill, and also to the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).
The more I study the bill, the more I realize the intention the hon. member wanted to put forward in the House. He feels that an association with a crown corporation should not prevent an hon. member from sitting in the House. He made his point quite clearly and I am sure he devoted much time and energy to research in order to bring his views forward in the House.
Now, in spite of the explanation the hon. member kindly supplied, I am most reluctant to believe that it would be possible for an hon. member who sits on the board of a crown corporation to make completely neutral decisions at a given time if, when making his decisions, he is aware that this same corporation will be carrying out certain projects.
For instance, I think of natural resources. We now have several Crown corporations, as Panarctic Oils Limited, which deal particularly with resources; if the question were to construct a pipeline to move products found in the Arctic, how could the hon. member be impartial if he were an administrator or a member of a corporation which would be neutral, as he would know at a certain time that the corporation, because of his duties as member of management, would probably put it in a prejudicial position. Whatever his personal position, he would certainly have to give some explanations.
The hon. member for Cochrane said that remuneration was not an issue. It is possible-and I think he made it very clear-that a member of parliament could be in a very difficult position; evidently he would not have been paid if he had given a favourable judgment or if for instance at a management meeting he had voted in favour of such and such project to be carried out later by the same corporation. The very fact that he were at the meeting and had his money refunded for expenses incurred to go to the meeting, as explained by the hon. member, would likely prompt him to go anyway. But I understand that
May 29, 1973

meetings are not always held at the same location for various reasons and that conflicts can arise.
Here is how I see it: the duty of a federal member is much more demanding today than before. In the past, we could sit a few months a year; now, in my case, it is a full time occupation and, a corporation requiring us to devote a few months, a few sittings, even several days or weeks, I wonder how we could determine the primary interest. Then, would the House take precedence or would it be preferable to go to the meetings of company executives?
I fail to see how we could make a value judgement which would not compromise the role we were assigned by our electors. These people sent us to the House knowing very well that it was out of the question for us to take other responsibilities than that of representing them and not to become managers or even interim shareholders of various corporations, be they completely controlled by the crown or not. I think that our electors would have many reservations in that respect.
We could deal with many other points but I think I must single out the conflict of interests which could arise, not necessarily as regards the salary but rather at the level of decisions that have to be taken by managers of various corporations whether they are crown corporations or not.
I congratulate the member for having pointed this out. I know that this has existed for many years in provinces such as Ontario. Furthermore, it is not incumbent on I or us to decide how these people can conciliate various interests. I know that many cases of conflicting interests have been published in the papers recently. Some people tried to make a scandal out of those things. I do not have the right to judge them, but it has been reported that some people have defended interests other than those of their electors.
There are also other administration levels where this is allowed but in spite of this, I sincerely think that I cannot at this point support Bill C-30 that the member for Cochrane has brought before this House for the reasons that I have pointed out earlier.


Mr. Chas L. Caccia (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) is a rather intriguing idea. It has been put into practice with some degree of success at the municipal level and also in some cases at the provincial level. Municipally, we find planning boards and hydro boards, upon which there is a mixed composition of members, non-elected and elected, who try to deliberate and decide on the business of the organization to which they have been appointed.
I do not know whether the reasonable success that has been met so far, at least at municipal level, is because we do not have the party system at that level. I suspect this could be the reason the mixed composition is working very well municipally. At provincial levels we find a similar pattern. I am aware of the one in the province of Ontario, and here I would have to approach the subject in a different manner because the same argument does not stand, namely, that there is a party system and so if this mix works it must be based on other reasons and considerations.
Senate and House of Commons Act
The proposition of the hon. member for Cochrane that this bill would create a watchdog effect by providing a political input, renders the idea perhaps even more attractive. However, if one looks at these aspects more closely, one finds that the watchdog effect of the presence of elected representatives would indirectly cast doubt on the ability of those non-elected members to that specific board to operate without the presence of elected members. That, by implication alone, is rather serious. With regard to the political input, we are all aware of the frustrations sometimes faced by elected representatives in dealing with some independent corporations; they are not as responsive to popular and political pressures as perhaps one would like them to be.
We must look into the reasons for these independent and semi-autonomous bodies being set up originally. I suspect one reason was to create entities once removed from political pressures to enable them to make certain decisions. The National Energy Board, which was created by this House after the experience of 1957, was to be a Crown corporation, board or commission that could deliberate and make decisions on matters of national importance removed from the political pressures of the day.
If one looks at this bill in light of these thoughts, one begins to wonder about the merits of it. I do not deny that it embodies an intriguing idea. One must also look at other aspects such as current trends. All members are aware of the trend toward greater participation on the part of citizens in the affairs of their community and country; there is a great desire to become involved.
With regard to the role of elected representatives, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) there is already a great workload on elected representatives. There is no need to elaborate on how difficult it is sometimes to man the standing committees of this House, without there being the added responsibility of sitting on boards away from Parliament Hill. These two basic trends, the workload of Members of Parliament and greater desire on the part of citizens to become involved, must be considered before giving approval to a measure of this kind. I believe the thought embodied in this bill runs counter to these two trends. I would prefer there to be a tendency by Members of Parliament to appear before a board when a matter is of particular interest to them. They could make representations on behalf of a group or a specific interest. There have been some fine examples of this being done in the past.
With regard to the manning of these Crown corporations, boards and agencies, I support what has been done in the past, that is, a continuation of the efforts of this government to reach out into the community and bring in from the ranks of the non-elected people with fresh talents, abilities, skills and particular backgrounds, people who are not prepared to run for office but have a keen interest in the affairs of the nation or a specific field of endeavour which affects the interests and policies of Canada. This seems to be a better approach.
The Member of Parliament has a role to play in his constituency, in the community at large, in the House and in our committees. We are frequently criticized by our
4222

May 29, 1973
Senate and House of Commons Act constituents. We often hear it said that a member can be found only when soliciting votes and after that is not seen again for many years. An additional responsibility such as the one proposed in Bill C-30 would only add to this kind of criticism. The alternative was launched several years ago of reaching out into the community and bringing in new talent from the non-elected ranks to these boards and keeping them removed from political pressure. After all, these bodies are responsible to a minister and he will ensure that the policy is impressed upon the members of that body. This approach which has been used over the years is fairly sound.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the hon. member permit a question before resuming his seat? The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) referred to the fact that a practice has been established in Ontario of appointing members of the legislature to various boards and commissions under the control of the legislature. Is it a fact that the so-called Camp commission which has been inquiring into various matters affecting the legislature has recommended that this practice in Ontario be dropped?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member for Greenwood for having raised this point. I was not aware of it.


Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on this very interesting bill which has been brought forward by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has raised a very important point. I was also under the impression that it has been a long-standing practice in Ontario for members of the legislature to be appointed members of Crown corporations. I understand this practice has been followed for many years. It has been pointed out by hon. members from Ontario that it seems to be the practice that such members chosen from the legislature over the past 30 years have been backbenchers of the Conservative Party; in other words, this is another way of giving recompense to their own members and not necessarily because of their knowledge or aptitude to sit on any particular board.
As pointed out by the member who preceded me, and the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), a conflict of interest could easily arise if a Member of Parliament was also a member of the CBC, the CNR or any other Crown corporation and a decision had to be taken that could concern his constituency. He has been elected to parliament to represent a constituency, and if he is a member of the board of directors of a Crown corporation he may have to make a decision affecting that constituency. I do not know how a Member of Parliament could possibly have an unbiased point of view under such circumstances.
I commend the hon. member for Cochrane for having brought forward this bill. However, I would like more research carried out on the subject; we could then have an interesting discussion on what is being done about this problem in Ontario. They have had 30 or 50 years' experience. I am not a resident of Ontario so I cannot say how they will resolve this question. But I do have misgivings in connection with this question.

I understand the hon. member for Cochrane has brought forward many good subjects for debate in this House. I know he was one of the two members responsible for having the Canadian flag displayed in this chamber. I appreciate the work he has done not only in connection with this bill but other bills, and I am sure if he continues his good work the House will look favourably on other measures which he may introduce. However, I am not prepared to support him on this occasion without making a further study of what is involved. Parts of this bill are contentious. Moreover, an expenditure of funds by the government may be involved, as has been stated. This alone would warrant withholding consent to the passage of the bill at the present time.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join other hon. members in acknowledging the tenacity of purpose of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). This subject has appeared under the guise of questions on the order paper, oral questions, motions for the production of papers and, now, as a private member's public bill. I believe the hon. member has demonstrated the kind of fixity of purpose which is required when a private member wishes to have his pet idea put forward, debated extensively and, hopefully, brought to a decision.
It seems to me that the bill we are debating contains only one clause. It is one of those seductive bills embodying a whole series of principles, involving changes in the way in which Members of Parliament would work, involving considerable changes in the way in which government operates, all under the cover of an apparently innocuous clause. I congratulate the hon. member for Cochrane on the way in which he has packaged this idea. It is a seductive idea, one which at first blush has much to recommend it. But when the evening is over, when the make-up has been removed, and under harsher light, one sees the idea in true perspective. To disregard the artful use of cosmetics, to strip an idea of its protective coloration, is part of the function of private members' hour. In the hard light of day, stripped of the mood music, the appeal of this idea is dissipated.
The heart of the argument against the proposal has to do with the responsibilities of Members of Parliament. It has always been my belief that Members of Parliament are here to make policy. They are here to provide direction to the country at large. It is not the responsibility of Members of Parliament, particularly those of us who are backbenchers, to take on the task of setting policy for Crown corporations or other agencies of government. Our task in this direction was accomplished with the passing of the act of Parliament which established those corporations- Air Canada, Northern Transportation, Eldorado, Atomic Energy of Canada, to name only a few.
The task was discharged at the point at which we voted to establish these organizations to carry out certain specific aims as enumerated in the act of parliament giving those organizations life and authority. If we were to reach into the affairs of the boards of directors by appointing ourselves to the boards, there is one question which immediately comes to my mind: How could we be assured
May 29, 1973

that all members of the House would be fairly represented? I reject altogether the way in which the Ontario government chooses people to sit on provincial boards. If we were to adopt such a procedure it would be necessary to ensure that all parties in the House of Commons had an opportunity to participate directly in the formation of policy.
But consider where this would lead. Not only would we as a parliament have established certain functions for these organizations to carry out, but we would have taken upon ourselves responsibility for sitting as directors and assuming day to day control. This would be a complete reversal of the way in which parliament and government has seen its responsibilities. We have always taken the view that for the sake of the common good it is sometimes necessary to set up Crown corporations to carry out specific tasks. But in doing so, we set them up in such a way that they operate at arm's length.
It is instructive to point out that these corporations operate not only at arm's length vis-a-vis Members of Parliament, but also vis-a-vis members of the government. It is not the Minister of Transport who directs Air Canada to carry out a certain policy; it is not the Secretary of State who insists that CBC carry out a specific policy: it is parliament which has established the responsibilities of those organizations. They are creatures of parliament and they report to parliament through ministers as intermediaries. This is an important principle.
I suggest that if they have not done so, hon. members should read a book by John Kenneth Galbraith entitled The New Industrial State. It contains a fascinating chapter describing the attempt by emerging nations to gain some control over their economies, to break the bonds which had tied them to the nations which controlled them as colonies and, in particular, the bonds that tied them to the corporations whose activities had such influence on the economic scene. The technique they used was called socialism, but it was socialism with a difference because the process involved not only taking over a particular segment of the economy but also making those corporations responsible directly to the democratically elected chamber. What has been the result? Absolute chaos.
That would be the system that would apply in Canada if it were possible for Members of Parliament to dictate the policy of all Crown corporations. I think it is important to understand that Members of Parliament are not free beings; they are tied to their constituencies and to their regions, and they come here to represent them in the best possible way and to get policies implemented that will benefit their areas. The dilemma, of course, is that these policies are always in conflict in a country like Canada which has so much regional disparity.
Therefore, the point is that if you have Members of Parliament on the board of directors of these corporations, and if they have the power to influence the direction of policy and the implementation of policy, a conflict of interest arises between the responsibility of Members of Parliament representing their constituents and their responsibility as members of the House of Commons
Senate and House of Commons Act which has created the corporation and given it certain policy directives.
It seems to me that the experience of other countries indicates that where Members of Parliament are able to dabble in the administration of a particular program or in the activities of a particular country, the result can only be disastrous for the country and for the program. We are not driven or controlled by a sense of what has to be done, or by a sense of the responsibilities which an organization may or may not have; we are driven by other forces. It is right that that should be so. But it is also right that in trying to set up organizations to carry out the will of the members of the House of Commons we do not put those organizations under constraints which may prevent them from carrying out their responsibilities under the act of parliament that created them, and at the same time put Members of Parliament in a highly equivocal position which could lead to serious conflict of interest.
So I think I would oppose this particular bill, which is a rather seductive and apparently simple idea, on the basis that it conflicts with the traditional, and I think proper, interpretation of my role as a Member of Parliament. It would also put me in the highly visible position of becoming the victim of a conflict of interest. I believe the point made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), that we do develop loyalties to companies and to organizations when we are put on their boards and have an opportunity to participate in decision-making, is a perfectly logical and accurate point, one that I think we ignore at our peril.
The second point I wish to make regarding this bill is that it is promoted under the guise of controlling government spending. It is quite true that there is government money given to many of these corporations. For example, we give the CBC considerable sums. The amount of revenue the CBC has is not as great as it might be. On the other hand, the CBC is an institution of particular importance to Canada. It is also the kind of institution, it seems to me, that ought not to come under the direct control of politicians of any party. I suggest there may be one or two in this chamber who might be considered exceptions to that rule, members who have the breadth of wisdom and statesmanlike qualities to be able to handle such a potentially powerful propaganda machine. However, I have not met any in the House, and I include myself, because we are all susceptible to emotional feelings in the House of Commons. The point I am trying to make is that while government money might be involved, and the amounts are significant, the proposal would also impinge on areas of great concern to Canadians, areas into which it is unwise for Members of Parliament to venture. I think the CBC is a perfect example of this principle.
Another perfect example of this principle would be the operations of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission which regulates all of the broadcasting industry of Canada. I could also mention other regulatory bodies, such as the Canadian Transportation Commission. In my case I think it would be very unwise for me to be appointed to the board of directors of, say, the CNR or Air Canada, because decisions that they take may affect my constituency and I might be in a position where I could have the
4224

May 29, 1973
Capital Punishment
board of directors accept recommendations which might not be in keeping with the good of the country as a whole.
These are principles that I think we ignore at considerable risk to the structures that we have created in this country, that are unique to this country and with which to date we have had a certain level of success. Where these techniques have been implanted into other countries, their level of success has not been as great because the members of their legislatures have not been able to stand away to allow their handiwork, which is the act of the legislature establishing corporations, to be carried through by the boards of directors and managements that they have selected.
By and large we have used Crown corporations in this country for a variety of purposes. For example, we have used Crown corporations to provide services that we have deemed essential but for which purpose there was little private capital and little or no willingness to accept responsibility. The creation of Trans-Canada Air Lines, now Air Canada, is a perfect example of that kind of operation. Air Canada, with its private board of directors and the financing that the government of Canada has provided to it, has given Canada a unique and efficient service. But even then I could point out that a few years ago a deterioration began to set in in the operations of Air Canada, a problem that was solved to some extent by providing competition from CP Air. Under the regional air transportation policy, additional competition was provided by CP Air and other regional carriers, which has forced the larger companies to pay attention to competitive pressure which formerly they were not sufficiently taking into account.
It seems to me that this kind of decision-making by government and by parliament has far superior efficacy than the pleading of a number of Members of Parliament on boards of directors or the pleading of representatives of all parties on boards of directors to attempt to get something done for a particular region. I must say I accept-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret I must interrupt the hon. member, but the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
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 the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, be 
read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock when the House gave consideration to other important matters I had just finished saying that while this bill lacked the perfection I should like to have seen in it, because I have been used to this House for over 15 years and understand that perfection is something we are not likely to see here in the form of legislation, I intend to support the bill on second reading, with all its imperfections. The gods must have been amused by this inconsistent society of man which after grave deliberation says that the taking of life is the worst of all possible crimes and then proceeds deliberately to fix for that crime the punishment of death by hanging. I think of what Montaigne said:
There is no man so good who were he to submit all his thoughts and actions to the law, would not deserve hanging ten times in his life.
Much has been said in this debate on the philosophical and ethical aspects of this matter and it would be a waste of time to repeat many of the very good arguments that have been made here. As I have said, this is the fifth debate on this subject in which I have participated in the House and my views are on the record many times. I suggest there are certain collateral issues which have crept into the debate, have become part of it, and we must consider them in light of the subject matter which is the issue of this bill.
One issue is the relationship between the elected representative, the Member of Parliament, and the people. It would be improper, wrong, foolhardy and stupid for any elected representative at any level of government to suggest he can ignore, deny or refuse to give most careful consideration to what his constituents in particular, and the people of the country in general, have to say at any time on any given issue. Certainly, the views of the people who elect us must play an exceedingly important part in the decisions which we individually come to in this House.
Polls are not completely reliable, and letter writers are those who feel most strongly about an issue. I am very happy to know that there are in this country people who feel very definitely and positively about things and will write letters to support those feelings. But it has been my experience, not only in this House but in other places, that the people who write letters are those who have the determination to put their views on the record. But they are not, alone-for that reason-safe criteria of the general feeling of the country.
I have lived with this issue for many years. I would say that eight or nine years ago a reasonable majority of the people in this country were opposed, in general principle, to capital punishment on the basis on which it then stood in the law. Even taking into account all the safeguards in assessing public opinion-and I have given a few of them here-if it be correct that the majority of people today favour capital punishment, and I think probably it is, I suggest it is equally true that 10 or 15 years from now-I venture to make this prediction-a substantial majority of the people in this country and those in most western, democratic countries, will stand up and indicate they are
May 29, 1973

opposed to capital punishment being part of our penal code.
I spoke against capital punishment the first time I was a candidate in a federal election. I spoke against it in other election campaigns. The first time I spoke against it during an election campaign was 35 years ago. I have been quoted. I have made my position clear. I have spoken during every election campaign, not raising the issue on my own but answering questions when asked. I have made it quite clear that so far as I am concerned, I have been and continue to be opposed to capital punishment.
I have made public speeches on this question in and out of my constituency. I have spoken in debates in the House of Commons and I have been, am now and will continue to be in favour of abolition. So when I had the honour to be re-elected to this House on October 30, I was elected as a person whose views were plainly known. I have received 11 letters from my constituency. Six of these were in favour of the retention of capital punishment, one was undecided and four were against. I mention this, not because I am not affected by the views of my constituents. I say it, however, to those hon. members who during the course of this debate have expressed concern, have shown a measure of doubt and difficulty and even mental anguish in having to decide issues regarding which the opinions of themselves and their constituents might not coincide.
It is not for me to make up the minds of these hon. members or exert pressure upon them, but I suggest to them that the trends and weight of opinion in respect of issues of this kind can vary, will change, and the views of people today which exist, as I propose to show, for a specific reason will not be the same years from now. I believe I am right on moral, legal and philosophical grounds. Much has been said in this and other debates about capital punishment being a deterrent. There are figures available. Members on both sides of the House have taken advantage of those figures because they are capable of being adjusted. I do not suggest that they are twisted or distorted, but they are capable of being used on either side of the argument.
In my view, after the closest possible examination, it would seem evident that the statistics do not establish that homicide coming within the meaning of murder has had any significant increase terms of percentage of population since 1967. The information in other jurisdictions seems to bear this out. I shall not go beyond this. Others have taken a different view, and I respect those who support retention. I hope that they, in turn, will give me and those whose views are the same as mine credit for honestly believing that fear of hanging has not in the past been an effective deterrent. I suggest that every time the hangman springs the trap and sends the hooded and pinioned, condemned person spinning down to dark eternity, this is a clear example of the failure of capital punishment as a deterrent.
In addition to this I have a sort of statistical score of my own. No one, I suppose, is an expert on the question of murder and capital punishment, but in the course of my professional career I have defended a very large number of
Capital Punishment
people charged with homicide. In the course of the trial, the Preliminary hearing and the investigations which I always found it essential to be involved in, as well as the studies I made, I became pretty well acquainted with these people. I am using this information because I believe today we have been sort of engulfed in the problems connected with social difficulties which are creeping into this debate. I think we of the present are justified in using the periscope of the past to look into the future. After all, one cannot be associated with these people day after day, particularly during the course of a trial, and with them three or four times a day briefing them, talking to them and obtaining their reactions, without having a reasonably accurate opinion of their motivation, their course of action, why they did this thing, how it came about-in fact, the whole background.
In each and every one of these cases I can say categorically that it is my belief the thought of the punishment did not enter into the calculation or the consideration of those who committed the crime. To that extent I use my own personal observations, my understanding and my interpretation of the discussions I have had with these people to support the comfort I take from the statistics which have been made available. So this knowledge, added to my own views and the reading I have done, has placed me where I stand in this debate.
In passing, I refer to the fact that a short time ago the parliament of the United Kingdom, by a very substantial majority, abolished capital punishment in Northern Ireland. I was of the opinion that the debate which took place about two or three months ago-which, by the way, it is interesting to note was dealt with and disposed of in two ten-minute speeches for and against-dealt with capital punishment in the United Kingdom, but apparently it did not apply to Northern Ireland. Just two or three weeks ago the United Kingdom Parliament, which apparently has legislative jurisdiction in this respect over Northern Ireland, passed a bill which had the effect of abolishing capital punishment specifically in Northern Ireland.
When one looks at the sad and tragic history in these dark days of Northern Ireland, the mass, deliberate killings and the violence in that country, it is interesting to find that the legislature which has jurisdiction over this issue is so little taken with the view that capital punishment constitutes a deterrent that it has seen fit, by a non-partisan vote involving all parties in the United Kingdom House of Commons, to legislate the abolition of capital punishment at this time specifically in Northern Ireland. That is a fact which I urge my colleagues not to ignore.
I do not want to leave this issue without a final comment on a related issue, for it is not sufficient for me to simply indicate my position and let it go at that. I do not believe that ordinary Canadians are blood thirsty, violent or revengeful by nature. They are not anxious to take human life even by an act of parliament. However, something must be wrong when such large numbers of people in this country wish to restore, or even think about restoring the practice of legal killing by hanging.
There is unease, anxiety and deep unrest abroad in this land. It has been manifested in many ways, particularly in this debate, not only in the House but in the country. The

May 29, 1973
Capital Punishment
anger and the unease over our prison, penitentiary, parole and prison leave systems I believe is an apt demonstration of that feeling. It cannot be ignored or separated from this debate. In my view, this debate should have taken place concurrently with debate on remedial measures in respect of these and other penal issues.
I believe there are many people who think we have gone too far, too fast; that we have not been able to digest many of the social and economic reforms in our society; that our body politic probably has severe indigestion. This debate is one of those manifestations of the fact, as is the feeling of many people in the country. In recent years we have witnessed in many western countries phenomena such as the tremendous acceleration toward urbanization, with all its concomitant defects and problems. Associated with it and partly related to it is the rise of permissiveness, militancy, violence, changes in life style, increased use of drugs, and the thrust of organized crime. These are many of the phenomena. What will come out of this environment we do not know.
People who came to this continent did so to satisfy a desire for self-expression, for incentive and individual enterprise. Big government and big business have made great strides to blunt these characteristics and substitute for them organized welfare and an industrialized and highly centralized society, and in doing so they have disturbed and blunted the drive and the ability to cope of individuals who built this land into what it is.
So having in a way given up our right to deal with problems on our own, we have allowed the giant unions and the large corporations and, above all, big, benevolent governments to order our affairs to an almost unlimited extent. It has been a sort of trade-off of our independence. We have been told by our masters that this is in exchange for a better life, more order and stability. But we have obtained neither. In fact, we have probably lost out on both counts. So, made hostile by these phenomena, yearning for an orderly and stable society, people demand scapegoats. It is an expression of human nature.
To some extent a request for the restoration of capital punishment has a measure of symbolism about it, with which I sympathize though I cannot accept it to the point of voting for it. I was glad to read in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that he seems, at long last, to have recognized this fact on behalf of the government. I hope this bill passes. But whether it does or does not, this other major issue will continue. It must be settled. It will not wait, because time does not wait. It will not wait because there is a corrosion and a sickness in our society which has to be diagnosed at once and remedied. It will not wait because if it is not dealt with and eased, the existing malady which is temporary may well become permanent and terminal.
While I cannot, and will not under any circumstances, believe that hanging a criminal will make a better world. But for a better world to be brought about there must be the acceptance that certain action will be taken to make it better; there must be some assurance of a reasonable amount of tranquillity in our society.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few months this House has heard literally dozens of speeches on the subject contained in Bill C-2. The subject of the supreme penalty has been covered from every conceivable point of view, sometimes covered haltingly but more frequently, I think, with passionate conviction and eloquence. It is doubtful to me, however, whether any minds have been changed as a result of this prolonged debate because capital punishment, like abortion, poses for many a deep moral dilemma.
I wish to speak tonight, not because I feel I can bring anything vitally new or convincing to the floor but principally because I feel also very deeply about the subject and I am prepared to stand or fall for my convictions or, if you prefer-my prejudices. I do not like to be at odds with what I take to be the wishes of my constituents. What I find even more demeaning, however, is to be at odds with myself. If I voted in any other way than to support this bill before us, I am afraid that I would forever regard myself as being grossly, in fact obscenely, disloyal to a very personal matter of conscience which has inhabited my mind for many years.
The issue of capital punishment has been proclaimed many times as a moral decision or a matter of conscience, and I agree with this position. For those members who believe that the shadow of the gallows represents a deterrent sufficient to inhibit the prospective transgressions against society of a life taker, there is no alternative but to vote against this bill. However, for those who believe, just as firmly and just as sincerely, that since murder is more frequently an impulse, a crime of passion usually directed against friends and family, the deterrent effect of capital punishment is enormously suspect.
This group, the latter group of members-and, I hope, the majority of members in the House tonight-have no alternative but to vote in favour of the bill before us even though it represents but de facto abolition. To these members the vengeful, premeditated taking of human life by the state is a violation of civilized behaviour far too abhorrent to be accepted with equanimity. Both of these pro- and anti-capital punishment positions are at least consistent with the concept of a vote of conscience and are therefore rational positions to hold.
The members who are really troubled, it seems to me, are the ones who are going to vote against their philosophical and moral principles chiefly because they believe that a vote contrary to their conscience is at once democratic and pleasing to their constituents. I reject this idea, this notion completely, because I reject the concept that a Member of Parliament is little more than his constituents' delegate, that is, that he should always reflect accurately, as far as he can gauge in his decisions and in his votes, what he regards as the temporal opinion of the majority of the people he is privileged to represent.
If our democratic process no longer depends on electoral confidence in the judgment of an individual Member of Parliament, we should burn down this House, as Guy Fawkes once tried to do with the mother of parliaments, and install a multiplicity of computers to sample public opinion continuously, day by day. Members of Parliament at worst become redundant if we take this view, that is, if we embrace the delegate concept, and at best, little more
May 29, 1973

than highly paid ombudsmen social workers whose main preoccupation in this House is to entreat ministers of the Crown for some favourable titbit such as a pension for Mrs. Jones.
My objections to the death penalty are as follows, and I will summarize them: first, there is no statistical evidence, that I have been able to uncover, that capital punishment is a deterrent. Murder, as I have said before, is most often a crime of passion and premeditated murder is extremely rare. Second, juries being human and composed of humans can make mistakes and innocent men can die. Third, even in the various American states which have retained the death penalty most murders are never solved, or murder suspects are acquitted by juries who choose to err on the side of mercy rather than on the side of doubtful testimony coming before them. Fourth, legalized murder-that is, capital punishment-in my view and in the view of many members of this House brutalizes society. Finally, I could not execute a human myself; therefore I feel that I am in no position to ask someone else to do what I, as an individual, could not bring myself to do.
I have looked into some of the authorities on the subject. Karl F. Schuessler in his book The Deterrent Influence of the Death Penalty wrote this:
-previous studies have uniformly concluded that the death penalty is inconsequential as a deterrent, that the relative frequency of murder in a given population is a function of the conditions under which the group lives.
This is a very important statement, because if we change the conditions under which we as a group live then we are certainly going to have a profound effect on the incidence of murder, and I cannot accept the fact that if the state goes into the business of murder an improvement in the homicide rate in our society can be brought about. What Mr. Schuessler says about groups I think might also apply to sub-groups. He concludes that "different population classifications have different homicide and execution rates," meaning of course that the difference affects different people differently.
I think it is well-known that the law tends to discriminate against low socio-economic males in its application. This discrimination also holds true in terms of convictions in homicide cases. Nothing that I have read about this subject, therefore, has persuaded me that I should abandon my position that state murder or, if you like, execution, brutalizes society and that it has little or no influence on public security. We must, then, ask ourselves: Why is there in existence now this powerful, public sentiment apparently in favour of returning to the noose?
I do not know of any parliamentarian who has not gone through agony of doubt about capital punishment and the bill before us. We have been bombarded by the pro- and anti-noose forces. Incidentally, both sides have used the Bible liberally to reinforce their positions. The candidates of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and of my own party in my riding during the last election all came out as abolitionists. I am pleased that we are in the company of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), a former prime min-
Capital Punishment
ister, and the leader of my own party as being philosophically opposed to capital punishment.
We will all vote for the present bill, but when it gets to committee we will be asked to consider certain amendments to retain the death penalty in limited circumstances and also amendments which would broaden its use in the light of current public opinion. I, of course, cannot be hypothetical about what might happen in the committee, but certainly a number of amendments will be put forward and undoubtedly some of them will be accepted. Perhaps the matter of hijacking and the protection of families of policemen and prison guards might be considered favourably.
I would like my constituents, and people all across Canada, to know that Members of Parliament on both sides of this moral question have tried desperately to analyse the rationale behind current public sentiment in favour of returning to the noose. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, I insist that no public-be-damned attitude exists on the part of elected representatives in this chamber.
I think that the urge to reinstate capital punishment has become, not a citizen regression into a state of barbarism but a symbol of the general malaise in society, which was touched on by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), a symbol expressed by people who feel that something is definitely wrong and either their elected representatives are unable or perhaps unwilling to do anything about it. I do not think we are either unwilling or unable to come to grips with problems, but I am suggesting that that is what the public thinks.
There exists a profound public concern about the increasing number of crimes of violence. There is a suspicion that even when dangerous men are caught and convicted, irresponsible parole and prison policies release these men to prey again on the public after they have served a minimal portion of their sentences. That may or may not be true, but nevertheless I am certain that the feeling exists, and not without some foundation.
Citizens also consider it irresponsible of prison officials to allow convicted, dangerous sexual offenders unescorted weekend freedom, which in one instance led to the tragic murder of the daughter of a prison guard. The public is also fed up with policies which appear to direct more sympathy to the rehabilitation of the criminal than to the protection of the innocent. We as Members of Parliament have to face it; we cannot avoid it.
I am also convinced that much of the pro-noose sentiment arises from a nostalgic yearning for simpler times when things did not change so fast. The new morality to many people means no morality at all. The increasing incidence of drugs, long hair, funny clothes and the decline of religion and the work ethic all combine to pulverize traditional values and priorities and to insulate one generation from its predecessor.
I believe that Canadians and North Americans generally are frustrated. They are bombarded with propaganda, afraid, herded into cities where they are rootless and isolated. People have been forced to cope with more change in the last 40 years than civilization had to cope with in the previous 4,000 years. Popularizing this view-

May 29, 1973
Capital Punishment
point is TV's Archie Bunker who illustrates the difficulties many people have in making value adjustments. But if social tensions resulting from inability to cope with rapid change are so deep and complex, and if the death penalty has become a symbol upon which all of societies ills are focused, I ask you, Sir, would the execution of a relatively few murderers, including the odd innocent person, help much to resolve these tensions? I very much doubt it.
That, however, does not mean that Members of Parliament should ignore the legitimate demands for better public safety, and I do not think we will. We can begin by demanding tighter gun control legislation. We can do as I did before Christmas, call for a parliamentary investigation of the parole and day pass system. We can also begin to make certain that dangerous sexual offenders are permanently isolated from society, because apparently there is no treatment for them, and that murderers stay behind bars for a specified time. We can provide the funds necessary for a massive educational, rehabilitative enforcement attack on the drug problem, a problem which leads inevitably to degradation, debilitation, death-and, yes, sometimes even murder.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I have heard the letters from constituents read into the record in order to rationalize the positions members perhaps had already taken. Last week we listened to the speech of the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Caouette), who read to us from his mailbag. I would like to do the same now because I think my letter rises far above the Old Testament logic of retribution and vengeance and puts at least one individual on a more contemporary celestial plane. I will withhold the name of the writer. He wrote:
A couple of years ago when I applied for a position at Matsqui-
Meaning Matsqui institution.
-I was asked a number of questions, of which one was, am I against capital punishment? My reply was, and has not changed, "As long as humans are used to investigate, charge, try, and finally execute a person who has committed a capital offence, a mistake could be made, and it is impossible to rectify that mistake."
Here, I think, is the most important part, Mr. Speaker: Recently my daughter died and at present two young people are in custody in Vancouver charged with her death. If they are convicted, they could face the extreme penalty. Our whole family was hurt deeply by our daughter's passing, but can you imagine what our feelings would be if that mistake I mentioned earlier was made?
He is referring to the execution of an innocent man. He continues:
Don't get me wrong; we all want the guilty person or persons punished and punished severely. I think, and this is my own feelings, I would rather see them-persons convicted of a capital offence-put away for life with no hope of parole, passes or appeals, than if again that mistake was made the person or persons would have lost naught but time.
We might quarrel with the details of that letter, but I think it takes a very big man-and this one was suffering from a very grave loss-to rise above that and come out as an abolitionist. I think all of us who have not had to face his situation should ponder on the agony that this man

and his family went through, and the idealism and the courage it took to put forward his viewpoint. His position is both surprising and encouraging. It reminds me of the abolitionist position taken by the Kennedy family after having lost two outstanding sons by assassins' bullets.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that those of us who are supporting Bill C-2 are repudiating the wishes of Canadians. There are many who seize upon the capital punishment issue as a solution to their many concerns about the wrongs of our current society. I disagree with them. Execution is no solution to anything. How much public outcry would be raised, for instance, if we hanged a dog or a horse or a man publicly, on colour television? For those who believe that hanging is a deterrent, would not a public exhibition of hanging with nationwide dissemination over the electronic media be a greater deterrent? Why hide it in private? Of course I exaggerate, Mr. Speaker, but a grisly exhibition like the one I have described would cause a public outcry against further executions far greater than any kind of retentionist sentiment that may prevail today.
Mr. Speaker, I hope with all my heart that the bill passes tonight and that Canada may continue to be among the number of civilized nations in the world which can no longer tolerate the death penalty as a cruel and unusual punishment and banish it forever from our judicial process.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the government is anxious to conclude second reading of this bill, and as a result not everyone who wishes to speak may be allowed to do so, I hope to keep my remarks to a bare minimum so that as many members as possible may participate. Later this evening there will be an alleged free vote on this question. I would have thought that those who advanced that nomenclature would also have taken the view that there should be a completely free debate, but apparently such an idea is beyond the logic of those who urged that discussion on this question cease tonight.
The main reason I am opposing this measure, Mr. Speaker, is that it would merely carry on the unsatisfactory experiment that was commenced in December, 1967. I believe it is recognized by all hon. members that, rightly or wrongly, the vast majority of Canadians wish the death penalty retained. I think my hon. friend from Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) recognized that position.
In that connection I should like to say that I for one do not think there is any great advantage in retaining the method of execution-that is, hanging-and that consideration should be given to bringing the death penalty up to date with the methods which have been developed in recent years in order to make it more humane. Nevertheless, I believe that the death penalty should be retained as the ultimate punishment for capital murder.
I have listened to argument on both sides about how a member should behave when he disagrees with his constituents. I listened to the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) on the CBC program "Cross Country Check-up" on Sunday and heard what he said about referendums. I understand the rationalization of some hon. members who are opposed to capital punishment, even though I disagree
May 29, 1973

with it, when they say they are going to support this measure contrary to the wishes of their constituents. To me, their rationalization is a very strong argument for supporting the idea of a national referendum on this question.
Contrary to the views of the Solicitor General on a referendum, I do not feel such a vote should be held in a vacuum, but that prior to the poll there should be a wide-ranging debate all across the country during which all the information on the subject could be made available to the voter before he cast his ballot.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the argument against a referendum is a spurious one. Such arguments are only advanced to deny the people of the nation a chance to express themselves clearly on the subject. We find their representatives here denying their views for various reasons. I would say that at least the arguments are much stronger for a referendum on this subject than they were the last time such a device was used, which was when the Liberal government of the day polled the Canadian people on the question of conscription.
As for the measure itself, I do not see how anyone can support it. With respect to the abolitionists, it retains the principle of capital punishment; but probably they are depending on the continuation of the present Prime Minister's penchant for flouting laws with which he does not agree. In this case, though, it is hard to see how even he could have the gall to flout a law for which he is responsible. At least prior to last December it could be said that the reason for ignoring the law was that the Pearson government had placed it on the books. If this measure passes tonight, even that flimsy excuse will disappear. The retentionists are unhappy to see such double-standard legislation continued; they can only expect a continuation of the present de facto abolition situation if the measure passes.
Mr. Speaker, I should like now to say a few words about deterrence, because in my opinion that is the crux of this whole debate. The legislation recognizes the validity of this argument, otherwise why have capital punishment even for the murder of police officers and prison guards? Figures that have recently become available show a tremendous increase in homicide, both solved and unsolved, since 1967 when the general deterrent was removed. I defy anyone to say that in the past ten years, a period in which there have been no hangings, Canada has been a less violent country than it was previously in its history, even though there have been periods of great stress and turmoil such as during the great depression and two world wars. Any member who says that retention of capital punishment would promote a more violent society is just expressing bleeding-heart mishmash.
One just has to look at the real world, see what happens there and take note of the deterrent that capital punishment has been. I completely agree with the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) who cited the example of organized crime. He pointed out that that segment of our society is pretty well orderly and is not subject to much violence, primarily because of the deter-
Capital Punishment
rence of capital punishment. Its members know what is waiting for them if they disobey the laws of that group.
I think we can take an example much closer to home for most of us by examining the situation of our driving laws. We all know that the existence of radar machines, breathalyzers and the points system help people to obey the driving laws of this country; people know they are there and are being used. If these machines were not there, or a person's driving privileges were not at stake, one can imagine the increase in the carnage on the highways. As far as deterrence is concerned, no one can tell me there is less deterrence in capital punishment than a radar machine, breathalyzer or demerit points system.
This legislation is no good. If I had any doubts, they would be dispelled by recalling the performance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in administering such a law over the past five years. I urge hon members to oppose the passage of the bill at this stage.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, 101 speeches have been made during the 12 days of this debate. It is only fair to say that everything has been said. There is little left to be said, but I rise to support the bill because I support the principle of the abolition of capital punishment. I also rise because this view does not necessarily represent the view of the majority of my constituents. Notwithstanding that fact, and regardless of how the majority of my constituents may feel on this matter, I do not think they would want me, as their representative in this House, to vote against the dictates of my conscience. My conscience dictates that I should support this bill and, indeed, I should urge the government to go one step further and bring a measure before this House that would totally abolish capital punishment in Canada.
I began my remarks by saying that everything had been said. Consequently, I will be brief. However, while I support this bill and would like to see a measure ultimately brought before this House totally abolishing capital punishment in Canada, at the same time I would like to see a tightening up of our parole laws to ensure that dangerous criminals are not turned loose on society.
Finally, may I say to hon. members who support capital punishment, those who put forward the argument that capital punishment is a deterrent, that I respect their views. I quote from the novel Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak:
If the beast who sleeps in man could be held down by threats - any kind of threat, whether of jail or of retribution after death- then the highest emblem of humanity would be the lion tamer in the circus with his whip, not the Prophet who sacrificed himself.
I urge the House to support this bill.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that 12 days of debate have gone by. At the beginning of the debate I did not intend to make any comments on this bill; however, as comments were made by my colleagues some very interesting points were raised. I agree with the hon. member who preceded me that everything must have been said. We have heard many statistics. What an experience it must have been for those who like statistics to compare the pros and cons and make interesting calculations. We have compared other nations such as Ireland which recently abolished capital punish-

May 29, 1973
Capital Punishment
ment, as well as the state of California which recently reinstated capital punishment. I am somewhat at a disadvantage, being almost the last person to speak on the subject before we are called upon to stand and be counted. All has been said. Even though the galleries are filled with spectators tonight and one is tempted to repeat what has already been said, I will refrain from doing that.
At the outset, I would like to say that I have not heard one speaker who would not much rather abolish capital punishment. However, many of my colleagues are attaching a number of conditions to this luxury. Some of these conditions are worth repeating. My colleagues in the House are saying, "Remove the threat of murder; remove the fear of war; remove the fear that whole generations of young people could be destroyed by some drug that someone may be pushing; remove the terrible, agonizing pain of a mother whose child has been raped, and remove the fear and devastating effect it has on a human being when he is deprived of the freedom to enjoy the accomplishments of a lifetime, or when the goods he has acquired are destroyed or taken from him-then we will fight until we have no breath left in our bodies, to abolish capital punishment."
Because as a child, I can truthfully say, I witnessed almost all of those things I have talked about, I have listened to or read with great interest the comments my colleagues have advanced, and I must say that at times those comments were not made from the heart. I am not being critical of any party in particular. All of us are guilty of that. I am not critical, because many of the things about which I have spoken need to be experienced to be fully understood.
For example, one has to experience the pain it is to be poor in a rich country in order to understand and support some of the social advances which are being made and some of the ideas which certain of our colleagues are putting forward in this field. One has to be old in order to understand how devastating it is to be poor as an old person. And many of my colleagues are not old. Some of my colleagues have made speeches with their lips only, probably to explain their concern to the press and people back home, because the people back home are very concerned-all of us know that-and they are watching us closely because they look on us as the government, as the leaders in charge of the situation upon whom all depends in times of disaster.
They look upon us as the guardians of all that is held true, all that is worth writing down, all that is worth saying and all that is worth doing. These people have been watching us making deals with various groups of people, some of them criminals. They have watched us being pushed into a corner by elements which are threatening to destroy our system from the outside. It is these people who wonder just how secure our system is.
My colleagues who have held referendums, who have questioned their constituents as I have, know what the people want, and some of them have used this debate to justify their own positions. They have tried to use arguments; indeed, they have invented arguments such as, "We shall not call it capital punishment, but murder punishable by death, or, "We would vote to abolish capital pun-
[Mr. Oberle.l
ishment if we could be sure that the prisoner would be locked up for life and the keys thrown away." What a barbaric way to treat a human being! It is true, though, that the prisoners we lock up in jail today are better off than some people who are living under stumps and in snow huts in our country. They say they would vote for the death penalty if the murderer, the guilty person, could be shot instead of hanged, or if the murderer were gassed, cremated or, maybe, drowned. This they say, would be more humane.
Mr. Speaker, all these things have been tried individually and in mass operation ever since the world began. People have been executed by every society in the world as far back as man can remember. The cave man executed anyone who invaded his cave or challenged his seniority over his woman. In our own lifetime we have witnessed executions, singular or en masse, for crimes that have not even seen a court. It happens all over the world. Yet it is significant that not one of my colleagues-not a single one-is in favour of capital punishment if-and this is a big "if"-the reason which prompts society to take this drastic step could somehow be removed.
Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I do not wish to say the last word on this subject; I do not think I have the right. There are signs all over the world that this is actually happening-that the need for society to take this drastic step will be removed. As we become masters of the universe we shall become masters of ourselves. Such is the faith I have in humanity. We shall learn to understand what sickness it is that drives men to commit capital crimes. We shall learn how to cure-yes, how to prevent such a disease-as we advance, continuing the pace of our advance in the last 50 years. The world population will advance to a point at which this is possible. I will go even further. I predict that this evolution will take place within the next 50 to 75 years; we shall understand so much about the human body and the human brain that we will be able to prevent these things.
I believe that some of my colleagues are ahead of their time. They have achieved this intellectual status now. They are ahead of their constituents and they ought to follow their own consciences. They are not only ahead on this subject but in the application of some of the other things with which this House concerns itself. Our social laws are, to my thinking, too far advanced in some areas. They say they do know better than the people they represent, and I agree. But until all people, not only Canadians and those living in the western world, have had a chance to evolve to the same extent intellectually as some of my colleagues, the abolition of capital punishment is premature. It is a luxury. I say that, and I sincerely believe it, and all my colleagues believe it. It is a luxury we cannot afford at this time. Until we have mastered all the things I have talked about we must, as those charged with the responsibility of protecting those in our care, discharge our duty.
Mr. Kenneth <7. Higson (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct honour and great privilege for me to rise in this chamber to speak for the first time on behalf of the people of the constituency of Lincoln, which riding is in the heart of the Niagara peninsula in the province of Ontario.
May 29, 1973

I have noted that all hon. members when speaking for the first time have paid tribute to you, Sir, and your deputy, and have congratulated you upon the elevation to your high office. I, too, join with my colleagues in this House to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Had I spoken earlier, my words might have been mere form rather than words with meaning, but I have now had the opportunity to observe your command of this House, your sense of wit and humour, your warmth of personality and great sense of fair play. I now have experienced the reasons why you are held in such high esteem and affection by all members of this House, and I appreciate those reasons.
In speaking for the first time, I might have preferred, Mr. Speaker, to tell you and hon. members of the House generally something of the constituency of Lincoln and the people whom I have the honour to represent. I trust I shall have an opportunity to talk about these things on another and more suitable occasion.
During this debate on the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code incorporated in Bill C-2, a great deal has been stated by members of this House, both by the so-called abolitionists and retentionists of the death penalty. As is usual with the final speaker or two, there is little original or of startling consequence on this subject that has not heretofore been brought before this House for consideration. Thus, one is left to comment on one's personal observations of what has transpired in this country during recent years, one's conclusions and recommendations.
The ultimate question to be decided-that is to say, whether we are to retain the death penalty for all premeditated murder or merely for the murder of police officers and others listed in subsection 2 of section 214, as proposed in Bill C-2-is a most difficult and complex one, having as it does social, legal and moral ramifications and sparked by a high degree of emotion regardless of one's point of view on the subject. It is a subject which has clearly awakened the conscience of Canada, as may be evidenced by the continuous and voluminous amount of mail which each of us as members has received during the last five months, and I am sure over greater periods of time for members who have been here longer than I have.
I should have preferred that this parliament deal with the question on a more permanent basis than continuing the experiment, as it were, for a further five-year period. While I appreciate that any statutory provision may be repealed or amended by an act of this or future parliaments, I do not believe that it is either wise or intelligent to deal with this matter on an ad hoc or continual-review basis.
I should have preferred, as well, that this parliament deal not just with the narrow question as to whether we are to abolish the death penalty for most murder for a further five-year period, but rather that we consider in a most comprehensive manner the startling increase in crime, including armed robbery, rape, arson, theft, drug abuse and similar crime, and generally the administration of our penal system, including the administration of our
Capital Punishment
parole system. The fear of our citizens to go about their daily activities in safety in our cities and towns across this country has, in my view, created to a large extent the emotion surrounding the issue which we are discussing tonight.
Much has been stated as to the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and presumably reliable figures have been quoted to illustrate or prove that the removal of the death penalty has not substantially increased the homicide rate during the last five years. However, I have heard very little by way of figures to show how many murders did not take place because of the presence of capital punishment in the Criminal Code prior to five years ago, and I suspect that such figures would be impossible to compile. I am sure of the advice offered by the sociologists and psychologists on the subject, but I do not comprehend the argument that punishment, albeit the ultimate punishment, is not a deterrent to wrongdoing-in the case at hand, the crime of premeditated murder.
I have heard the argument of the finality of the death penalty in the case of an error in our judicial process. I must admit this is difficult, for admittedly the subject at hand is not a pleasant one. But such argument does a disservice to our judicial process, for we must say that such cases are very rare, and we will retain the royal prerogative of clemency which should be exercised in favour of the convicted should there by any shadow of doubt as to his or her guilt, or should there be humanitarian or extenuating reasons not to exercise the penalty of death.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I very much regret interrupting the hon. member, more particularly since it is his maiden speech, but the House made an order earlier today that would permit the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) as mover of the bill, to reply for 15 minutes before the vote is taken. Again, I apologize to the hon. member and thank him for the spirit in which he takes the interruption.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate on second reading I should like to emphasize a few points that I think need emphasizing, and to answer some of the questions and arguments put by hon. members during the debate. It was interesting this evening that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said that 101 members had spoken in the debate to this time. As hon. members know, I made a lengthy statement in favour of the bill at the beginning of the debate, so I shall not repeat those arguments this evening.
Above all, I should like to urge upon members, especially those in doubt and those undecided, to vote for the bill on second reading. By doing this they will send the bill to the justice committee where it can be considered in detail and amended where appropriate. Consequently, this will give parliament the opportunity to improve the bill and to examine many of the suggestions put forward in the debate, many of which were good suggestions. So I ask those who are undecided to vote for the bill now, exactly for that reason. This will give the bill a chance to be improved. If it is not improved, then the House still has a

May 29, 1973
Capital Punishment
chance to vote against it on third reading or at the report stage.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) made this point in her speech of May 22, and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) also made the point very well this afternoon. When the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands spoke, she said she supported the principle of abolition but did not like many aspects of this bill. Others have said that they would support the abolition of capital punishment if some improvements were made in the parole system and in the penal system. Is not this the sort of thing that can and should be considered by the committee? There will be an opportunity to present amendments in the committee and also at the report stage of the bill. If a member votes against the bill at this stage, he will eliminate any opportunity for further discussion or amendment.
I personally feel there should be improvements made in the parole and temporary absence system. It is for this reason that we announced in the Speech from the Throne that improvements would be made in the prison and parole system. Because we were very concerned about this, my predecessor set up the Hugessen task force in 1972. Later this week, or possibly next week, I will present proposals to the House for improving the parole and temporary absence system in a general way. I might say, further, that we are also studying several possibilities for changing the parole provisions as they apply to convicted murderers, and I would be willing to discuss these proposals with the justice committee if and when the bill is sent to that committee.
There are other areas in which we could amend the bill as well. When the bill was introduced in January-it was one of the first bills that was introduced-at that time we did not have the murder statistics for 1971, which was one of the reasons for putting forward a bill that would continue the previous law in force over the last five years. We now have another year's statistics. Also, in that time we have been able to get to know each other in this House. This was a new parliament and when we presented the bill we did not know what to expect. We had a minority government and we did not know what would be the opinions of members with respect to capital punishment. We now have a better feel of what is in the minds of hon. members, and again this will provide us with the opportunity to accept and consider amendments.
Many hon. members have asked why we have a bill that retains capital punishment for the murder of two categories of individuals, policemen and prison guards. If the House remembers, when this measure was introduced in 1967 the basis for its introduction was the British experiment. The British parliament had decided to try an experiment for five years in which it abolished capital punishment for murder, except for the murder of prison guards and policemen. At the time we felt this would be an appropriate experimental move for ourselves. Since that time the five-year experiment expired in Britain and the British House of Commons decided to completely abolish capital punishment. However, this year, as hon. members know, there was an attempt by a number of private members to have capital punishment reinstated by another vote. On that occasion the British House of Commons

again turned down the reinstatement of capital punishment.
I might say that in the five and a half years since we partially abolished capital punishment there has been no certain trend, At the beginning of the debate I pointed out that immediately after partial abolition, in certain provinces, and in particular in the province of Ontario, the largest, most industrialized and most urban province in Canada, for three successive years there was a decline in the number of murders. After three years there was a slight increase. In other provinces there was a steady increase, although slight in all, right through 1968. In some provinces there was a decrease in the latter part of the five-year trial period. There has been no definite trend following partial abolition in 1968.
As I said at the beginning of the debate, I would prefer complete abolition, but first of all this is a government bill decided upon by the government to be put to the House. In putting it forward I am speaking on behalf of the government. This is to be a free vote, but it is a government bill. The same thing occurred in 1967 when a considerable number of members in the government party voted against the bill.
We put it forward as a compromise move toward total abolition in the best way we could. At the time we put the bill forward, we felt that if we proposed total abolition at that time it might be defeated and we would be left with the 1961 law which would probably, from the abolitionist's point of view, be much worse and would provide for many more executions than under the law we have had during the past five years.
For this reason, I find it very difficult to understand members who have spoken in this debate declaring themselves complete abolitionists and saying they would vote against this bill because it is not abolitionist enough. I fail to understand that argument, because if they are abolitionists and vote against it they will be left with a law which will provide for a much larger area of capital punishment. I cannot understand how a person who is really an abolitionist could fail to vote for a bill which moves toward the goal of total abolition, but instead would vote against the bill which is a move backward.
Some members during this debate have said they will not vote for this bill because it is a hybrid bill, neither abolitionist nor retentionist. As I pointed out this afternoon, if they vote against the bill they are left with a law which in itself is a hybrid law. They are left with the law of 1961 in which there is capital murder and non-capital murder. In other words, the law that will apply if they defeat this bill is a law under which certain types of murder will lead to life imprisonment and other types of murder will lead to capital punishment. So they are not being consistent in their arguments. The difference between the two laws is that this bill will provide for a greatly restricted area of capital punishment, and the law that will be in force if this bill is defeated will provide for a much larger area.
I said I would try to deal with some of the arguments put forward during the debate, an important one being that put forward by the right hon. member for Prince
May 29, 1973

Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He referred to a very important case decided in the United States Supreme Court. In that case the U.S. Supreme Court decided that capital punishment was contrary to the United States Bill of Rights on the ground that it was an unnecessarily cruel punishment. Consequently, they ruled it unconstitutional.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert suggested that we suspend the debate on this bill and refer the question of capital punishment to our Supreme Court, on the basis that our Bill of Rights contains provisions which are very similar to the United States Bill of Rights. I am sure the argument of the right hon. gentleman was a very serious one. I think perhaps capital punishment in relation to our Bill of Rights should be the subject of decision by the Supreme Court.
However, I do not think that gives us here in parliament the right to avoid our responsibilities in making a decision in respect of capital punishment this year, tonight and within the weeks to come. As a legislative body, I think we must accept our responsibility. There is a time to refer something to the Supreme Court for decision, but that is another matter. That is a method of deciding the question judicially. I think that should be done as well. But tonight and on other occasions to come I think we must decide how we stand on this issue.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the statement just made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). There was no suggestion on my part, indirectly or at all, that parliament should not discharge its responsibility. What I pointed out, having regard to the decision of the United States Supreme Court, was that the whole question as to whether capital punishment is a cruel and unnatural punishment should be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. Otherwise we are going through a fatuous course of action. I want to make that very clear. I was not in any way suggesting that parliament should not make its own decision.
I also point out to the hon. gentleman that the government, as a government, should make clear what its attitude is on this matter, because a moment ago the minister said ministers could vote one way or the other, but this is a government bill.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the right hon. member. I thought he said earlier in the debate, I think in February, that we should suspend the debate and refer this matter to the Supreme Court. I think there is much merit in the suggestion that the question should be referred to the Supreme Court, but I think we should also make our decision. I might also say, in response to the right hon. gentleman's last remark, that I did not say ministers would vote whichever way they want. This is a government bill. The cabinet decided it would present this bill as a government bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: I said that members of the government party are free to vote as they want, because it is a free vote. I only have two minutes left at my disposal although there are many arguments to which I should like to reply.
Capital Punishment
Many hon. members have said they must vote against this bill because a vote in favour of it would be a vote in negation of measures to protect the public. In other words, if you vote for this bill you are not serious about protecting the public. I reject that argument. I think we must do everything possible to protect the public, but I have not seen one bit of evidence to suggest that capital punishment has ever protected the public.
Some of the worst murder rates in the world have existed and do exist in countries where there is a prevailing practice of applying capital punishment. On the other hand, I again refer to the example given by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) of the state of Maine in the United States which abolished capital punishment in 1913 and has had one of the lowest murder rates in the United States, much lower than many of the southern states in that country which have had capital punishment for many years and still have very high rates of murder.
Hon. members have talked about this bill in relation to parole and have suggested that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. Solicitor General but, it being 9.30 o'clock p.m. on all the clocks I can see, it is my duty, pursuant to special order made Wednesday, May 23, to interrupt the proceedings and put the question. The question is on the motion of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Danforth
Darling
Dick
Dinsdale
Dionne
Dupras
Duquet
Epp
Fortin
Frank
Fraser
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Godin
Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (Levis)
Hales Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hees Higson Hollands Hopkins Homer
(Crowfoot)
Homer
(Battleford-
Kindersley)
Howie
Hueglin
Hurlburt
Isabelle
Jarvis
Jelinek
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-
Haldimand)
Korchinski
Kuntz
Lafiamme
Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Laprise La Salle Latulippe Lawrence L'Heureux Loiselle Lundrigan

Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, on March 28, 1973, I asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) to consider certain infrastructures involving massive capital investment, such as a corridor road from McAdam, New Brunswick to Sherbrooke, Quebec. The corridor road would be a straight line highway through the state of Maine from the province of New Brunswick, and would be created by the extension of the Vanceboro-Lincoln road at the New Brunswick border to the outskirts of Sherbrooke in Quebec. Over such a road it would be some 400 miles from Fredericton to Montreal, compared with nearly 600 miles at the present time over Canadian highways or some 540 miles driving through the United States.
In addition to saving on distance, there is a great reduction in time involved. This is a factor of considerable importance where trucking costs are involved. At the present time, using either the Canadian or American routes there is a distance of approximately 665 miles from the port of Saint John, New Brunswick, to Montreal, Quebec. The corridor road would reduce this by approximately 200 miles in distance and about four hours in time.


Over the period of a week this would allow one additional trip per vehicle per week through the saving in time. The corridor road would bring the Atlantic provinces and the industrial centres of Quebec and Ontario much closer in terms of distance and time.
The construction of the modern highway envisaged by the corridor road linking the Atlantic provinces and the great markets of Quebec and Ontario through the state of Maine appears to be an important, indeed a vital component of any program for economic improvement of the region. Freight haulers, furniture vans, tank trailers and car carriers would gravitate to the corridor road. Truck transportation of milled lumber would also benefit in savings and cost of operation over the shorter route. Reduced freight rates for the movement of maritime products westward and on eastward shipments designed for the Atlantic market, or through our winter ports to the international markets of the world, would benefit producers and shippers. Fresh and frozen fish products from the maritimes could compete with imported products in central Canadian markets and the reduced prices for these goods would be a direct benefit to all consumers.
A shorter route to the markets of Quebec and Ontario would give tremendous impetus to highway transportation of all kinds, including tourist traffic, and would provide competition for our rail lines. Many low-class bulk commodities now tied to rail and water transportation could look to new market potential. Militarily, there is an advantage of the utmost importance in linking the United States with the great military base at Gagetown and the naval and air bases of the Maritimes.
To construct such a road would probably be expensive. In much of this territory where no previous road exists I would estimate it would be in excess of $200,000 a mile if built to the same standards as the Trans-Canada Highway. The improvement of any sections of existing low-standard roads would probably cost less, and improvement of a better paved road that could contribute to the highway would be less still. My estimate, based on slight research, puts the cost at about $60 million.
Maintenance due to the terrain and the climate would probably be comparable to maintenance of roads in New Brunswick. Big questions to be solved are, who would pay for the road, construct it and maintain it? With the American interest in talks about to take place with respect to international trade and tariffs, the auto pact, resource development and transportation, it seems that now is an appropriate time to place this subject on the agenda for discussion with our American friends.
It is my view that such a road would be welcomed in the state of Maine, but that state does not have the funds to build it. In my opinion, a road which would benefit two countries might well be constructed on a shared-cost basis. The first step, the important step, involves negotiations with the United States of America and the state of Maine. It is important that this matter be raised now. If this government has any intention of even considering the matter, negotiations should start now. If we envisage discussion on a bundle of rights covering a number of topics, this could well be the quid pro quo forming part of a general agreement on a multiplicity of matters.
Adjournment Debate
I say to the government: Do your homework well, and do it now. We have already lost much time; there has been too much talk and too little action. We can make things happen in the Maritimes if we develop the arteries of commerce-the cdrridor road, our ports, the power potential in the tides of Fundy, the Chignecto canal and the P.E.I. causeway. We need investment in the Maritimes to challenge the enterprise of our people, not handouts. Invest in these arteries of commerce and development will follow as day follows night, and it will follow without handouts. Our people could then live in prosperity and dignity.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity of replying to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). I am always very interested in his suggestions. I find no difficulty in acknowledging that there is need for particular DREE assistance in the Atlantic provinces both in terms of infrastructure and support and incentive grants to local industries.
The policies of regional development are important to the economic well-being of that region, just as they are to Quebec and other parts of Canada which have not developed over the years to their fullest potential. The hon. member has referred to the failure of this policy. I do not agree with this conclusion, because I think there is growing evidence which shows marked improvement in the economy of the Atlantic region. However, I agree that we need improvement.
I am aware of a considerable increase in investment in manufacturing. I know that the employment rate has been growing gradually over the past four years. I also know that unemployment has continued to plague this area, but there has been a marked reduction in the outmigration of people from the maritimes, and it is encouraging to see a closing of the gap of the average income in the Atlantic compared to the national average.
I believe that Atlantic Canada's economy is starting to expand on the basis of the development of viable, longterm economic opportunities. Infrastructure projects are considered on their merits, and if they are sound and desirable they receive full consideration. I think our colleague from York-Sunbury will agree that since he asked this question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) over two months ago considerable progress has been made. I refer not only to the recent announcement of a DREE grant of over $2.5 millions to reopen the textile mill at Marysville, but also to the extensive federal-provincial co-operation regarding DREE involvement in all provinces which has been undertaken by the minister.


PUBLIC WORKS-CONSTRUCTION OF NEW POST OFFICE AT LAC MEGANTIC-INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF TENDERS
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, on May 23 last, I put a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) with regard to the federal building there has

May 29, 1973
Adjournment Debate
been talk of building at Lac Megantic for nine years now. On October 10, 1963-I was a member of Parliament at the time-the occupants of the Lac Megantic post office asked me to intervene with the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works to ask that repairs be made to that post office.
Here is the letter I received in reply to my question:
The minister has asked me to reply to your letter dated October 3 with regard to the condition of the inside of the Lac Megantic post office. Your remarks surprise us. Rest assured that our Montreal officers will inspect the building immediately. Unless you insist, we doubt that it will be necessary to consult Mr. Langford, since our Montreal office has an architect as well as an engineer who are capable, to our mind, of taking care of all repairs or alterations in that building.
At that time, I asked that repairs be made; it was found that no repairs were indicated because the building was in perfect condition. Some time later, those inspectors and engineers inspected the building and condemned it. Now, Mr. Speaker, that building is as solid as the Parliament buildings. That building is in perfect condition; it is still in good repair.
On that occasion I had also asked to repair the post office in Coaticook, a city identical to Lac Megantic. There again was a very good building that has also been condemned, to which they found all kinds of defects. Those buildings were about to crumble down; they were not safe and could not be of any use to the public. So they had to be set aside.
As to the Lac Megantic building, windows were boarded up and in 1963 they put a big sign on the door saying: A new post office will be built here to provide all public services to this area. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then.
Mr. Speaker, decisions of all kinds were made. First they decided to erect a small one-storey building and that was refused by the municipality on account of the municipal rules prohibiting one-storey buildings in the town. It had to have two storeys. Afterwards, I intervened on many occasions and with the support of the municipal council, I obtained the permission to erect a federal building for all federal services.
We have at home the following services: customs, postoffice, Unemployment Insurance Commission offices, manpower services and other agencies of the federal government.
All those services could be in that building but it was closed; offices were sub-leased elsewhere and since then we pay rent. During the last eight years, Mr. Speaker, we paid almost $200,000 for rent elsewhere and buildings that were in very good condition were closed.
In Coaticook, I enjoyed the full co-operation of the civic authorities and we had the honour of obtaining a brand new federal building which could be used to accommodate all federal services. Nothing has changed in Lac Megantic. On five occasions, we have been promised some buildings. Plans and specifications have been drawn up, tender have been drafted and each time they were to be called somebody put a spoke in the wheel. The issue has been used for petty politics.

I have here a letter dated September 1, 1970 and addressed to Mr. Herve Fecteau, clerk of the municipality of Lac Megantic and I quote:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated June 8, 1970 and addressed to the minister, along with copy of the resolution passed on June 1 at a meeting of the municipal council of Lac Megantic and a picture of the former post office to be demolished.
I appreciate your interest in the improvement of postal premises at the above-mentioned location and wish to advise you that we are trying to set up some new premises as requested. Local officials have experienced some difficulty in this connection due to the local building code which specifies that buildings situated in the district where the construction of the new post office is contemplated must have at least two stories. Department officials are considering the possibility of building a property for renting purposes and it is anticipated that tendering will take place about September 1, 1970. Mr. Laing will write to you as soon as we have further information.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has now expired.
I recognize the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet).


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I know some hon. members who, hardly a year after being elected to this House, have obtained post offices. So, I would like to suggest to the hon. member that he should not be too proud of his performance, since he has been waiting for his post office for ten years.
I would also like to remind the hon. member that the things he said to a newsman of the paper La Tribune last weekend and those he stated tonight in this House clearly show that he is off the track concerning the construction of a federal building in Lac Megantic.


Henry P. Latulippe: You are the one who is off the track.


André Ouellet: I went recently to Lac Megantic and I noted the urgency of building a new post office there. Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Department of Public Works has been authorized since April to call for tenders for the construction of a new federal building on the very site of the former Lac Megantic post office. The construction plans provide, in a first phase, for post office facilities and, in a second phase, for other rooms on the second floor designed for other federal departments.
Before that call for tenders, the Unemployment Insurance Commission had asked the Department of Public Works to provide it rapidly with facilities at Lac Megantic.
Now, the Department of Public Works is considering, as it ought to do, the possibility of revising its plans for the immediate construction of a two storey-federal building.
This is the situation, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure the House that my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube), will announce his decision in due time. I am convinced that such a decision will please both the municipal council and the whole population of Lac Megantic, and I hope that the hon. member will approve this decision.
May 29, 1973


POST OFFICE-HE-EXAMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RURAL ROUTES IN WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, on May 23 I asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), as reported at page 4019 of Hansard in part reads as follows:
In view of the fact that the Hutterian Brethren of Canada take vows of poverty and perpetual poverty, and because they are church-employed, would the minister indicate whether he will present legislation to the House to exempt the Hutterian Brethren of Canada from paying Canada Pension Plan premiums?
This minority group living in western Canada has from time to time been severely criticized for the social position they take, but I should like to submit that this group exists and has set up a society on the basis of what they believe to be right; on the religious beliefs that dictate to them the manner of life that they should lead. So the question is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is wondering about the matter being raised by the hon. member. The question which appears on the order tonight has to do with a rural post office. I am wondering if there is some confusion that we can sort out. Perhaps the hon. member will explain the situation.
Adjournment Debate


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if you check the record you will see that the question for the adjournment debate has to do with a rural post office-and I thank the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) for being here-but if you look at Hansard for May 23 you will note that Mr. Speaker suggested that because of the brevity and urgency of this matter it would be the topic under discussion at the adjournment debate, and not the matter of the post office. When I checked with the Clerk at the table I also indicated this. I am sorry about the confusion, but that is the issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The difficulty that arises now is that there might not be anybody here to answer the hon. member's question. If he wants to proceed with the matter, he may do so at the risk of not receiving a reply satisfactory to him. Perhaps a member for the government benches might attempt to answer the question.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Latulippe will answer you.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I realize that the hon. gentleman might feel he is an expert in many areas, but I doubt if that is the case in respect of the Hutterian Brethren of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could defer this question until the next adjournment debate, which will be on Thursday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There is no problem in respect of the request of the hon. member.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Wednesday, May 30, 1973