1973-05-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, according to the request made last week by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I wish to table, under Standing Order 41(2), the terms of reference and the press release relating to the establishment of the inquiry into the penitentiaries in Quebec.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance I wish to table in both official languages the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972.


Mr. Baldwin:: About time-four and a half months late!


HIGH WATER LEVEL IN LAKE ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the increasingly serious threat posed by high water levels on the Great Lakes, a problem now emphasized by the evacuation of more families from their homes along Lake Ontario, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie):
That the government immediately take emergency measures to relieve the hardship suffered by residents of East Hamilton, Salt-fleet Township and other areas, who have been flooded out of their homes along the shores of Lake Ontario, and that the government take short and long-term measures to avoid further threats to the well-being and property of those families.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43, occasioned by the receipt this morning of information in a news release from the Unemployment Insurance Commission on what is called the new approach, and the like. I would therefore like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
This House expresses its appreciation for the distribution to members of the information relating to the Unemployment Insurance Commission reorganization, and further appreciates that it only took the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a period of 42 days to accomplish this feat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member does not wish the Chair to put the motion. I have some hesitation in doing so.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of very urgent and pressing necessity. Since we are now four and a half months into this session and there has been no complete examination of the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1971, it is imperative that the accounts of two years ago be examined immediately before they are of historical interest only. I therefore ask unanimous leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1971-
And because of what the Acting Prime Minister has just done I have now added:
-and for the year ended March 31, 1972, and the reports of the Auditor General thereon, together with the evidence adduced by the committee during the fourth session of the twenty-eighth Parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?

May 23, 1973
Rochdale College


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent. There seems to be no protest, and I am prepared to put the motion to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


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


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion related to a very important matter which is undoubtedly pressing.
It has to do with workers who are screened by manpower centres for retraining in their trade in order to meet the requirements of demand on labour market as well as trade and work regulations and who lose their entitlement to extra unemployment insurance benefits for the duration of this training. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette):
That a special House of Commons committee be instructed to study this serious problem and to make relevant recommendations for amendments to the act and the regulations as well as to Department of Manpower programs tending to facilitate better co-operation between manpower centres and unemployment insurance offices.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity and the motion therefore cannot be put.


HOUSING
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a letter dated April 13 to Judge Carl O. Bick, Chairman, Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police, Toronto, with regard to Rochdale College. It is being tabled because it was mentioned in two adjournment proceedings this week and last and under the rules could not be tabled during those proceedings. It should, I think, be tabled at this time, and

it would be useful if hon. members would give their consent that it be appended to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of letter referred to above, see Appendix A.]


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay) moved: that the first report of the Standing Committee on Regional Development presented to the House on Wednesday, April 18, 1973, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-181, to amend the Narcotic Control Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Narcotic Control Act to provide more severe penalties for the offences of trafficking, possession and importing and exporting narcotics and to deny bail to those persons charged with these offences. The bill represents a declaration of all-out war on those who violate the Narcotic Control Act.


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

Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: for leave to introduce Bill C-182, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (disabled contributor's child).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the disability provisions of the Canada Pension Plan in order to remove an anomaly. The act as it now stands does not permit a disabled parent to include as a
May 23,1973_________________________________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________________________________3995
dependant child, a child born after the time the parent is found to be disabled. In other words, once found to be disabled under the act as it now stands, the pensioner is presumed to be impotent or, at the very least, sterile.


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

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-183, to amend the Cooperative Credit Associations Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Dinsdale: Is the government giving consideration to the request of the People's Republic of China that Consular Offices be opened in the major cities of Canada and, if so, in which cities would the Consulates be located, and at what time would they be operational?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Canadian government wishes to negotiate a consular understanding with the People's Republic of China, we consider that it would be desirable to define the terms of our consular relations before giving more detailed consideration to the Chinese Embassy request to establish a Chinese consular or trade office in a Canadian city outside Ottawa.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): 1.	What was the infant mortality rate among Indians and Inuits between 1964 and 1968, and between 1969 and 1972?
2.	What was the life expectancy of Indian and Inuit males and females in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. See below.
2.	Tables of average life expectancy for Indians and Eskimos (Inuit) for the individual years 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 are not available. Canadian Indians: Average life expectancy (based on mortality for 1965-68): *at age 0, males 60.49, females 65.60; at age 1, males 63.16,
Order Paper Questions
females 67.80.; The only known Eskimo Life Table is based on observations of the mortality experienced amongst Eskimos of the Northwest Territories from 1963 to 1966. One difficulty is that the number of Eskimos involved of either sex, at any year of age, in any one year during the observation period never exceeded 250 and, in fact, only reached that number at birth. In a small racial group only careful observations recorded over an extended period can give any really reliable basis for a life table. The four year period chosen was barely adequate. Observations over a more extended period would probably have resulted in somewhat lower mortality rates. For these reasons the table deals with Eskimos as a whole and cannot be applied to either sex with any degree of accuracy. Canadian Eskimos: Number of years of further life expectancy (based on reported mortality for 1963-66): *at age 0, 50.59; at age 1, 54.85.
'Due to a high incidence of infant mortality, it is necessary to indicate life expectancy at age 0 and at age 1.
Infant Mortality Rates per 1000 Live Births
	Both Sexes Canadian *Eskimos of the	
	Registered'	Northwest
Year	Indians	Territories1964	Not available	93.71965	49.3	95.41966	48.5	108.81967	49.7	83.81968	44.5	89.11969	41.5	90.51970	34.9	105.01971	Data not yet sufficiently	97.81972	complete to permit calculation of rate Data not available	Not available
*Data on Quebec Eskimos are not sufficiently complete to permit rate calculation.
Most provinces no longer report racial origin in vital statistics data.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is any branch or division of the Department of National Health and Welfare pursuing any program of research into the feasibility of the possible practice of acupuncture in Canada and, if so, what is the nature and extent of research and how many researchers are involved?
2.	How many individuals or groups have suggested the clinical utilization of acupuncture techniques?
3.	Has the Department positive knowledge of acupuncture technique being used in Canada and, if so, what and how frequently?
4.	Are there at present any licenced practitioners of acupuncture in Canada and, if so, what is their number and location?

May 23, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Marc Lalonde: 1. No.
2.	The Canadian Medical Association has expressed an interest in evaluating the validity of the technique. Both the Canadian Medical Association and the Federation of Registrars of the Provincial Medical Colleges are in favour of properly conducted research within Canada on this subject. A delegation of Canadian doctors and health administrators visited China from April 20 to May 5, 1973, as guests of the All-China Medical Association. The use of acupuncture in the treatment of certain diseases and also anaesthesia during surgery are amongst the subjects which received particular attention during this tour.
3.	It is known that acupuncture techniques are being examined on a research basis at a number of university medical centres in Canada. These projects are not, however, being financed by the department, with the result that the precise details of techniques and frequency of use are not known.
4.	No. The registration ana licensing of health professionals is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. To date, no province has made specific provisions for the licensing of acupuncturists.


Mr. Nowlan: By federal constituency in the Province of Nova Scotia for the 1972-73 period (a) how many applications for LIP grants were received (b) how many projects were approved (c) what was the total amount in dollars involved (d) how many man weeks of employment were generated by the projects approved?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a) See following Schedule 1 Column 1; (b) See following Schedule 1 Column 2; (c) See following Schedule 1 Column 3; (d) See following Schedule 1 Column 4.
Schedule 1
Number of	Number of	Value of	Man weeks of Work onApplications	Projects	Approved	ApprovedConstituency	Received	Approved	Projects	ProjectsColumn 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4Annapolis Valley	
76	23	$ 801,563	7,401Cape Breton-East Richmond	
50	13	361,193	3,545Cape Breton Highlands-Canso	
212	73	1,933,256	17,360Cape Breton-The Sydneys	
160	48	1,486,103	13,453Central Nova	
105	28	828,820	7,425Cumberland-Colchester North	
92	23	514,911	4,841Dartmouth-Halifax East	
61	20	695,923	6,454Halifax	
135	51	1,546,114	14,283Halifax-East Hants	
48	13	411,926	3,869South Shore	
76	29	623,998	5,828South Western Nova	
82	32	867,270	8,251Totals	
1,097	353	$10,071,077	92,710


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	Does the government intend to enforce Subsection 3 of Section 14 of the Canada Elections Act after JUne 26, 1975 when the right of British subjects to vote will terminate and, if so, what are the plans to publicize this fact?
2.	Will the government give consideration (a) to improving citizenship facilities to cope with the last minute rush of applicants facing disenfranchisement (b) to amending that Section of the Act to eliminate the disenfranchising of the many persons who have spent most of their lives in Canada?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. Pursuant to section 4 of the Canada Elections Act, it is the Chief Electoral Officer who has the statutory responsibility to enforce the provisions of Subsection 14(3) of the Act. The provisions of that subsection were publicized by the Chief Electoral Officer at the recent federal general election through pamphlets and other media. Similar action will be taken in respect of future elections.
2.	Improvement of existing citizenship registration facilities will shortly be carried out; (b) no.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3043


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3043?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 24, 1972.
2. Rejected on March 3, 1973.

May 23, 1973

3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2933


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2933?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 29, 1972.
2.	Rejected February 4, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2789


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2789?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 23, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 5, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
Order Paper Questions
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2572


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2572?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 21, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 23, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2313


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2313?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 2, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 23, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2307


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2307?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
3998

May 23, 1973
Order Paper Questions
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 22, 1972.
2.	Rejected on December 19, 1972.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2261


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2261?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 17, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 28, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1933


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1933?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 20, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 2, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.

4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1932


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1932?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 20, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 29, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1761


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1761?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it? .
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 9, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 22, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1753


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1753?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?

3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 14, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 15, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1552


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1552?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 10, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 27, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than for which there were funds. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1199


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1199?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. October 26, 1972.
2. Rejected on February 26, 1973.
Order Paper Questions
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1029


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1029?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. October 23, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 5, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1018


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1018?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. October 16, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 5, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
26314-36J

May 23, 1973
Order Paper Questions
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6557


Mr. Beaudoin.: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6557?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 17, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 12, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6556


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6556?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 17, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 15, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6394


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6394?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?

5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 12, 1973.
2.	Approved on February 13, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$10,530.
5.	Eighty-six man-weeks of employment.
LIP-APPLICATION OF GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6292?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or reused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 12, 1973.
2.	Approved on February 13, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$12,454.
5.	One hundred and eight man-weeks of employment.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6291


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6291?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 12,
1973.
2.	Rejected on February 6, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
May 23, 1973

4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6148


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6148?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 11, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 9, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6167


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6167?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 11, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 20, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5541


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project H-5541?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
Order Paper Questions
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: 1. January 4, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 16, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5511

Question No. 1,245-Mr. Beaudoin:
1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5511?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 4, 1973.
2.	Rejected on February 15, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5417


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5417?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 2, 1973.
2. Rejected on February 2, 1973.

May 23, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5324


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5324?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 29, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 14, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-5148


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-5148?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 28, 1972.
2.	Rejected on March 12, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.

LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4966


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4966?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 22, 1972.
2.	Approved on February 20, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$9,945.
5.	Eighty-five man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4849


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4849?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 21, 1972.
2.	Approved on February 28, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$48,438.
5.	Four hundred and fourteen man-weeks.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names of all persons employed by, on loan to or attached to, the Office of the Minister of Transport and in each case (a) what are the duties performed by such individuals (b) what are their salaries for the current fiscal year, in dollars?
May 23, 1973


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Order Paper Questions	
Name	Duties		Salary
J. Davey	
Miss C. Carriere	
S. Joyal	
A. Giroux	
G. Black	
Mrs. M. Doyle	
Miss H. Lefort	
M. Renaud	
Mrs. J. Plante	
R. M. Ross	
L. Beasleigh	
R. Charbonneau	
Mrs. R. Grant	
Mrs. C. M. Beauchamp
Miss S. Wood	
Miss L. M. St. Louis...
Miss M. G. Innis	
Miss M. C. Charette...
Miss A. J. Goodwin___
Miss A. Larose	
Miss S. Johnson	
Miss L. Lepine	
Miss M. Dutrisac	
Miss J. Nolet	
Miss L. Leblanc	
Mrs. L. Laflamme	
R. Robert	
J. M. Bergevin	
Mrs. M. Rossiter	
Miss M. Potvin	
Special Advisor (Transportation Matters) on secondment to Minister's Office..	$30,000-35,000
Executive Assistant to Minister	 17,500-20,000
Special Assistant-work in connection with Province of Quebec	 15,000-17,500
Special Assistant-Quebec Constituency Office	 15,000-17,500
Special Assistant-work in connection with all Provinces other than Quebec....	15,000-17,500
Special Assistant-House of Commons	 7,500-10,000
Private Secretary	 9,762-10,728
Driver to the Minister	 7,496- 8,238
Secretarial	 6,233- 6,849
Departmental Assistant	 18,867-21,442
Chief of Administration and Special Projects	 17,482-19,865
Senior Administrative Officer	 14,778-16,796
Administrative Assistant	 8,569- 9,415
Coding Clerk	 6,707- 7,372
Receptionist	 5,486- 6,028
Registry Clerk	 5,486- 6,028
Registry Clerk	 5,486- 6,028
Registry Clerk	 5,486- 6,028
Secretarial	 8,569- 9,415
Secretarial	 7,460- 8,200
and 7 per cent
Secretarial	 6,676- 7,338
and 7 per cent
Secretarial	 6,676- 7,338
and 7 per cent
Secretarial	 6,676- 7,338
and 7 per cent
Secretarial	 6,676- 7,338
and 7 per cent
Administrative Assistant	 9,348-11,133
Registry Clerk	 5,486- 6,028
Messenger	 2.76 per hour
Messenger	 2.76 per hour
Secretarial	 6,676- 7,338
Supervisor of the Support Unit	 7,496- 8,238
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1428


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1428?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 1, 1972.
2.	Approved on December 19, 1972.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$30,420.
5.	Two hundred and sixty man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1722


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1722?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 8, 1972.
2.	Approved on December 4, 1972.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$49,590.
5.	Four hundred and twenty-five man-weeks.

May 23, 1973
Order Paper Questions
LIP-APPLICATION TO GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No.


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2019?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this proj ect?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 15, 1972.
2.	Approved on February 3, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$52,556.
5.	Four hundred and fifty man-weeks.


Mr. Kempling: For the 1971-72 LIP Programme (a) how many LIP projects were financially audited (b) what proportion of LIP projects were financially audited (c) how many individuals were determined as receiving a weekly salary of $200 or more and for each project what was (i) the name of each individual who was paid a salary of over $200 (ii) the specific salary (iii) the number of weeks worked (iv) the total salary each individual received (d) what was the total number of work weeks known to have been paid at a rate of $200 per week, or more (e) what was the total payment known to have been made for weekly salaries in excess of $200 (f) what were the names and number of projects known to have had inadequate work attendance records?


Mark R. MacGuigan: (a) 1395 interim audits and 1623 final audits; (b) 30 per cent (c), (d), (e) and (f) to provide accurate information would involve costly expenditures and the hiring of additional staff resources to undertake the extensive research required.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Did the government decide to discontinue Nutrition Canada and, if so (a) on what date (b) what were the reasons for this decision?
2.	Is it intended to publish a final report of the surveys taken and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the total amount of expenditure on this project to date?


Marc Lalonde: 1. No. The field work for the National Nutrition Survey has been successfully completed, and at present, the data processing is under way and on schedule. It is expected that the laboratory analysis will be completed very shortly.

2.	The Government has already announced its intention to release the provincial reports to the public about mid-October of this year to be followed by release of the statistical findings intended for the use of the scientific community as they are available.
3.	$2,573,000.


Mr. Latulippe: How many LIP projects were approved for the Province of British Columbia and what were the amounts thus granted in each constituency as of March 13, 1973?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 911 (See following schedule for amounts granted to each constituency).
Schedule
Constituency	Amounts Granted

Burnaby-Richmond-Delta	168,070
Burnaby-Seymour	269,063
Capilano	671,712
Coast Chilcotin	1,058,248
Comox-Alberni	1,011,288
Esquimalt-Saanich	115,528
Fraser Valley East	745,265
Fraser Valley West	389,463
Kamloops-Cariboo	1,098,146
Kootenay West	796,085
Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands	703,714
New Westminster	986,098
Okanagan-Boundary	874,836
Okanagan-Kootenay	1,073,683
Prince George-Peace River	1,004,040
Skeena	1,016,978
Surrey	600,824
Vancouver Centre	1,952,847
Vancouver East	1,788,787
Vancouver Kingsway	443,133
Vancouver Quadra	578,548
Vancouver South	152,573
Victoria	1,324,478


Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total cost to the Federal Treasury for each of the Federal Elections held in 1962, 1963, 1965, 1968 and 1972 inclusive?

. '
May 23, 1973

2.	What was the cost of printing the ballots for each of the above years?
3.	Has a study been done on the cost of using voting machines in Federal Elections and, if so, what would be the comparable cost of using such machines over a period of five elections?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: X. 1962, $10,898,486; 1963, $12,463,203.
Note (1):-Comprises the expenditures incurred by electoral districts and expenditures for election materials and supplies by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. 1965, $12,974,456.35; 1968, $13,841,484.08.
Note (2):-In addition to the items referred to in Note (1), these expenditures include items of expense incurred by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer such as express, telephone, postage, etc. 1972, $20,435,277.54.
Note (3):-In addition to items of expenditure contained in Notes (1) and (2), this item includes salaries and wages of casual personnel engaged in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer in respect of the election.
2.	1962, $143,684.81; 1963, $171,628.16; 1965, $178,673.55; 1968, $188,850.69; 1972, $311,472.66.
3.	No; not applicable.


Mr. Danson: 1.	What candidates in the October 1972 Federal Election reported election expenditures in excess of $50,000 in their returns to the Chief Electoral Officer and what amounts were reported by each?
2.	What is the largest sum ever recorded by any candidate in a federal election in the returns to the Chief Electoral Officer?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: 1.
Electoral District	Candidate	Return of Election Expenses filed with Returning OfficerYork North	Stephen B. Roman	. $92,103.00Don Valley	Jim Gillies	. 64,278.85Robert P. Kaplan	. 52,306.48Portneuf	Claude Bernard	. 57,921.96
2. $92,103.
Note 1:-Pursuant to the provisions of section 63 of the Canada Elections Act and its predecessors, a return of election expenses is required to be filed by a candidate and his official agent with the applicable returning officer and not the Chief Electoral Officer. Such information is only requested of returning officers and received by the Chief Electoral Officer as a result of an Order of the House for such information. Such an Order was issued by the House of Commons in respect of the 1949 general election and each subsequent general election. In all cases, the returns, as prepared by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
Order Paper Questions
based on information received from returning officers, have a cut-off date of a few months subsequent to polling day and information is not available respecting returns which may have been filed with returning officers subsequent to the cut-off date.
Note 2:-Information respecting election expenses returns filed with returning officers is not available for elections prior to the 1949 federal general election.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): What was the average increase in salaries given to department heads and deputies in the Public Service in each of the years 1960-72 inclusive?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Records are not available to give details of actual salary increases awarded since 1960; it is possible, however, to give details of the movement of the salary ranges. One difficulty to be taken into account is that in 1968/69, the salary structure for the executive category was changed from single salary rates to salary ranges. (See First Report of the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service.) The figures given below are based on the actual salary of the middle DM level before 1968-69 and on the mid-point of the DM 2 range since 1968-69.
Year	Percentage increase in salary
60-61	5.0
61-62	-
62-63	13.6
63-64	-
64-65	8.0
65-66	-
66-67	6.5
67-68	-
68-69	21.7
69-70	-
70-71	13.6
71-72	6.9


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	Has the Minister or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received a petition from Mr. Moses Smith, a representative of the Cape Smith Eskimo people who are now residing in Povungnituk, Arctic Quebec, and are desirous of returning to their ancestral settlement at Cape Smith, Northwest Territories and, if so (a) on what date was this petition received (b) what action has the Department decided to take on this petition?
2.	For what reason has the Department not invited representatives of the Cape Smith people to Ottawa and Quebec City to discuss their desire to return to Cape Smith, Northwest Territories?

May 23, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes; (a) March 12, 1973; (b) The department arranged a meeting between representatives of the Cape Smith Eskimo people and departmental and N.W.T. officials to discuss the matter further. The meeting was held in Ottawa on April 11, 1973.
2.	See answer to part 1.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What special notices does the Minister of Transport intend to issue to the Canadian and international air traffic of the critical hazard that the proposed 1800 foot CN Tower in downtown Toronto poses?
2.	For what reason did the Minister not exercise his authority under Chapter A-3, Part 1, Section 6(1)(j) of the Aeronautics Act to limit the height of the Tower to the height of other buildings in the area to achieve maximum air safety?
3.	When flight rules are applied that concern "Visual Flight Rules" and "Instrument Flight Rules" flights in the vicinity of high obstacles, how many cubic miles of otherwise navigable airspace will be lost to air traffic presently using Toronto International Airport and Toronto Island Airport as a result of the CN Tower being constructed?
4.	Will the erection of the CN Tower result in the minimum enroute obstacle clearance being raised in that area of Toronto and, if so, to what specific height?
5.	Will the erection of the CN Tower mean that the approach procedures will have to be changed for aircraft landing at the Toronto Island or Toronto International Airports and, if so, what specific procedural changes will be required?
6.	Will the erection of the CN Tower disqualify the Toronto Island Airport from "Instrument Flight Rule" capacity?
7.	Were consultations carried out by DOT, prior to the decision to preceed with the Tower, with the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association or with the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and, if not, for what reason?
8.	Were similar consultations carried out by CN with either CALPA or COPA and, if not, for what reason?
9.	Did CN consult with the Department of Transport seeking approval of their plans prior to the decision being made to approve and proceed?
10.	Were general atmospheric conditions, such as haze and smog, taken into consideration before approval by the Minister was granted and, if so, what were the results of such considerations?
11.	Did the Minister of Transport seek a legal opinion from law officers of the Crown respecting liability for accident claims against the government and the Department of Transport with respect to duties and responsibilities charged to the Minister of Transport under the Aeronautics Act and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what was the opinion or the nature of the opinion?
Hon. Jean M&rchand (Minister of Transport): 1. It is
not intended to issue any special notice indicating that the proposed CN Tower in downtown Toronto is a critical hazard as this is not the case. It is intended, however, to ensure that it is shown on aeronautical charts and in other publications, in order that the flying public will be aware of its location and height.
2.	No specific regulation has been enacted under the section of the Aeronautics Act referred to in the question because it was not determined to be required in the interests of air safety.
3.	The aeronautical study has determined that the tower will have no effect upon airport traffic patterns in the

Toronto area, and will raise the minimum en route altitude of R1 airway from 2,500 to 2,800 feet, but this will not be of any consequence because the minimum flight planning altitude is 3,000 feet.
4.	One minimum en route altitude will be raised on R1 Airways from 2,500 feet to 2,800 feet but this will not be of any consequence as the minimum flight altitude is 3,000 feet.
5.	No procedural changes are anticipated.
6.	No, Toronto Island Airport has no IFR capacity now, for conventional operations, due to existing structures.
7.	No, it is not the practice of the Ministry to consult with industry concerning these matters since the decision to approve or not is based on established specific obstruction clearance criteria which have been discussed with the industry.
8.	This is unknown, but is being investigated.
9.	Yes.
10.	Yes, all factors were considered and it was decided the tower was acceptable.
11.	No. There are no zoning regulations made under the Aeronautics Act relating to this location.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What is the anticipated increase of "airtime" to be allocated for Alberta programs in Alberta?
2.	What are the anticipated increases in Alberta's allocation of budget to cover (a) program production (b) capital equipment (electronic) (c) technical and production staff?
3.	What guaranteed increase of access to television will now be available to Alberta writers, performers, actors, musicians, events, producers, etc.?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. For the fiscal year 1973-74, plans are to increase local CBC radio programming in Alberta by approximately five hours per week. In television, no significant change in the number of local program periods is anticipated for 1973-74, but it is planned to extend the CBXT "Hourglass" period, telecast Monday through Friday, over 43 weeks instead of 39 weeks.
2.	An increase in both CBC operating and capital budgets for Alberta radio and television is anticipated for 1973-74 over the previous fiscal year, over and above normal price increases. The increase for program production, including technical and production staff, would amount to between five per cent and six per cent of the operating budget. The increase for capital equipment would amount to about sixty per cent of the capital budget. It should be noted that despite this apparent disproportion in the percentage figures, the dollar increase in the operating budget for program production will actually be several times greater than the dollar increase in the capital budget for equipment. This is due to the fact that the operating budget is much larger than the capital budget, hence the bases from which the percentages were calculated are not comparable.

3.	The projected over-all increase in talent spending for 1973-74 over the previous fiscal year amounts to approximately ten per cent.


Mr. Leggatt: What is the charge, at Toronto, for a single economy fare dinner served by Air Canada and supplied by CARA Operations Ltd.?


Jean Marchand: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: Details of contracts are proprietary information.


Mr. MacLean: Is it the intention of the Department of National Revenue to discontinue the practice of sending personalized tax return forms to the poor elderly people who could not possibly be liable for income tax, capital gains tax, tax on recapture of capital cost allowance or Canada Pension Plan contributions and, if not, for what reason is it being continued?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: At the request of the government of the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba only, personalized returns were mailed to all taxpayers of the said provinces who were receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, to ensure that each would have an Income Tax return on which to claim his provincial tax credit. Since it is in the interest of elderly persons to have the opportunity to obtain a provincial tax credit to which they may be entitled, the department will continue to distribute personalized tax forms to elderly people of these provinces.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	To the knowledge of the government is Lockheed Shipbuilding Company, Seattle, Washington, currently in the process of constructing two polar icebreakers within the order of 100,000 horsepower each, with estimated completion date later this year?
2.	Does the government consider that such icebreakers would be used for the American North Slope oil and gas deposits?
3.	If the North Slope reserves are accessible and ice free 12 months of the year, then in what areas does the government think such polar icebreakers will be employed?
4.	Would the government consider the use of U.S. icebreakers in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago in the interest of Canadian claims to sovereignty?
5.	Has there been any consultation between Ottawa and Washington on the use of such icebreakers, for probable use in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and (a) if so, what use are they intended (b) if not, for what reason?
6.	Has there been any technical consultation with regard to these polar icebreakers with respect to design or construction characteristics with the Canadian authorities and the U.S. authorities and (a) if so, of what nature (b) if not, for what reason?
7.	(a) Does the above information in terms of a U.S. construction plan for polar icebreakers have any influence on Canadian plans to do the same in terms of projected date of necessity (b) is such a
Order Paper Questions
plan being accelerated in the light of the U.S. development capability?


Jean Marchand: 1. Yes, two vessels with a shaft horsepower in excess of 60,000 and scheduled for completion in 1974 and 1976.
2.	If the U.S. intends to ship oil and gas out of the North Slope area by surface tanker, it is likely that their new icebreakers would provide assistance, if required.
3.	The Antarctic.
4.	In accordance with existing Canada-U.S. agreements, U.S. vessels and aircraft assist in search and rescue operations if requested to do so. Canadian ships and aircraft also assist in U.S. waters.
5.	(a) No; (b) none has been required.
6.	There has been technical consultation, U.S. officials have visited Canadian ships and Canadian officials are visiting Lockheed.
7.	(a) No; (b) no.


Mr. Matte: 1.	How many industries established in the constituency of Champlain received grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	What are the names of such industries and what amount did each receive?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. From the coming into force of the Regional Development Incentives Act to March 31, 1973, there were 13 net accepted offers in the Constituency of Champlain.
2. The names of the companies and the amount of the accepted offers are as follows:
Estimated Amount of Incentive
Company	Grant

Spliced Veneer Specialties Ltd.	21,400
D.P.M. Thibault Inc.	18,831
Industries Zodiac Lt6e	126,300
Produits Labonte Inc.	20,275
Fonderie Gosselin Inc.	7,035
Godin Knitting Inc.	16,000
Jos. Paquin & Fils Ltee	62,950
Adrien Vohl Ltee	65,502
Skirt Togs Industries Limited	174,600
Gerard Fugere Ltee	50,000
Construction Marmico Inc.	41,940
Eloi Moisan Inc.	22,940
Groleau Inc.	29,000

May 23, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): In the constituency of Charlevoix (a) how many wharfs have been staffed with guards (b) what are the names of such guards
and their date of appointment (c) how much are they paid or what type of remuneration do they receive?


Jean Marchand: (a)
Seventeen.
(b)
Location
Wharfinger	Date of
Appointment
Baie Ste. Catherine (Anse-au-Portage)	 Cyranius Boulianne
Bergeronnes	 Luc Guay	
Cap-a-L'Aigle	 Laurent Mailloux...
Forestvflle	 Armand Can tin....
lie aux Coudres (North and South)	 J. K. Tremblay________
St. Simeon (Old Wharf)	 Adrien Tremblay..
Tadoussac (Anse a L'Eau, Anse a Tadoussac)	 Pierre Tremblay...
La Petite Riviere St. Francois	 Mr. Aime Racine..
Les Eboulements	 Jacques Tremblay.
Les Escoumains	 C. E. Boucher	
Pointe-au-Pic	 Edgar Desbiens....
Sacre Coeur (Grosse Roche)	 Ulysee Maltais	
Ste. Irenee	 Wilfred Girard	
23/ 2/71 8/12/59 1/ 7/03 20/ 3/52 16/11/03 1/ 4/00 /9 4/46 7/ 9/65 15/ 5/54 29/ 9/39 1/12/64 8/ 1/56 3/ 4/67
(c) Wharfingers receive annual remuneration for their services on a commission or percentage basis. They are paid a portion of the wharfage tolls and dues collected for the use of the wharf at the following rates: 100 per cent of the first $100 collected; 90 per cent of the next $300 collected; 50 per cent of the next $300 collected; 25 per cent of the next $1,800 collected; 15 per cent of the next $13,500 collected and 5 per cent of any remainder.


Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Under the Department of Communication's Canadian Technology Satellite Program does NASA receive complete design and test information on Canadian developed technology and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What assurances does Canada have that NASA commercial division will not transmit design data to American communications industries?
3.	Is the government subsidizing development costs of American industry by sending complete design data packages to NASA?
4.	Is NASA reciprocating by sending design data details and drawings of their subsystem to the Department of Communications?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: 1.	No. NASA does not receive complete design and test information on Canadian developed technology under the joint DOC-NASA Communications Technology Satellite (CTS) program. However, this is a joint program covered by a formal Memorandum of Understanding and there is a joint obligation to ensure the satellite is technically viable. There is, therefore, an exchange of technical information to this end and also to permit the proper integration and testing of the various subsystems contributed to the program by DOC and NASA.
2.	NASA has undertaken to respect the confidentiality of information received under this joint program.
3.	No.

4.	There is an exchange of technical information as noted in the answer to Question No. 1.


Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Is the Canadian Technology Satellite Program the first in which the government is acting as a spacecraft general contractor?
2.	What practical business experience do the Canadian Technology Satellite project manager and program manager have in general contracting?
3.	Have these gentlemen ever been employed by private industry in the capacity of managers?
4.	Does the reported program cost of fity-one million dollars include the cost of government supplied services, personnel, materials and accommodation?
5.	What is the expected total cost of the Canadian Technology Satellite Program?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	No. The Alouette I satellite was produced primarily within government laboratories with a small portion of the work being done through contract with industry. The Alouette II satellite was produced with the government acting as prime contractor much in the manner of the CTS satellites.
2.	The CTS program manager has had twenty years of experience in the management of research and development programs involving large contracts with business firms. The CTS project manager has had eleven years experience in management involving large contracts with business firms, including the Alouette and ISIS series of satellites.
3.	No.
4.	The estimates given in the Blue Book include direct costs of government personnel employed on the project, of materials and the capital cost of the spacecraft assembly and test laboratory.
May 23, 1973

5.	The estimated cost of the Communications Technology Satellite program, as reported in the Blue Book, is $51,143 million.


Mr. Saltsman: 1.	Is a NASA cost control system being imposed (unaltered) on the Canadian Technology Satellite Program and, if so, for what reason?
2.	For what reason is the cost control system being changed in the middle of the program?
3.	What evidence of poor cost control caused this system to be implemented?
4.	What is the estimated cost of implementing the new cost control system?
5.	What delay or disruption of the program might the new system cause?
6.	What is the estimate of savings expected as a result of the new management control system?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. No.
2.	There has not been a change in the cost control system for the CTS program as a whole. New procedures in cost reporting are being introduced in the normal course of moving into the manufacturing phase of the CTS program.
3.	Same as Question 2.
4.	Same as Question 2.
5.	None.
6.	Same as Question 2.


Mr. Saltsman: Is it the policy of the government to give Canadian industry experience in the design and construction of communication satellites and, if so, for what reason does the Canadian Technology Satellite Program management continue to convert contractor's employees to civil service positions?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes. There has been no substantial conversion of contractors employees to Civil Service positions. There are approximately 350 Canadian contractor employees working on the CTS program at the employer's premises and sixty-six contractor employees, twenty-eight private contract personnel and twenty Public Service personnel working on the CTS program at the Communications Research Centre. Of this number, two former contractor's employees have won PSC competitions for permanent public service positions and two more have been hired as term public servants for the duration of the CTS program.


Mr. Saltsman: Have the Canadian Technology Satellite Project Manager and the Canadian Technology Satellite Program Manager sent copies
Order Paper Questions
of their confidential budget and schedule contingencies to the contractor's management and, if so, for what reason?


Gérard Pelletier: One senior manager from each of the two major Canadian contractors was retained by the Program Manager in an advisory capacity to help assess the impact of program redefinition. Since cost and schedule, as well as technical parameters were involved this information was provided as essential background data.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the Department of Transport been examining the situation of the causeway and bridge to Birch Island in Sand Lake, Township of South Crosby, County of Leeds, Ontario and, if so (a) on what date was this examination begun (b) what date will it be concluded (c) what are the results?
2.	Specifically will the Department of Transport take steps towards removal of this causeway and bridge as requested by municipal officials and property owners in the area?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Ministry of Transport is examining the situation of the causeway and bridge to Birch Island in Sand Lake, Township of South Crosby, County of Leeds, Ontario, (a) April 12, 1973; (b) no firm date has been determined; (c) investigation is continuing.
2. If the owners do not comply with the conditions of the approval given under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, steps will be taken towards removal of this causeway and bridge.


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): 1.	What conditions did the Department of Regional Economic Expansion set for the granting of $12,000 to the Bergeronnes Airport?
2.	Were the conditions met?
3.	If no condition was set, for what works was the grant made?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. The
Department of Regional Economic Expansion has not provided any grant to the Bergeronnes Airport.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of April 18, 1973, what were the total number of signed contracts executed by the Export Development Corporation and still outstanding under section 29 of the Export Development Act?
2.	As of the same date, what were the total liabilities outstanding under section 29 of the Act and what was the relationship of such liabilities to the statutory ceiling on section 29 financing?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to that question is somewhat lengthy, I would

May 23, 1973
Order Paper Questions
suggest that it be printed in today's Hansard as having been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer to the above question follows:]
Export Development Corporation states that:
(1)	the total number of signed contracts executed by the Export Development Corporation and still outstanding under section 29 of the Export Development Act, as of April 18, 1973, was 130; and
(2)	(i) notes receivable under section 29 of the Export Development Act, for which the foreign customers' liability under section 30 at any time may not exceed $850 million ($1,500 million following the amendment to section 30 on that day), amounted to $513.8 million as at April 18, 1973; in addition the Corporation had signed loan agreements aggregating $377.0 million outstanding on that date which, subject to the fulfilment of the terms and conditions of these agreements, may result in a foreign customer liability of the same amount; and (ii) as of April 18, 1973, the relationship of the total liabilities mentioned in paragraph (i) to the statutory ceiling on section 29 financing, was that the liabilities were $336.2 million lower than the ceiling, fixed in section 30, as it stood before the amendment which came into force on that day; Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, received Royal Assent on that day, and following that amendment, the liabilities were $986.2 million lower than the ceiling.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): With reference to Section 14 of the Customs Tariff Act and to Item 99201-1 of Schedule "C" of the Customs Tariff, what are the titles, in alphabetical order, of all the books and phonograph records currently prohibited entry to Canada?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Material related to this tariff item is treated in the same manner as other imported goods in that each shipment is examined and classified as admissible or prohibited and the importer is provided with a ruling in each case. Because of the volume of titles and issues of the publications involved and the innumerable changes in both their titles and content, it has been found impractical to maintain a list as such. Accordingly, the information requested is not available.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1. What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of

Supply and Services on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE-UNILINGUAL AND BILINGUAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. Latulippe: What is the percentage of (a) unilingual (i) French employees (ii) English employees (b) bilingual employees in each department in the National Capital area?
Return tabled.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

Mr. Grier: 1.	What are the reasons for the differences in the monthly counts of unemployed persons by the Labour Force Survey (Statistics Canada), the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration (clients without employment and seeking employment)?
2.	What are the pertinent definitions of unemployed persons in each of the three above cases?
3.	What is the reconciliation, in quantitative terms, of the three counts of the unemployed?
4.	What is the explanation of the residual amounts, if any?
Return tabled.



FOREIGN AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Mr. Haliburton: 1.	What was the total amount of foreign aid given to developing countries during the years 1960, 1965, 1968 and 1972?
2.	What amount of such monies were given in aid to member countries of various international organizations of which Canada is a member (a) what Commonwealth countries and in what amounts (b) what Association of Francophone countries and in what amounts (c) what members of the United Nations exclusive of Parts (a) and (b) and in what amounts (d) other countries?
Return tabled.



CUSTOMS OFFICES

Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many Customs Offices are there in Canada and where is each located?
2.	What was the total cost to maintain and staff each Customs Office in Canada for each of the years 1960-72 inclusive?
3.	How many Customs Officers are there in each of the Customs Offices in Canada?
Return tabled.



GAME SANCTUARIES

Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): How many game sanctuaries are there in Canada and (a) where is each located (b) what is the size of each (c) what type of game is protected in each (d) how much is the cost to the government to maintain each sanctuary?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order for the third or fourth time with regard to question No. 1769. On two previous occasions the parliamentary secretary told the House he would look into the matter to see when the answer would be forthcoming. This question concerns the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group and the employment for the previous five years of the personnel of that group. All other questions on this subject have been answered. I have been unable to get an answer from the government as to why they will not answer this specific question. Could I be enlightened today in this regard by the parliamentary secretary or the Solicitor General?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, that question will be answered on Monday.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire from the parliamentary secretary about question No. 1047 which has been on the order paper in my name since February 20. I may say I do not feel I have overburdened the order paper with questions. I put this'question on the assumption it would have been answered long before one is called upon to make any decision on the estimates of the fisheries services of the Department of the Environment. I would like to have an answer before that deadline is reached because my position on certain aspects of the estimates hinges on the answer to this question.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this matter, but from a cursory look at the question it is evident that it involves answers from as many as three or four departments.



MOTION FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motion for the production of papers Nos. 214, 216 and 220 are acceptable to the government.



TRIDENT STEAMSHIPS LIMITED-COPY OF FREIGHT TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 214-Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Trident Steamships Limited freight tariff.
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 216-Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the full particulars as to ownership of vessel M. V. Travetal.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 220-Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the full particulars as to ownership of the vessels, M. V. Chimo and M. V. Cabot.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 217 and 218.



CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION AND NEWFOUNDLAND STEAMSHIPS LIMITED-COPY OF AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 217-Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the agreement between Canadian Transport Commission and Newfoundland Steamships Limited.
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement between the Canadian Transport Commission and Newfoundland Steamships Limited. In these circumstances the hon. member may be willing to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



NEWFOUNDLAND STEAMSHIPS LIMITED-COPY OF FREIGHT TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 218-Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of Newfoundland Steamships Limited freight tariff.
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Steamships Limited is not required to file freight tariffs with the Canadian Transport Commission under any statute. Hence the tariff is not available from government sources. In these circumstances, the hon. member may be willing to withdraw his motion.


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue this matter as this steamship company is receiving a subsidy from the government. I ask that it be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions stand.

May 23, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister will recall that on February 12 he gave an assurance that the transportation costs of Lloyd Oppel and Marc Cayer, prisoners recently released from Viet Nam, would be paid. His words were:
. . . my instructions are that the public should pay the expense of the return of these two Canadians.
Can the minister explain why on April 5 Marc Cayer was sent a bill under the auspices of the Minister's department for $1,275.50-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and a follow-up letter on May 5 demanding payment of this sum, though admittedly some $50 odd related to clothing to replace the prisoner's uniform and is not strictly transportation? Has the minister any explanation to give as to why the assurance he gave at that time has not been lived up to?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cayer has not been sent any bill. Mr. Cayer has been asked by my department to let us have a response to the list of the expenses that Mr. Cayer presented to the organization called International Voluntary Services. At no time has Mr. Cayer been asked to pay any of these expenses.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not, of course, wish to question the word of the minister, but do I understand him to say that no bill in the amount of $1,275.50 has been sent to Marc Cayer for transportation or other expenses following his release as a prisoner in Viet Nam, and that no follow-up letter of any sort was sent to Marc Cayer on May 5 seeking payment of this amount?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on May 1 the director of consular operations of my department wrote to Mr. Cayer asking him what results he had got from the submission of his account to International Voluntary Services.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Taking the minister at his word, of course, why did he say in the House on February 12 that his instructions, I take it to his department, were that these accounts were to be paid at the expense of the public, and then change his position?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in position. At no time has the government asked Mr. Cayer to pay any part of his expenses.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While we are on Viet Nam, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether or not the government has advised Canadian personnel on the ICCS that they should be prepared to withdraw-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously that is not a supplementary. I recognize that the hon. member may have an important question to ask. When we have completed the first round of questioning the hon. member will be given the opportunity to ask that question as a leading question rather than as a supplementary.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT DECISION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister at the conference of first ministers, may I pose a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. During the question period yesterday, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver South, the Prime Minister stated that a decision was made by the government with respect to something concerning the Mackenzie valley route. May I ask the minister what decision has been made by the government with respect to that question?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the response to the actual question. The decision I have in mind is the decision to proceed with a highway in the Mackenzie valley, and the decision made specifically on the timing of it and the ecological studies that would precede any further construction in the valley.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that none of the questions asked yesterday-I was not in the House but I have read them carefully-had to do with a highway but with a pipeline, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether the government has made any decision respecting a pipeline, gas or oil, down the Mackenzie valley?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government has put before the House and the public several times in the last several years some guidelines with respect to the development of a Mackenzie valley corridor, in the first place, and, second, with respect to development of pipeline routes in particular. Those decisions have been made. With regard to the construction or non-construction of a pipeline, of course no decision has been made, and under the law passed by parliament the government will not be presented with that question until an application has been made to the National Energy Board and that board has found in favour of the application and referred it to the government for decision.
May 23, 1973


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the decision he is now talking about bears no relation at all to the invitation he has informed the House has been publicly made to corporations to make application to the National Energy Board? Has that invitation in fact been made and, if so, has the government made up its mind that a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley is desirable?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have not made up our minds on the last question because we do not know all the facts. Indeed, we will not know all the facts until a specific proposal is put before us. Of course, the law has always been there with regard to the making of an application, but we have indicated within the past 12 months that we are completing our studies for the purpose of evaluating such an application and that we expect about the end of this year to be in a position to evaluate any application that comes forward. For that reason we have not issued an invitation to any specific group, but we have indicated that we are in a position to deal with such an application under the law.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or in his absence to his parliamentary secretary.
Considering the mess in the administration of the department concerning the co-ordination of the manpower retraining program on one hand and the unemployment insurance benefits on the other, can the minister or his parliamentary secretary tell us what steps have been taken to ensure better understanding between both divisions of the department in order to remove penalties levied by the Unemployment Insurance, Commission on citizens enrolled in the retraining program?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the question. If the hon. member could be more specific either here or elsewhere, we would try to get him an answer.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask about Canada's role
Oral Questions
in the International Commission of Control and Supervision. Has the government issued any advice or instructions to the Canadian participants to be prepared to withdraw early in July and, if so, on the basis of what advice, and can we construe that to mean that in fact the government has now arrived at a tentative decision?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet made a final decision on the matter. No instructions have been released. I was as puzzled as the hon. member by the reference in what I understood is a weekly newspaper in Nova Scotia.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, it is one of the finest weekly newspapers in Canada. As we approach the time of decision-making and in light of the extreme importance of this question to Southeast Asia, has the government made any overtures or taken any initiative with the signatories to the agreement in respect of this incredible cease-fire, if you will, and proposed specific initiatives that the commission might pursue such as inspection in relation to persons detained as so-called political prisoners?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it has been the purpose of the Canadian delegation to the International Control Commission to see that the commission itself carries out the terms of the peace agreement. It has certain limited responsibilities for the exchange of prisoners, civilian prisoners included, but these are very limited. As my hon. friend may have noticed, Michel Gauvin has been promoting these purposes and we are very anxious, as I am sure all hon. members are, to see the release of all civilian prisoners, whether held by the South Viet Nam government or by the PRG.


VIET NAM-INSPECTION BY CONTROL COMMISSION OF PLACES WHERE CIVILIAN PRISONERS HELD
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question really covers the same ground, but I should like to ask the minister specifically whether Ambassador Gauvin has sought to have the control commission arrange for the inspection of camps and prisons where civilian prisoners are being held in South Viet Nam, whether administered by the Provisional Revolutionary Government or the other government and, if so, what success has he had in his endeavours to arrange for such inspections?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the provisions of the peace agreement, they provide that the International Control Commission shall simply check that the people who are being released are the people included on a list. Its responsibilities otherwise are very limited. The Red Cross organization, of which it was thought at one time that Canada might provide a unit, has other responsibilities but so far these have not been discharged. The situation is not very promising except in one respect, and that is that a large number of civilian prisoners have already been released under the supervision of the ICCS.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

May 23, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that we would limit as much as possible the number of supplementary questions. The hon. member might ask his supplementary question and then the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings might ask his-order, please; the hon. member might resume his seat for a moment-and following that I will recognize the hon. member for Peace River.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister answered whether Ambassador Gauvin has written a letter to the other members of the commission asking that the commission act together in respect of prisoners.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would doubt very much that Mr. Gauvin would have done that. We are finding enough difficulty in enforcing the terms of the peace agreement and trying to get the other members to agree with us that we do not want to extend the responsibilities until the commission has discharged the responsibilities laid upon it by the peace agreement.


SOUTH VIET NAM-POLITICAL PRISONERS-REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET GROUP PRESENTING PETITION
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact a considerable group of public-spirited Canadians is in Ottawa today and tomorrow who desire to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs about this matter of political prisoners in South Viet Nam and claim to have specific knowledge that as many as 5,000 are being held, is the minister planning to see this group today or tomorrow, and does he have any information about the possibility of such a large number of political prisoners being held in South Viet Nam?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman made a slip of the tongue. The group in Ottawa today that has presented this petition with many thousands of signatures is claiming there are 200,000 political prisoners in South Viet Nam. If possible, and if the question period does not last too long, I intend to see this delegation.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as acting head of the government and Acting Minister of Finance. In view of the problems created by the difficulties the Auditor General has experienced in recruiting staff, and in light of the fact that a new bill was to be presented to cover the situation about which the Auditor General states in the report just tabled, "I consider the draft bill in the form proposed to be highly satisfactory and have no hesitation in commending it to the Public Accounts Committee and to the House", will the hon. gentleman do what can be done to facilitate the presentation of this bill to that committee and ultimately to the House?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the initiative taken in preparing the new draft bill and I heartily agree that it should be studied by the Public Accounts Committee. However, I think it would be extremely useful to have the comments of the newly appointed Auditor General before proposing it to the House.


MANPOWER
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning the one asked to him by the hon. member for Charlevoix.
Since the parliamentary secretary answered that he did not understand the question thoroughly and that this is an extremely important matter, I want to ask him the following question: Since manpower centre officials are making inquiries to find workers qualified to undergo retraining and since the persons who follow those courses receive from the Manpower centres allowances which are lower than Unemployment insurance benefits, may I urge the parliamentary secretary to examine this matter very seriously in order to do justice to that category of persons?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a representation and we will examine it as such.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the minister's statement in the House that he has been studying for five months his department's irregular practice of opening tenders for government work in secret, in view of the minister's statement 12 days ago that he had that day received a report on this subject from his officials, and in view of reports that over $100 million a month is still being awarded by his department after tenders are opened in private, some 11,600 contracts worth over $1 billion having been signed in the past 12 months, would the minister now inform the House if he is prepared to end this highly questionable and in fact shameful procedure immediately?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will not ask the hon. member to rephrase the question because we have already taken some time during the question period, but hon. members appreciate, I am sure, that questions worded in
May 23, 1973

this way are really not regular. Hon. members should ask questions and not put questions that include statements or are prefaced with suggested facts and figures. Hon. members should seek information, not provide information as part of the questions they pose during the question period. All this having been said, the minister might be given an opportunity to reply.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not accept these premises as the hon. member has formulated them. I have indeed received the report. I have already studied it with the department officials. It is a very complex matter, involving a large number of problems, but I shall be glad to give the hon. member any further information he may desire. I intend to continue with my study. For the hon. member's guidance, and to throw light on some points he has already raised, let me say the Ontario practice is exactly the same as that of the federal government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Would the minister explain why his department has found it necessary to order from the private sector hundreds of thousands of forms to be printed at a cost of several million dollars where tenderers are given as little as eight business hours to submit their tenders and then the tenders are opened in secret?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister should be given an opportunity to reply, but I suggest to the hon. member for York-Simcoe that his second question is the type of question that should normally be put on the order paper.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would not want the hon. member to be allowed to smuggle in that kind of allegation without some kind of response.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I will be glad to look into that allegation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: So it is true.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: But as hon. members know, supplies are normally obtained through the Department of Supply and Services, and I presume-


George Harris Hees: On the advice of the Liberal organization.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -that that was the case. No doubt the usual procedures were followed, but I will be glad to inquire and advise the hon. member.
Oral Questions ENERGY


CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ARISING FROM PROPOSAL SUPERTANKER PORT IN GROS CACOUNA-ILE VERTE AREA OF QUEBEC
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. It has to do with the proposed supertanker port in the Gros Cacouna-Ile Verte region of Quebec. In view of the fact that the McGill University Marine Science Centre report published in December states that from an environmental point of view lie Verte is probably the worst possible site for an oil tanker terminal in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, would the minister inform the House whether the government has given full consideration to the environmental problems entailed in the building of a supertanker port in the Cacouna-Ile Verte area of the St. Lawrence River?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the government is vitally concerned with the environmental problems associated with supertanker port construction anywhere on Canada's east or west coasts. This is increasingly so in respect of inland or close-in locations such as the one the hon. member mentioned.


POSSIBLE SUPERTANKER PORT IN ILE VERTE REGION-PROPOSED DELIVERY OF OFFSHORE OIL ACROSS OTTAWA VALLEY LINE-GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the proposal to build a supertanker port in the lie Verte region also includes a proposal to deliver offshore oil landed at that port across the Ottawa valley line and possibly to Oswego, New York, would the minister inform the House whether or not the government is preparing to change the national oil policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, of course any proposal of that kind would have to receive the approval of the National Energy Board. At the present time we do not have any intention of changing the policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I appeal to hon. members. Will the hon. member resume his seat. If there are two or three supplementaries to each question we will find ourselves short of time. Hon. members will have only themselves to blame if only a few members are recognized during the question period. The hon. member wishes to ask a third question.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, my question is now directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact the resources minister of the province of Quebec stated last December that approval had been received from the federal authorities for this supertanker port, could the Acting Prime Minister please inform the House who in the federal government has given this reported approval?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

4016_____________________________
Oral Questions PROPOSED SUPERTANKER ROUTE IN PLACENTIA BAY AREA-CONSULTATION WITH FISHERMEN


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries and it concerns the tanker route corridors being planned for eastern Canada, in particular in the Placentia Bay area where a large refinery is about to go into production. Can the minister say whether these corridors will be specifically for supertankers or will they involve other shipping as well? Can the minister also tell us whether fishermen in the area are being consulted in the negotiations dealing with these corridors?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is close consultation not only with fishermen but between the federal and provincial departments concerned with developments of this kind. It should be noted in this case that the provincial government took the decision to build a refinery in that area, and the tanker problem is a serious one.


HIGH WATER LEVEL OF LAKE ONTARIO IN HAMILTON
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Can he advise the House whether he is in receipt of a telegram from the secretary of the Hamilton Board of Control reading in part that the high level of Lake Ontario in Hamilton harbour has caused serious flooding conditions and damage to residences on the beach strip in the east section of Hamilton? Is the minister aware of such a telegram or has the city of Hamilton made any representations in this regard to him?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not personally seen the telegram but I will make inquiries to see if it has been delivered during the question period.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Because of the urgency of the matter the telegram has been circulated to members from that area. In light of the urgency of the situation, can the minister assure the House, and particularly members from the Hamilton area, that a meeting will be set up with his department and officials of the city of Hamilton in order to look into the possibility of long-term and short-term measures to alleviate the situation? Can he give us that assurance?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, I think I can. However, as is normally the case, we will work closely with the provincial government in this regard. As the hon. member knows, the Canada Centre for Inland Waters is located nearby.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that hundreds of commercial cattle, particularly grade bulls, have been imported into Canada, causing a financial burden for the established Canadian purebred cattlemen, would the minister report to the House why he has not demanded that import tariffs on cattle from the United States be immediately reinstated until such time as a reciprocal agreement can be negotiated with the United States government?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time this has been brought to my attention-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Where have you been?


Eugene Whelan: -at least in the same terminology that has been used by the hon. member to emphasize that a certain species of animal is coming into Canada. I will check on the bull shipments as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have asked this question in the House. Some 50 cattlemen travelled distances of up to 150 miles and asked me, on my third try, to get an answer from the Minister of Agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I met the Canadian Cattlemen's Association last week. We went over all these figures on the movement of cattle both ways across the border, both out of Canada and into Canada, and it was not pointed out to me that there was any large movement of bulls into Canada.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister tell the House whether he has decided to prosecute five major can companies in Ontario for false or misleading advertising as a result of their full-page newspaper advertisements and radio announcements which lead the public to believe that soft drink cans are being recycled and therefore are not a pollution problem, when in fact less than 2 per cent of the garbage processing facilities in the province now have this capability?
May 23, 1973


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is that the matter is presently being studied by officials of the combines branch.


Ronald George Atkey: Is the minister aware that the only plant having the capability referred to in the advertisements is the plant in the city of Hamilton, the so-called solid waste reduction unit, and that it does not seem to be working because it cannot separate other garbage from the tin cans?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have read the same article as the hon. member.


AVAILABILITY OF SHIPS FOR MOVEMENT OUT OF THUNDER BAY-POSSIBLE GRAIN HANDLERS STRIKE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Has the minister ascertained whether shipments of grain out of Thunder Bay are being seriously jeopardized because of Russian grain ships being tied up in the American gulf ports and, further, has the government taken any action to herd off a grain handlers' strike?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour commented in the House yesterday that this labour problem is at the conciliation stage and he is watching it very closely, representing our earnest concern to see that grain continues to move. The hon. member is right in thinking that the problem the United States is facing in bringing grain to the gulf ports particularly and loading it on ships is having some effect on the presentation of ships in Canadian ports, and as a result not as much grain is moving out of Thunder Bay as we would have the capacity to load if ships were presenting themselves.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works.
Is he aware that tenders for the construction of a post office or federal building in Lac Megantic were supposed to be called six years ago, that they have never been called and that it was recently decided irrevocably that these same tenders were to be called by the end of April 1973? Will the minister tell us what has been done about this and when the tenders will be properly called?


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to the hon. member, as I did before, that questions having to do with calling of tenders for construction of post offices should normally be put on the order paper.
Oral Questions


THUNDER BAY GRAIN HANDLERS DISPUTE-CONSULTATION WITH COMPANIES ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SEVEN-DAY WEEK
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether, in regard to the Thunder Bay dispute, he has had consultations with the grain companies on a seven-day week, and whether he is putting any pressure on them to establish a seven-day week in the Thunder Bay area terminals?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not had direct consultations in a recent period of time with the companies concerning this matter. However, I think it is well known to the industry generally that it is the view of everyone, I believe, who has considered the matter that it is much more expeditious for the total movement of grain, and therefore advantageous from a cost point of view, if a seven-day operation exists throughout the whole delivery and handling system.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In the light of the announcement last week by the Minister of State in charge of cultural affairs of government assistance for the ethnic press, when will the Postmaster General be announcing the rescinding of the sharp increases in postal rates that have forced some of the ethnic papers out of business?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but there was so much noise that I could not understand the hon. member's question. I could perhaps read it in Hansard and reply to it tomorrow.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might like to repeat the question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to repeat the question because it is an important one. In the light of the policy announcing support of the ethnic press in Canada, when will the Postmaster General be rescinding the sharp increases in postal rates that have forced many of those papers out of production?
[ Transla tion]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, there are various ways to help the press I think, the ethnic press especially. Projects have been drafted for this specific purpose. This has nothing to do, I believe, with current rates at the Post Office.
4018	______________________COMMONS DEBATES____________________May 23, 1973
Oral Questions


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact Mr. Douglas Fullerton has now entered upon his duties as chairman of the task force with respect to the national capital, has the government made any decision with regard to the methods of investigation to be followed by this task force? Specifically, has it decided whether or not the practice of public hearings will be urged upon the chairman so that in formulating his opinion he will have the benefit of the views of all interested parties with respect to this question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the chairman, who commences the duties to which the hon. member referred in June, made statements yesterday as to the method that he envisaged in carrying on his study. He envisaged proceedings more along the line studies and analysis and research projects which would then form the basis of his report. I am sure that the chairman, of course, would welcome whatever views people wish to provide him with. Further, in the announcement of his assuming this task for the government it was envisaged that the government would give consideration, as I mentioned before, to parliamentary hearings on that study. These hearings, of course, would be public proceedings and, hopefully, would be accompanied by briefs and comments not only from members of parliament but from all sectors not only of the national capital region but of the country by people who are concerned about developments in the national capital.


Walter David Baker: Would the minister consider discussing the question of public hearings with Mr. Fullerton in view of the importance of this subject to the Ottawa area?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I really think that the place for public hearings is a function of parliament and of the parliamentary committee, but I will be happy to discuss the hon. member's comment with the chairman.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he table in the House copies of the account rendered Marc Cayer on April'5 and of the letter written to him on or about May 1. Also, has the minister any explanation as to why this account was sent for collection from International Voluntary Services, as the minister suggests, in view of his statement that his instructions were that the public should pay the bill and in view of the fact, as I understand it, that quite properly no similar account was sent to Lloyd Oppel?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the assumption had been that the former employer of Mr. Cayer, International Voluntary Services, might wish to pay part of these costs, but that is for them to say. All we have asked Mr. Cayer to do is to let us know the response of International Voluntary Services. At no time have we ever submitted an account for payment to Mr. Cayer. I have the correspondence here but I have only one copy. I think I must table it in two copies, and I will do so.


REQUEST THAT HARBOURS BOARD TERMINAL NO. 2, VANCOUVER, BE UTILIZED FOR MOVEMENT OF SPECIALTY CROPS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board on a matter that has been raised yearly for the past three years. In view of the representations made to the minister and others in the government to make use of the National Harbours Board No. 2 terminal in Vancouver to handle specialty crops such as rapeseed, mustard, and so on, to relieve the terminal congestion in handling bulk quantities of wheat and barley, could the minister tell the House whether further consideration has been given to this matter and if he has made representations to the National Harbours Board to make modest renovations and open the terminal for that purpose?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems associated with that terminal is that it is not necessarily possible to open it with modest renovations but, rather, with quite significant renovations. We have had the availability of the terminal as a possible vehicle for moving grains constantly in our minds, and in our studies we have examined a number of different forms of its use and operation. At no time have we been able to conclude that the advantage of putting it into use would outweigh the combination of costs and the disadvantages in terms of rail movement which are involved, or either one of them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the fact that the head of the National Harbours Board has told some Members of Parliament that, for purposes of handling dry specialty crops, with modest renovations this terminal could be put to use, will the minister now prevail upon the Board of Grain Commissioners, if the National Harbours Board will not operate it, to repair the terminal for that purpose?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it may be true that certain very small quantities of very specialized products could make use of the terminal, but with certain problems in relation to the over-all movement. At no time has it been shown to us that those products were not capable of being moved by the other terminals and facilities in operation without such costs being incurred.
May 23, 1973


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. 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?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that a question such as this should be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency, the hon. member can ask that it be given priority at the time of adjournment.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Last week a prisoner at William Head minimum security prison reported back from pass at 10 p.m. and chose to escape at 11 p.m. Before being apprehended he apparently committed two acts of violence and robbery. The residents of the area are now taking up a petition concerning the future of William Head prison. Will the minister assure the House and the residents of Metchosin that he will now hold in abeyance any progress that has been made in the conversion of William Head to a medium security prison until he has received and considered the representations of the residents of that area?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I visited William Head penitentiary last week on the day after this escape took place. At that time I met with representatives of the Metchosin ratepayers' association. I also spoke to the president of the ratepayers' association at great length on the telephone this week, or at the end of last week, and promised him that I would examine his proposals. I pointed out that the decision had been taken to make this into a medium security institution but that the decision had not been implemented yet, and that we would look at his proposals first before doing anything.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. When the Postmaster General examines the postal rates for the ethnic press, would he also exara-
Oral Questions
ine the financial damage that has been done to other classes of publications in Canada, namely, scientific, educational and religious publications, as a result of the high increase in postal rates brought in by the government three years ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation. The hon. member for Mackenzie.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. As a result of the reorganization of his department, has the minister come out with a policy that allows feed lot operators to place cattle on community pastures at the expense of breeders and farmers?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can answer that specific question other than to say that part of the review involves the whole future of the operation of feed lots and community pastures. I have within the last six days talked with representatives of three prairie provinces and set up discussion groups on this and a number of related issues.


Stanley James Korchinski: In the course of his investigation, would the minister also investigate the mutual feed lots at Kenora that have placed 143 cattle, while farmers in that area have not been able to place cattle?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's expressed determination announced by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in April, 1972, to remove discrimination and to move toward the full participation of women in all aspects of Canadian society, and in view of last night's prejudicial statement by the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission that there are only eight female benefit control officers in all of Canada, can the minister inform the House when he intends to correct this discriminatory practice, and to what extent?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to the attention of the minister last night.

May 23, 1973
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.
As Mr. Marc Cayer, a former prisoner in North Viet Nam is an agronomist, could the minister tell us if someone from his department has contacted him in order to offer him employment with the Department of Agriculture?
f English]


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries in order to underline Canada's concern about the overfishing that is taking place off our east coast and on the eve of the Law of the Sea Conference. Is the minister prepared to ask his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, to provide Canadian Armed Forces naval vessels to patrol our coasts, especially in view of the fact that the aerial surveillance is totally ineffective at night when most of the incidents occur?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the fisheries service has been receiving excellent co-operation from the Department of National Defence. In this regard, as the hon. member knows, a special effort has been made to step up air surveillance. Other methods, of course, will have to be introduced as equipment becomes available.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have gone beyond the question period. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte. I recognize that a number of members are still awaiting the opportunity to ask supplementaries to this or other questions and I will try to recognize them tomorrow and give them some kind of priority. For the moment, before calling orders of the day the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. There has been a great deal of publicity about the possible construction of a refinery at Eastport, Maine, and the fact that there will be large tankers to

support this refinery that will be travelling a very hazardous route. Has the Minister of the Environment decided to make any representations to the proper authorities in respect of the possible effect on the environment of the Bay of Fundy and, if so, what are the representations he has made or plans to make?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be making representations, and they are opposed to the construction of that refinery on the United States side near Eastport, Maine.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 22, 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.
[ Transla tion]
Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Speaker-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Originally we had intended to have an opposition day tomorrow. Instead, if this debate is not completed today, which is not likely, we would call the capital punishment bill for debate tomorrow, Thursday, and would have an opposition day on Friday and another opposition day on Monday. We would call the capital punishment bill again, if need be, on Tuesday.
In any event, following discussions with other parties in the House it has been agreed that it might be possible to have an order of the House indicating that all questions, including any amendments necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the capital punishment bill, Bill C-2, would be put at 9.30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29, 1973. That agreement could be put in the form of an order of the House. This would determine our business for the next several days.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is satisfactory, Your Honour.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We agree to this, Mr. Speaker.


Léonel Beaudoin: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be agreement and unanimous consent for the proposition submitted to the House
May 23, 1973

by the President of the Privy Council. Is it agreed that it be so ordered?
Sone hon. Members: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask the government House leader, now that one phase of government business has been satisfactorily concluded with this order of the House, clearing the way for the government to bring on legislation, what priority the government intends to give the legislation respecting the proposed increase in family allowances, and when will that legislation be brought before the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I certainly give very high priority to the family allowance bill. I should like to see it cleared away if possible before the summer adjournment. However, it is not likely that we will have the bill until early in the month of June.


Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Prior to our adjourning for the Easter recess the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that he would be bringing in legislation which would exempt the Old Order Mennonites from making compulsory payments under the Canada Pension Plan. Could the government House leader indicate the priority for that legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the changes that my hon. friend mentioned would require amendments to the Canada Pension Plan Act. That is on my list; I attach great priority to it and, hopefully, we will get it through.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What about the Immigration Appeal Board Act?
[ Transla tion]


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes allowed me, I would like to express my views on the important question of the abolition of the death penalty or the retention of certain restrictions in the act, restrictions which have been incorporated since 1967 in the Criminal Code, as stipulated by Bill C-2 now before the House, with a view to extending those restrictions for another five years.
Mr. Speaker many hon. members have already spoken on this subject, and I must say I followed the debate very closely in order to weigh the pros and cons of that important matter, in the light of the research I have done, just as the other hon. members did, I am sure.
Unfortunately, I am disappointed with the way this debate is shaping out; once again we find that statistics are tricky to manipulate and that, on occasion, they can be misleading.
I see that hon. members in favour of passing this bill currently before us enlighten their speeches with official statistics showing that the existence of capital punishment has no effect in Canada or in other countries that they mentioned in their remarks.
On the other hand, those among us who want capital punishment in Canada to become really effective, as prior to 1967, are trying to prove with official statistics that since capital punishment was abolished the rate of major *
Capital Punishment
crimes has increased in Canada, precisely as a result of that abolition.
I think that in fact capital punishment still exists in Canada. Thugs and professional killers and all the others who continue as I speak to take it upon themselves to inflict capital punishment but through illegality and crime-call it assassination or whatever you want-kill shamelessly and without any fear of justice those who stand in their way. They mercilessly riddle with bullets all those who could prevent them from committing their rapes, robberies or other crimes. I think that they are now the unchallenged masters in Canada because they no longer fear the gallows, and I think that fear is the beginning of wisdom. They are increasingly becoming masters everywhere.
That is why I blame this government for not administering the act as passed in 1967. There have been many murders of policemen and prison guards since 1967, and all criminals convicted of those reprehensible acts were reprieved in last recourse by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Governor in Council.
I do not wish to produce here tons of statistics to show whether capital punishment influences criminals or not. Moreover, I have dealt with the matter on several occasions in this House during the last parliament and I then quoted statistics in support of my speech.
Today, I wish to make my position clear and according to my conscience, I should take a logical and reasonable stand. I had then consistently asked for restoration of the death penalty and I have not changed my mind.
I think that my role is to state in the House what are my constituents' views as if they were present.
Mr. Speaker, I have promised my constituents after my first election to seek their advice on every important matter of general interest concerning the Criminal Code or any other legislation coming under federal jurisdiction.
I have therefore held information meetings in the past- I still do-and taken the habit of contacting my electors at least every month on any subject of concern which is bound to have an effect on their life. In the light of their answers, I can make up my mind more easily and truly say what they think on the basis of papers in my possession.
So, during the last election campaign, I confirmed to my electors that I would uphold my position on this matter and they approved me. And I think that they approve my habit of consulting them, because I was elected with a stronger majority than in 1968. In October 1971, I asked all voters of the Richmond riding to express themselves on the restoration of the death penalty and more than 25 per cent answered my questionnaire. Of these 25 per cent, 92.6 per cent were in favour of restoring capital punishment as it existed in 1967. And I sincerely believe that at this time the percentage of those in favour of reinstating capital punishment in Canada would be still higher.
Mr. Speaker, my decision has therefore been taken in the light of the wishes expressed by my constituents, and I insist on pointing out to the House that I shall vote against Bill C-2 tending to suspend capital punishment in certain cases. I am in favour of the reinstatement of capital pun-
*
4022

May 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
ishment in all cases where the guilt of the accused has been established without any doubt whoever his victim might be. I shall even go so far as to extend application of this punishment to abortionists who bring death to children who have the right to life.
In order to justify their wish to vote in favour of this legislation, a number of people will resort to such arguments as dignity, the right to life for murderers, and moral progress. I wish to point out incidentally that I differ from the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis) who, a few days ago, urged the government to eliminate capital punishment from the Criminal Code, whereas for the past five years she has repeatedly been asking the government to legalize abortion in Canada.
In my opinion, an individual who deliberately provokes an abortion should, after adequate evidence, be punishable by death and such a provision should be introduced into the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, those who want to abolish capital punishment from the Criminal Code resort to weak and contradictory arguments. Have they considered for a single moment that it is society's strict obligation to protect the integrity of the individual against all that threatens it? I suggest that murderers are a threat, directly or indirectly, to society.
In my opinion, the legislator born of a society which has elected to be respected and respectable must punish the individual who is really found guilty of having willfully taken the life of one of his fellow citizens. Moreover, the Canadian legislator who, owing to his duties, is responsible for protecting the members of that society, must give the courts, by including some provisions in the Criminal Code, the necessary tools in order that the chief justice of the court and the jury might, if they wish, prescribe capital punishment for the individual guilty of the premeditated murder of a policeman or anybody else.
I have already said and I repeat that, at birth, the individual is pacific and that it is our society which makes him aggressive, nervous and unsociable. One of the reasons for this is the apathy shown by the parents in assuming their responsibilities towards their children, for too many young mothers work outside home to make both ends meet or pay the income tax. A child left to himself, without his mother and often without supervision, starts to commit minor offences against the society around him and sometimes against himself, and as he grows these offences grow correspondingly bigger.
Our modern society also contains the monstrosities that are called "schools" or "colleges", in which, supposedly to increase efficiency, 1,500, 2,000 or even 3,000 pupils are heaped together, almost without supervision because there are too many of them; these school children, who are often quite young-from 9 to 15 years old-are treated like numbers. I call these groups of schoolchildren school herds, in which the child is deprived of the love and understanding of his teacher, society and those around him.
Our governments have failed, in my opinion, to get to the roots of crimes committed by groups of young people. Every day one sees young children, in school or elsewhere,

committing offences, using drugs, etc. for lack of supervision.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a large-scale undertaking that would require a lot of patience and effort, but I am convinced that the only way to abolish the death penalty, which is the matter before us, would be to take better care of society before young people, especially, start to commit offences. Our schools should become more humane, while aiming also at providing education and instruction. At present, we hand out instruction to students, but when they leave school with their diplomas, there is no place for them in our society. That is why we see so many young people aged between 17 and 25 turning to crime.
Young people, Mr. Speaker, are our future. It is incumbent upon us to give our young people everything they need to succeed in life. Thus we would see no more unbalanced people steal and sometimes, under too strong a tension or from the effect of drugs, kill to get what they want.
Let us give young couples the possibility of raising their children in happiness and safety without their having to wonder always about their future. Let us legislate so that we can live under a system of distributive justice, of comprehension and love where money, luxury as we know it, vanity and envy are no longer the masters of our destinies and then we will not longer be required to discuss a bill such as the one before us now.
Finally, I rhust say that we should rid Canadian society of its undesirable citizens but even more I think that the government should seriously consider the deep-rooted reasons which prompt society to adopt such a legislation. In my opinion, I think members of Parliament and the federal and provincial governments, because they have adopted certain laws, are mainly responsible for this high proportion of murderers. A murderer is an individual who spent his childhood in the street. He has grown up like a tree; in my opinion, we surely should grant more importance to the surveillance of young people in our society. Thus, tomorrow we will be able to see a responsible and flourishing society flourish and people who will learn to enjoy life.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to place on the record, as have many members, my views on this bill and on the matter of capital punishment. Perhaps this is one of the most important problems with which this parliament will have to contend. The end result will likely be very little different from that of the present situation. It is good the House will have a free vote on this matter. I think the discussion will be useful to whatever will be the ultimate decision.
It is significant that in western civilization the death penalty at least has been steadily eliminated and is now applied only to so-called capital murder. Since legislation on this matter was last passed in this House no death sentences have been carried out on persons convicted of killing prison guards or policemen; these cases have all been commuted by the Governor General on orders from the cabinet.
May 23, 1973

There has been widespread discussion on whether capital punishment acts as a deterrent to those who would commit murder. From my observation of murder cases about which I have personal knowledge, the deterrence of capital punishment was only vaguely recognized by the murderer when he carried out his crime. My position with regard to capital punishment being a deterrent to an individual carrying out the act of murder is that it is very secondary.
Man is essentially a creature that is both aggressive and suspicious. Wars and acts of violence seem to be a legacy in our long history of evolution and development. By nature, man is a violent person at times. The overlay of social conscience, customs and inhibitions seems to have determined that society will obey considerable restrictions in order that people may live in communities and obey some laws. It is interesting to note that when our cities become increasingly congested, there are increasing acts of violence, murder and rape. The people in these large cities become depersonalized and have little interest in what is happening to individuals about them.
My own feeling is that most murderers are of distinct personality types. Whether or not they are insane, as has been assumed in many successful defences of murder cases, I think it can be said that certain mental states will cause temporary loss of normal inhibitions and murder may take place. It has been insufficiently recognized that a murderer is a distinct personality type and commits murder according to his own dictates and ideas. Also, it has not been recognized that these people always will have such personality deficiencies. Faced with the same circumstances, a murderer will always repeat the crime. To him, that is the immediate solution to the problem and he can see no other way. With this in mind, I believe these people must be removed from society. There are two obvious ways in which this can be done. The first is the institution of capital punishment whereby the murderer is put to death. The state is thus spared much expense and society is protected from the murderer forever.
I am reminded of an answer to a questionnaire sent out by a member of this House. The respondent's reply was: "I am for capital punishment. It may not be a deterrent, but at least it prevents repetition." The second solution would be to lock up the murderer for the rest of his natural life. In this way society would be protected from individuals who had committed murder. It would be simple to assume that the first solution, the removal of the murderer from society by death, would be easy, final and would recommend itself to many people. However, I believe that this final solution does not remove the risk of putting to death those who are innocent but happened to be in a circumstantial position whereby suspicion was laid upon them.
After an innocent person is condemned to death and suffers the ultimate fate, society in no way can repay him for the loss of his life. But if he is confined to prison by misadventure and is serving a sentence, society can make some recompense to him for the injustice and punishment that has been meted out to him.
My position on capital punishment is that if I were sure that justice was always right and that the accused had
Capital Punishment
committed a crime, I would not hesitate to have the death penalty carried out. But history is full of significant miscarriages of justice, and at times innocent people have suffered the death penalty.
In times of great national emergency this might well be a necessity and people might find themselves unfairly but inadvertently victimized. In the normal course of events, which regard to murder that occurs in society we should take all precautions possible to make sure that the innocent are not convicted and lose their lives. In other words, I feel that the risk of making an error is greater than the value obtained from the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
At this time there have been no convincing figures to show that capital punishment acts as a deterrent, at least in what is called normal times in our society. Perhaps at some time in the future we will have to recognize this or that statistic, and other indices may show that capital punishment is necessary as a deterrent. But that time is not yet, and I do not think this House has to vote for capital punishment on the basis that only in this way will murders be reduced, or because the incidence of murder is getting out of hand.
I stated previously that murderers had a definite personality problem and that these people should be removed from society forever. In other words, I think that life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment, particularly for these people. We seem to be living in a very permissive society and I believe that one of the public's concerns and anxieties is over the laxity of a penal system that allows murderers to be paroled after what seems a short time and again inflicted on the public. We as well as all the other citizens of Canada would like to believe in the parole system; that criminals should be rehabilitated and that there should be a place outside the prison walls for them. But in so far as murderers are concerned, I believe that we should apply to them severe restrictions by imprisoning them for life when they are found guilty of capital murder.
There are those who say that this is a fate worse than being committed to death. This may be true in the eyes of many. I believe, though that society as a whole wishes to preserve life, and that until fresh evidence comes forward to make a decision for us it is the best solution to what is obviously a problem in respect of which all possible solutions are not very satisfactory. I would be more happy to support this legislation if we could be assured that in committee amendments would be introduced to make a life sentence mean a life sentence. One who has committed a murder has certainly forfeited his right to continue being a citizen with the same rights and privileges as is afforded to most other people. One of the criticisms of capital punishment is that the death penalty is not applied uniformly but selectively. It is done in a way where risks are both arbitrary and discriminatory.
A recent editorial suggested that a total of 701 convicted murderers have been executed in Canada since confederation. An almost equal number, more than 600, have had their sentences commuted by the cabinet. The cabinet was exercising the Queen's prerogative, but the cabinet is a political rather than a judicial body which, by its very nature, can have no fixed criteria in such matters. I do not
26314-37)

May 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
see how the federal cabinet of, for that matter, any cabinet in this country could have such criteria because of their make-up.
So, Mr. Speaker, from the aforementioned figures which show that almost half of the total number of murderers in this country have had their sentences commuted by the cabinet, it is evident that sentences passed by the judiciary in carrying out justice are somewhat less than a final judgment. In other words, the judiciary, who presumably should know best and are better trained than anyone else, have had their sentences opposed in almost half of the cases where the murderer was sentenced to capital punishment.
The tide at this time seems to favour the retention of capital punishment by the public as a deterrent and as a means of stabilizing society at a time when values appear to be deteriorating and lawlessness is on the increase. I do not feel that the bill passed in 1966 has definitely proven one way or the other that capital punishment must be abolished altogether or brought back to its pre-1966 status. According to my research, it seems that there have been no hangings since December 1962, and this is significant. It seems to indicate that whatever the judiciary may say, the cabinet is very reluctant to have the death sentence carried out. But, Mr. Speaker, the public does want more assurance than it has been getting that if the death sentence is not carried out, then there must be more protection for the public within whatever means are currently available.
In committee I would hope that amendments or some indication will be made by the government that the parole system will be revamped, that murderers are not considered to be rehabilitable but that they should be removed from society for the rest of their lives. Certainly I as an individual taxpayer would be happy to pay my taxes so that these people would not be again inflicted upon society. I do not think this problem is altogether solved, because I do not think it is yet possible to ascertain just what effect the complete abolition of the death penalty would have. For this reason, unsatisfactory as it may be, I think we have to wait longer before a suitable solution may become apparent. But it seems to me that unless amendments are made to ensure that murderers are confined for life, then surely we will have to return to capital punishment as the only way that society can be protected.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of debate in this House by many hon. members on the subject of capital punishment. Hon. members on both sides of the House have spoken both for and against the bill. Let me make it clear at the outset that I have listened to their remarks with interest and to their expressed opinions with respect. My contribution to this debate will, hopefully, be a mixture of my own personal views and the expressions of the majority of my constituents, the people of Elgin, as they have been conveyed to me by many means over past weeks and months.
I am glad to see that throughout the debate there has been consensus that the present treatment of murderers, as a substitute for capital punishment, has been far too lenient. This is a refreshing change from the position of some who have shown the most overwhelming concern for the criminal, to the point that they fail to show any

genuine concern for the innocent members of society, members of society whose lives have been jeopardized by the fact that the life of a murderer has not only been spared but that he has been permitted to walk the streets, free again, after only eight years in prison.
I understand that there have been four documented cases in this country of murderers who have been released on parole and who have killed again. I wonder whether they will be paroled after another eight years or so? People are fed up with this ridiculously lenient treatment of criminals and are becoming concerned. And deeply concerned they should be, Mr. Speaker. The average law-abiding citizen is genuinely worried about the safety of his family, the safety of his friends and himself, and is having grave misgivings about the ability of the law to offer the protection that he deserves.
Some hon. members have argued that we should ignore what appears to be a majority opinion that the death penalty should be reinstated. It is true there has been no official, scientifically planned survey to gauge the feelings of all Canadians, but judging from the response of constituents over this issue and the results of some public opinion surveys, the general opinion is that capital punishment should be retained. To completely ignore this attitude is somewhat dangerous and is a slap in the face of true democracy. I caution this House, Mr. Speaker, that we would be courting a backlash of public opinion if we were to totally ignore the arguments of many responsible constituents and the general attitude of the Canadian people.
What I particularly dislike about the present treatment of murderers is the fact that we seem to have twisted our values around. The government has permitted cold-blooded and callous murderers to walk the streets again after only eight years in prison. A thief, in many cases, can receive a longer sentence. Does this perhaps mean that the material goods stolen by a thief are worth more than the life taken by a murderer?
Surely we can all agree that murder is the worst crime; so it follows that a murderer should receive at least a harsher penalty than a person guilty of any other crime. To this extent I assume we are in general agreement. It is a little ridiculous to give a murderer about the same sentence as that given to a dangerous thief. In a sense we are equating the value of human life with that of material wealth. Fortunately, we have advanced from the time when a thief could be hung, but now we seem to have gone full tilt in the other direction and our values are just as warped as they were in earlier times. When any human life can be equated with anything other than human life, we can scarcely be surprised at the moral consequences.
The argument has been put forward by abolitionists that a civilized, compassionate society does not have the right to take a human life. I suggest that whether or not we are a civilized, compassionate society is a matter in itself for debate. Putting that aside, Mr. Speaker, I believe our society, in fact any society, has the right and indeed the responsibility to use, in the words of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) "whatever means are necessary to protect itself from those forces that would seek to destroy it".
May 23, 1973

The ideal purpose of a society is to protect the individuals within it and to ensure their total well-being. If any members of that society are attacked from within or from without, that society is fully justified in using whatever means are necessary to defend its members. Surely we can agree that our society is justified in making war if truly endangered. This is actually a civilized and compassionate action in that it reflects a concern for the over-all wellbeing of its members. Society is justified in taking the life of a murderer who attacks it from within.
The abolitionists will argue that the death penalty is not necessary and serves no purpose in that it is not a deterrent. Some pretty convincing statistics have been presented to prove this. Most abolitionists agree that the death penalty should be retained for the murderers of policemen and prison guards. But why? Are their lives worth more than those of civilians? The answer is, of course not. Even abolitionists agree that the presence of the death penalty will deter murderers of law enforcement officers. So in fact abolitionists do agree that the presence of the death penalty does have some deterrent effect. Why should civilians not have the same right to this protection? The death penalty should apply to the premeditated murder of any citizen.
There appear to be two types of murderers. First, there are those who are mentally deranged or are suffering temporary or prolonged mental shock. The law should, and does provide for leniency in such cases. What about the brutal, callous murderer who has deliberately planned his crime and is fully aware of the consequences? How do we deal with the hired killer in organized crime who murders for money? How do we deal with the revolutionary assassin who coldly plots his crime against the very society from which he expects justice? How do we deal with such people as the bank robber who coldly informs his hostages, "I will shoot anyone in the bank, and the Supreme Court will let me get away with it. The is no death penalty, so I can shoot everyone here, then throw down the gun and walk out and they cannot put me in the electric chair"? For such people the death penalty is clearly a deterrent. They are fully aware of what they are doing and the consequence of their act.
The argument is also put forward that the death penalty is vengeance pure and simple and as such is a barbaric vestige of man's animal nature. In all honesty, is not all punishment for crime a matter of vengeance? Whatever penalty was imposed for murder, it will still be vengeance. Is not this vengeance largely the result of justifiable moral outrage by society against the viciousness of the murderer's act? Vengeance, as we call it, is actually an act of self-defence by society. A murderer kills a child, and the parent reacts by demanding his death. The murderer has in a way attacked that parent, who responds in selfdefence. In much the same way, society is a single, living unit of which its individuals are a part; an attack upon one of them is actually an attack upon society, and society has the responsibility to act defensively for the benefit of the rest of its members.
To conclude, it is the fate of a deliberate killer that we are deciding, not the barbaric means of execution used today. I believe the law should recognize all the circumstances and give the benefit of the slightest doubt. But
Capital Punishment
when the courts have referred those persons they can for psychiatric care, when they have acquitted others for lack of conclusive evidence, when social and economic conditions have been improved in order to remove the breeding grounds of crime and violence, when the penal system has been restaged to provide rehabilitative services instead of apprenticeships in crime-when all this has been done society inevitably comes face to face with the real issue in this debate.
We are dealing with the fate of a callous, brutal murderer who has planned his crime with full awareness of the consequences, has weighed the life of his victim in the balance and has valued at less than his possible gain. The death penalty would remind such a murderer who has lost any sense of the value of life that a life is in fact very dear, at least as dear as his own. What other way is there to understand the horror of taking a person's life, if not directly equating it to the life of that person's killer? In all honesty, capital punishment is an obscene thing, but I believe it is necessary to establish the value of life in our society and I will vote against the bill.


Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking you for allowing me to deliver my first speech in this House. Like my colleagues sitting in the House for the first time, I have been looking forward to this opportunity for some time.
The bill on capital punishment presently before us in the House is one of Canada's most explosive political and legal issues ever placed before this House. It is an issue in respect of which there are not any cut and dried answers. It is an issue which, regardless of the outcome of the vote, will never be resolved. Many of my colleagues have presented very strong and excellent arguments for and against punishment. Many members have quoted statistics to back up their stand. Yet even these statistics counterbalance each other and we are left with that nagging question as to who is right and who is wrong. Many of us in this House represent many of the religious faiths of this nation, yet even our religious leaders are divided on this issue.
Putting aside all the arguments for and against capital punishment, there still remains a basic fact which many of us, including the abolitionists, seem to have overlooked. We must all face the fact that increased permissiveness in today's society has created a climate in which respect for law and order is no longer accepted by many of its members. This being the fact, the crime rate in Canada and throughout the world has steadily increased over the past ten years, and continues to increase. This increase in crime will continue unless legislators enact stiffer laws which will make the penalty for murder and other serious offences heavier than the penalty for robbing a bank.
Every country in the world is faced with these facts, and many countries which have abolished capital punishment or placed it on a five-year trial basis are having second thoughts on the matter. England and West Germany are experiencing, as we are in North America, a new wave of thought which is leaning very strongly toward the retention of capital punishment. Our abolitionists would say to all this, "Hogwash". Nevertheless, the fact still remains

May 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
that with the increase of permissiveness in our society, our crime rate has increased and will continue to increase unless we legislate stiffer penalties for crimes committed against society.
Those of us who are retentionist are often accused of coming out of the dark ages in our ideas. Yet I wonder if man has ever, or will ever come out of the dark ages so far as his relationship with his fellow man is concerned. It seems ironical that men have walked on the face of the moon, that technology has advanced beyond man's wildest dreams, that in the field of medicine we are capable of replacing run down parts of the body with new parts and in the near future we will see a whole new generation of test tube babies, yet in spite of all man's advancements, man continues to kill his fellow man just as he did so indiscriminately in the dark ages. Have we progressed to the point that we are regressing, or has mah, with all his advancement, ever really progressed?
In our benevolent or liberal-minded attitudes today we have created a society in which the criminal elements are protected while society is left unprotected from the onslaughts of our criminals. A couple of weeks ago in the Montreal Gazette, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) was quoted as stating that things have gone too far, and he announced an independent judicial inquiry into the recent rash of escapes from federal prisons in Quebec.
I do not doubt for a minute that the minister is sincerely concerned, but he is quite correct when he says that things have gone too far. This sort of nonsense occurred constantly during the term of office of the previous solicitor general when the government had a majority in this House. At that time the people of Canada strongly voiced their indignation, as they are doing now; but their cries of indignation went unheard. Now our Solicitor General finds himself to be a member of a minority government and neither he nor the cabinet can ignore the outcry of the Canadian people.
The Solicitor General has issued orders for stricter security measures in all federal prisons. Why was this not done before? Why was this not done during the period in office of the previous solicitor general? It is obvious to me, and I am sure to others, that the government realizes that they can no longer ignore the voice of the people and if they want to remain in power they must smarten up. Thus, stricter controls are now being initiated in all federal prisons.
The increase in crime and prison outbreaks has made a mockery of our system of justice, and all Canadians are angered and concerned and want action. I feel that this is an appropriate time to bring forth a fact that too many of us, including the present government, seem to forget once we are elected to this House, namely, that we are elected at the will of the people and for the people. I feel that it is time the present government was reminded of the fact that the people of Canada gave it a minority vote in the last election because they were not satisfied with its past performance. Unless the government smartens up and stops making excuses or appointing special inquiries, and gets down to the business of cracking down on our increase in crime and prison outbreaks, it will again soon feel the wrath of the Canadian people in the next election. Our country can no longer afford this breakdown in our

judicial system. We have seen this happen in other countries, and it has brought disastrous results. Justice can no longer continue to be mocked by our criminal elements. This is one of the many reasons why I am a retentionist.
Unlike some of my colleagues, I am mindful of what the people in my riding expect of me. I have a federal prison and a county jail in the riding of Portage, and the people who work in these places have expressed deep concern over the breakdown of penal reform in our prisons. They are also concerned about the way in which our prisoners are pampered and coddled while society is less and less protected from criminal elements. Much of the correspondence from my constituents has been in favour of the retention of capital punishment. My constituents are not pleased with the present system and they want the death penalty brought back for all murders against society, not just for the murder of prison guards and policemen. My constituents are not revenge-seeking people, but they want justice dealt out fairly. They want to feel secure in their homes. They want to know that their rights and freedoms are secure and that their lives are safe from our criminal elements.
People today are no longer fooled by political talk; to them this is no longer acceptable. They want action to curb the increase of crime in our society; and they want action, not talk, to curb prison outbreaks. We have the obligation, as their elected representatives, to provide them with such security as will protect them from our criminal elements.
Some people will argue that hanging is not humane. I agree. But can anyone in this country or in the House come up with a more humane method? Is it more humane to lock up a man for life in a prison where he is denied all the freedoms and pleasures that we enjoy and which he enjoyed before he committed his crime? We could all argue left and right on these points and not come to any agreement, but the fact still remains that we have not found a proper or workable solution in dealing with crime and penal reform.
Perhaps the old methods were not humane, but at least we had law and order and respect for law and order which we do not have today. My people want law and order and respect for law and order brought back. I am sure that this is also the wish of the people of Canada generally. Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the reason I shall vote for the retention of the death penalty is that I want to bring back that law and order to which the people of this country are entitled.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on Bill C-2. It was not my intention to speak at this point in the debate, but in view of recent events, including attacks on police officers, I feel it is my duty to make known my position on this issue.
One of the problems seems to be lack of clear understanding of what we are discussing. Talk about vengeance and punishment is out of place. Most people do not regard the issue in that light. Some speak about the deterrent value and hinge the whole debate on that issue, yet the deterrent aspect is not the central issue. Let us look at the central issue. It appears to me that the central issue is the
May 23, 1973

responsibility of the state to render adequate protection to the individual. Accompanying this is the expectation of the individual that the state will afford security to himself, his family and his property.
Let us consider the rights of the murderer. These rights are balanced against the rights of a person who has been found guilty, after due process of the law, of wilfully and violently taking away the life of another person. Does a killer have some sacred right to life which is denied the ordinary person? Some people taking part in the controversy on capital punishment have suggested that the state does not have the right to resort to ultimate means to protect the individual citizen. I respectfully beg to disagree. If the state has the duty to protect citizens, then the state has the right to exercise the ultimate sanction in that regard. Even peacekeeping troops are given sidearms with instructions to use them if their lives are menaced. Does anyone deny the right of a government to issue those instructions?
In dealing with the harsh realities of life, societies must be prepared to face unpleasant facts, among which are murder and the homicidal urge which motivates some persons to the peril of others. Until such time as governments, by brainwashing, hypnotism or some other scientific or chemical means eliminate the urge to kill, the state must continue to retain the right to the ultimate sanction. One thing at least is certain. Capital punishment is an effective deterrent to the person to whom it is applied. He at least cannot kill again.
If the state fails to provide a degree of security sufficient to reassure individuals, then individuals will be tempted to look after their own security and we will face anarchy. This is exactly what is happening in those states where capital punishment has been suspended for a long period. Householders are arming themselves all over the United States, and that kind of violence is spreading into Canada. I think it is safe to say that our society is experiencing a wave of violence such as we have not seen for many decades. Every day newspapers carry almost unbelievable stories of shootings, murders of various kinds and other crimes too horrible to describe. Citizens feel they are without protection and that if their homes or properties are invaded they must rely on themselves for defence.
Let us look at the deterrent argument. The deterrent argument is a specious argument; it is simply a red herring. Does the threat of prison deter bank robbery? Shall we now abolish prisons? When I see what kind of people are escaping, it might be better for us to be in prison. Do fines deter speeders? Shall we abolish fines and speed limits? The threat of capital punishment deters some people and saves some lives. We know that some criminals cannot be deterred, regardless of legislation. The question is, shall they be free to kill again?
Experience shows that long-term sentences are not, and will not be carried out. Anyway, what is so humane about putting a person in jail for 25 years? Nowhere in the constitution of this nation or in the constitution of any nation does it say that a person who has wantonly and cruelly killed-that is, who has taken away someone else's
Capital Punishment
life for his own advantage-retains a God-given right to enjoy his own life. It has been held through the ages that those who wantonly take away life forfeit their own right to life. Whether one believes this or not, I submit it is difficult to make a case in favour of an inalienable right to life for confessed or convicted killers.
Most people will share the opinion that a person who wantonly kills another forfeits his own right to life. It is possible that the state, in consideration of a recommendation for mercy, may refrain from putting the death sentence into effect. No one denies that right. On the other hand, no one should deny the state the right to take away, by the most humane method possible and after due process of law, the life of a person convicted of one or more murders. The duty of this chamber is not to make the world safe for killers. It is not to underline and confirm some imaginary right to life on the part of those who have taken life. Such a right never existed.
We live in an era where violence has become a way of life, where violence is organized, where violence has been granted privileges, where violence and organized crime are apparently tax-free, as revealed in evidence in Montreal recently. The existence of professional criminals and fanatical groups dedicated to the liquidation of their imaginary enemies makes it all the more mandatory that the state must not surrender its right to defend the citizen and his family.
While I admit that polls are not infallible and are not a substitute for conscience, I am convinced in this case that the polls reflect a reality that exists in the minds and hearts of Canadians disturbed by growing violence, disturbed by the apparent inability of the state to ensure protection for themselves and their families. Surveys show that Canadians are not prepared to surrender the right to exact the ultimate penalty from confessed and convicted killers. Very few in this chamber are likely to be threatened or menaced, or have their homes or the lives of their loved ones put in danger from violent men. But in October, 1970, when fanatical groups ran riot, the situation was different. Many members of this chamber were given protection in the form of armed guards. The ordinary citizen is denied that kind of protection. He must take his chances. It is up to the state to see to it that those chances are kept at a minimum. Capital punishment is a weapon in the arsenal of national security.
The situation in the last ten years has been conducive to the utmost licence in the area of violence. The law exists but it is not applied. Either the law should be scrapped and capital punishment abolished, or the law should be applied. The present situation constitutes the worst of both worlds and is simply a wide-open invitation to kill. I strongly doubt that police and prison guards will go on meekly being targets for the violence and animosity of conscienceless individuals. Policemen are liable to start shooting back, and when they do people are going to get hurt, some of them innocent people.
A continuation of the present situation invites widespread anarchy. The present motion should be defeated and members should be given a clear choice either to retain the right of the state to undertake the ultimate sanction or abolish it. Personally, while I recognize the dedication and courage of police officers I nevertheless

May 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
feel that the life of any individual is as valuable to him and his family as that of a policeman or guard.
I do not feel that the violent removal of an individual's life by a cold-blooded killer is adequately dealt with by a few years in jail at the end of which the killer is free to kill again. The violent removal of life must be met by the power of the state to exact the ultimate penalty, otherwise we reduce murder to the rank of an ordinary misdemeanour.


Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my views on capital punishment. I intend to vote against the motion for continuation of the moratorium. This bill is neither an abolitionist nor a retentionist bill but is, rather, a measure of partial abolition or partial retention, whichever way one would like to look at it. The government could have introduced a bill to abolish capital punishment and we could have debated it on that basis. I think the Canadian people are ready for that question, and most of them actually think that is what we are debating.
I believe that in any society there must be law and order. Order is the prime requirement: Without it you have chaos. We ask the police to keep order and carry out our laws. They favour capital punishment; they feel it will help them to carry out their duties. I feel it is my responsibility to co-operate with them and help them, so the least I can do is to vote for capital punishment. I am not certain why they want capital punishment, and I am not sure I should question each of them about it. Governments must trust and take advice from many sources. Basically, it is simple: We ask the police to maintain law and order and they in turn ask us to retain capital punishment.
I say, let the abolitionists convince the police that capital punishment is not necessary and I will vote to abolish it. Failing that, let the abolitionists discover some other method to maintain order. I feel it is necessary to stand with the police and prison guards because I would like to encourage the best young men in Canada to become part of the police force, and I want them to feel they have the confidence and support of legislators. If we fail to do this, the police will become a law, unto themselves; they will shoot first and ask questions later. If they were about to capture a person who had killed many times, they might not be inclined to risk their lives to capture him so that he may become a guest of the state.
In this debate are we not asked to choose between life imprisonment or death for a handful of convicted murderers, on the one hand, and the morale of the police force on the other. The choice for me is a simple one. I am in sympathy with the police. I know it is not the modern thing to do, in an age when we tend to worship the misfit and apologize to him on behalf of society.
Another reason for voting against this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that I share the concern of thousands of Canadians about the rapid increase in violent crime. I know we have been quoted figures which indicate that the increase of murder has not been as rapid as the increase of lesser crimes. Is this a reason for voting for abolition? More people speed at 65 or 70 miles an hour than at 100 or 110

miles an hour, so should we lessen the penalty for speeding at 100 miles an hour?
Murder is the ultimate crime. If we lessen the penalty for murder, Canadians feel that penalties for all crimes will be lessened and that crime itself will be more acceptable to our society. This is why Canadians are urging us to retain capital punishment. They want to bring about respect for law and order in our society. They feel that if we maintain a severe penalty for the ultimate crime, the penalties for other crimes will be maintained.
The abolitionists say that it is barbaric for the state to take a man's life;-that we are committing group murder. Can the state blindly lead society,, or must it mirror society? In my opinion, in the maintenance of law and order we cannot afford to be idealistic and we can only reflect what society is. Pretending that people are good, and that if we do not hang the murderer there will be no murder, is wishful thinking. By all means let us make every effort to become more civilized. This is a challenge to our educational institutions and our churches, to our schools and universities where our society spends so much of its time and where we spend so much of our money. Let these institutions do more than mirror society. Let them lead society to greater things. But let the law and the way it is enforced reflect what society really is.
Our whole basis for law is an attempt to have the punishment fit the crime. We assume that time to everyone is precious, and to try to keep order the state says: If you break the law we will take some time away from you. This process if not new, but ancient. It is understood by everyone. We do not have laws to punish people; we have laws in an attempt to prevent crime and to protect people and property. No one desires to see the state execute anyone; the intention is that the crime be not committed in the first place. Retentionists are not blood-thirsty. We would be content if no murders were committed; then there would be no murderers to deal with.
The reason we must maintain capital punishment is that we must distinguish between crimes like making homebrew or liquor illegally, between destruction of property, between speeding on the highway or not stopping at a stop sign, between stealing of material things including money, and the taking of a human life. Without capital punishment there is no clear distinction between the taking of property and the taking of life. Surely there is a difference, but not according to the law of the last ten years. If you rob a bank, you might serve a seven-year sentence. If you rob the same bank and kill the manager, you might serve a year or two longer. Paper money and those who possess it apparently are as important as a human life. There is a difference between a human life and a material object, and our laws must indicate that difference. There must be a difference not only in time but in the kind of penalty.
The state executes many times and nothing is said. Recently a man was shot and killed as he stood in the doorway of an airplane he threatened to hijack. They managed to get him to the door, and he was holding a girl hostage with one hand. I am sure the person who gave the order to shoot was told to kill. In this case the state executed that man. He had done nothing. He had threatened to hijack the plane, but he had killed no one. The
May 23, 1973

state executed him and nothing was said. However, if he had killed the girl, had been captured and had sat in jail for months, some in our society would have heaped sympathy upon him. Perhaps 20 per cent of our society would have said, "We cannot bring back the victim; let's be easy on him."
Capital punishment is an admission that the murderer cannot be rehabilitated. This is a statement often used by those who would abolish capital punishment. I do not deny the statement, but I certainly question the ability of doctors to say for certain who will not murder again. There needs to be much more study and research done to learn about the behaviour of man before we can say who has been rehabilitated, who it is safe to return to society.
A few years ago, near where I live a man was released from a mental hospital because they said he was fit to return home. Ten days later he killed eight people. Obviously, he was a very troubled young man. In no way was he fit to return to society, but in the opinion of the doctors he was. This kind of thing happens all the time and it is the reason why Canadians are so concerned and are looking to us to restore order and bring about a society in which their families can feel safe. Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that I am prepared to vote against the moratorium.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, with the knowledge that the issue of capital punishment would come before this House I have reviewed the subject extensively, taking advantage of the information provided by various parliamentary sources, reviewing numerous position papers presented by various groups, assessing press coverage and various research agencies and, above all, analysing carefully the attitude of constituents who have expressed varied opinions on the matter.
It has been my impression, and I feel it is important to emphasize this, that in the many discussions I have had with groups of individuals on the merits of capital punishment, the content of the dialogue invariably goes beyond a political discussion and each person decides the issue according to the dictates of his conscience and his judgment. It is a rare individual that will alter his opinion from reading reports, studies or statistical surveys; but it is also a rare individual that will not be aroused emotionally by acts of violence.
I would like to illustrate the latter point by referring to an article in the Chatham Daily News of January 13, 1973, which carried the headline, "Suspect picked up for the killing of Mr. Wilson." The suspect was serving a life sentence handed down in 1966 for non-capital murder of a child. The victim lived but a short distance from my home and I can assure the House that the fear experienced in our area and the criticism directed toward the ineffectiveness of our system of justice was shared by all residents, including myself.
I would like to enlarge on the matter of conscience and judgment which I referred to at the outset. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "conscience" as a moral sense of right and wrong, and "judgment" as a critical faculty, discernment or good sense. I wish to re-emphasize the
Capital Punishment
words "conscience" and "judgment", not to suggest that there is a similarity in meaning but, rather, to make it clear that the meaning and intent of the two words is distinctly different and in my opinion must be assessed separately before a rational union of the two can occur. If we are guided by conscience alone, a meaningful solution is not possible because the faculty to analyse all the available data has been ignored. If we are guided by judgment alone, we are then ignoring our moral values which are fundamental to our Christian way of life.
Theologians and philosophers have debated the subject of conscience for centuries. Their arguments for and against capital punishment on philosophical and religious grounds are well documented. There are those who recall Calvin's delcaration that a judge who imposes the supreme punishment is also administering devine vengeance and obeying God's orders. Others recall the words of St. Augustine in the fifth century A.D. following the murder of Christians;
We do not wish to have the sufferings of the servants of God avenged by the infliction of precisely similar injuries in the way of retaliation. Not, of course, that we object to the removal from these wicked men of the liberty to perpetrate further crimes, but our desire is rather than justice be satisfied without the taking of their lives or the maiming of their bodies in any particular; and that by such coercive measure as may be in accordance with the laws, they be drawn away from the insane frenzy to the quietness of men in their sound judgment, or compelled to give up mischievous violence and to take themselves to some useful labour.
There are those who support their views by the Judaic Christian scriptures. One position is frequently supported by Romans, chapter 13, verse 4:
For he is minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
The other position is frequently supported by the scriptures, for example, Matthew, chapter 5, from the Sermon on the Mount;
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth . . . But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
I do not find it difficult to understand this divergence of opinion. I can appreciate the strong convictions of both groups, and I do not challenge the conscience of another individual; but I, too, have a conscience for which I am accountable to a supreme being, a conscience that has been shaped by religious and moral convictions, and in my instance, as a physician dedicated to saving lives, my conscience will not permit me to take a human life.
During my postgraduate days in Washington, D.C., I practised medicine in private and public hospitals, and at the District of Columbia General Hospital I was in close association with the Washington Penal Institution. On my return to Canada I established a medical practice and, in addition, served as a coroner. This varied experience with all elements of society, including numerous medical-legal problems, has taught me the value of human life and the tragedies accompanying death.
As I indicated previously, conscience alone without judgment cannot result in meaningful solutions. Fear exists within our society, an apprehension of excessive
4030

May 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
permissiveness is voiced by the majority of Canadians, and a genuine belief that law and order has, and is deteriorating is shared by most Canadians. I share these views and would like to take a few moments to dwell on the matter of judgment, as 1 see it, in relationship to the previous observations.
I do not intend to elaborate on the role of society and our present system of values. I shall not bore you with endless statistics and detailed studies, many of which have been adequately covered by other hon. members. But I would like to mention briefly the matters which I feel are relevant and in keeping with the thinking of most Canadians. I must concur with the comments of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) and his observations with respect to rehabilitation and parole. Although the word "rehabilitation" has been used for years, it has taken on a new meaning and new "implications in the field of psychiatry and sociology, and more particularly as it relates to penal reform.
I do not object to such studies, and indeed such should continue, but I would remind hon. members that there are adequate studies to reveal that at our present stage of development, rehabilitation in many instances is impossible. There are innumerable instances of murders committed by psychopathic personalities or schizophrenics, crimes that have been committed on impulse, without reflection and with no thought of punishment. The offender's total thought is of killing. Such a person is a threat to society and a sentence of life imprisonment should, in these circumstances, mean life in prison. The present policy of life imprisonment permits parole after ten years, and this in my judgment is neither a deterrent nor a substitute for the death penalty.
A view frequently expressed is the inherent risk that an innocent man may be put to death. I can accept this opinion and recognize that it can be substantiated by specific cases. I also recognize the great safeguards through various legal procedures to ensure the protection of the accused. What I cannot understand is the limited safeguards and ineffectiveness in the assessment of a criminal who is paroled. In my judgment, if there is the slightest risk that the criminal continues to harbour an abnormality in his psychodynamic pattern, then the public should have the assurance that such individuals are segregated from society indefinitely.
I must mention in this regard the sentence imposed by an Israeli tribunal upon the surviving Japanese terrorists who aided in the mass slaughter at the Tel Aviv airport. The tribunal maintained that life imprisonment was the worst punishment that could be imposed. Both prosecution and defence lawyers insisted that incarceration for life would be most effective in preventing a repetition of the insanity that took place in the airport customs hall.
I wish to comment briefly on the deterrent effect of the death penalty, which is the major argument presented for its retention. Despite my previous comments I have always held the view that if the death penalty was unequivocally a deterrent, I would be forced to reconsider my entire position. Extensive reviews have covered this aspect in depth and the studies agree that the present statistics provide inconclusive findings and no final consensus exists. I must make mention, however, of the study

carried out by Dr. Fattah on the deterrent effect of capital punishment with special reference to the Canadian situation. I shall not bore listeners with his detailed conclusions but simply quote from the introduction of the conclusions:
We have seen that there has been a slight increase in criminal homicide in Canada over the past eight years. Can this be attributed to the suspension of capital punishment? Now after having examined the different aspects of the problem we are able to answer this question and the answer is no!
To summarize, I feel we should abolish capital punishment; but to obtain effective reform in the Criminal Code and to offer the protection and safety our citizens demand, we must recognize that murderers are rarely amenable to rehabilitation, and major reform in the parole system is essential to ensure that life imprisonment means life imprisonment.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Charles Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, as I begin these comments on a matter of such great concern for the Canadian public, especially following the diversified advertising campaing to which we have been submitted over the past few months and whose purpose was to bring the government to spend a few days debating the issue of retention or abolition of capital punishment- a debate which must be concluded by a free vote-I should like to bring to your attention the fact that at long last a member of Parliament will have the opportunity to decide freely on a very important issue of general interest. This is the part of the decision making process which is an improvement over the established custom in respect of the procedure within the political parties of our so-called democratic system. If, in the present circumstances, this practice contributes to increase in a practical way the respect for the freedom of opinion within our parliamentary institutions, we should at least have contributed to the establishment of a climate where every one could freely assume his responsibility. In fact, this is what the citizens of this country want, namely that their elected representatives decide according to the general interest of the country rather than that of a party, for the purpose of really improving the situation in all areas.
On a number of occasions, many people who are aware of the Canadian circumstances have urged that a referendum be held to give the Canadian population the opportunity to indicate its feeling on retention or abolition of capital punishment. Unfortunately, those who have been in authority for the past five years have disregarded the request for such a referendum.
In view of the present circumstances, I believe that most of my constituents share my opinion, having received a great many answers to a questionnaire; while a very limited number appear to favour the abolition of capital punishment, the majority have indicated they are in favour of its retention.
Various suggestions have been made to me concerning possible methods of execution; most of my constituents would recommend using the gas chamber, and I share this opinion.
May 23, 1973

I wish also to point out that I do not understand the reasons behind the attitude of those who claim that capital punishment can be retained for certain classes of people. I see no difference in value between the life of a father or mother, and that of a policeman or a prison guard, a manufacturer, a businessman, a poor man or a rich one. Each and all of them have a right to live.
In many fields, supervision is inadequate. It is as though the publicity media are used to adapt society to an inverted social system, for their harmful mood of irresponsibility encourages excessive laxity in publications such as newspapers and magazines, and in the broadcasting of films in which the criminals often seem like heroes, giving the impressionnable mind the most striking examples of crimes, thefts and other misconduct. After our lack of judgment in harbouring certain undesirable immigrants, we become alarmed at the consequences of our stupidities. Courts of justice sometimes become a theatre for all kinds of provocations.
Right here in the House, we have witnessed the uncovering of scandals that were hardly calculated to inculcate in citizens a respect for the established authority. Can we say now that we have used every possible means to make life pleasant for all citizens of Canada, a young country on which Providence has bestowed unlimited riches? This is the task that members of Parliament should pursue with determination, instead of talking about the abolition or retention of the death penalty. It would be much wiser, at this time, to bring about renewed hope for a better life among Canadians, by means of less materialistic and more humane legislation.
If we had a system that allowed each and every citizen to find work, or at least, a sound occupation that would be suitable to them and means of living honestly, I have good reasons to believe that the number of criminals would be reduced.
In the light of the present situation, we should try to find a middle way between excessive severity and exaggerated clemency. I feel we should try everything to rehabilitate an individual who took the wrong direction. But keeping in mind the present situation, we must necessarily adopt a position which will help reduce the number of murders. We have had the opportunity to read newspaper articles written by authorities on this issue, who recommended that capital punishment be maintained for a certain percentage of criminals. I am therefore reluctant to give a green light to the hangman.
In my opinion, capital punishment must be maintained, and that for several reasons. First of all, we must at all costs protect honest people against gangsters, offenders, thieves and mostly against murderers. It is imperative that we take right now the appropriate measures under the present circumstances. It would involve the establishment of a national indemnity fund to help dependents of murderers' victims.
I find it difficult to understand why criminals deserve so much protection against the death penalty, because nobody compels them to commit such a crime. When dealing with criminals for whom all possible means of rehabilitation have been used, with those who leave jail only to commit again the most hideous crimes, with those who have vowed to make a career for themselves in hold-
Capital Punishment
ups and looting, society has the duty to protect itself as best it can. Indulgence would then become connivance. I feel very sorry for prisoners but I do not forget the harm they are causing by their offences. May I add that, in having recourse to drastic measures, society does not take vengeance but protects itself.
[ English]


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in participating this afternoon in this debate I am reminded of the situation that existed here in 1966 and 1967 when protracted debates took place on this subject. Many of us felt that the debate in March and April, 1966, settled the question of abolition or retention of the death penalty. The House of Commons had fully debated this subject and decided to retain the death penalty for capital murder. However, 18 months later the government introduced another bill that would in effect have abolished capital punishment for all murder except in the case of policemen and prison guards.
As I think back to that second debate in 1967, I remember that many members who rose to address themselves to the question wondered why the government had reintroduced the same question to the same parliament within a matter of months. At that time my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), asked the government about its priority list. I wish to quote from Hansard of November 9, 1967, at page 4084 where the hon. member for Calgary North asked:
Where is the program that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) speaks of with great pride while government ministers go on spending to combat the obvious and admitted financial debacle that is facing the nation? Where is their program for dealing with high interest rates? Where is their program to arrest the high cost of living? Where is their program to eliminate high government spending, high unemployment, and lay-offs?
I suggest we could ask the same questions today and they are just as appropriate as they were back in the days of 1967. It is obvious that the five and a half years of Liberal government since that time has not changed the situation; in fact, these problems have become more serious during that five and a half year period. I wonder now, as my colleagues did in 1967, why the urgency to hold this debate at this time? The decision that is registered will not affect the actions of the government in dealing with murderers.
A number of hon. members in 1967 saw, as well, there was an obvious economic diversion here. They were perceptive enough to see that the bill introduced in 1967 by the then solicitor general was a government ploy, first of all, as I have stated, to divert public attention from economic problems, and second, through the inclusion of the clause on capital punishment for the murder of police officers and prison guards, to influence members into thinking that they were not voting for abolition, and thus get the bill passed by parliament.
So I suggest it was clear then-and history has proven us correct-that the government had no intention whatsoever of carrying out the wishes of parliament. The government disregarded the will of parliament in 1966 by introducing the new bill on capital punishment in 1967. It has disregarded the will of parliament since that time by
26314-38J

May 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
commuting death sentences passed on those convicted of capital murder. In my view, the government has acted in a lawless manner in not upholding the law, and as well has attempted and is now attempting to deceive parliament and the people of Canada. As in 1967 it had no intention, in 1973 it has no intention of obeying the will of parliament if this measure is passed at this time.
I believe this situation has led to a general and widespread deterioration in our total system of justice. The abolitionists state that murder statistics are meaningless because all crime is on the increase, and that if there are more murders it is only because there is more crime. I submit there is more crime in part because of the bad example set in this connection by the government.
If, as the abolitionists state-and I attribute to them honesty of purpose, intention and thought-the murder statistics are not really that bad when compared with the over-all crime rate, it may well be that the publicity campaign of "don't resist a criminal" has been heeded and that, in the words of the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, "there are less dead heroes today than there were yesterday". I would, if I were permitted, call attention to a number of illustrations that point out the seeming failure of the government to recognize its responsibility in properly handling this question of administration of justice, but I think enough of them have been brought to our attention in previous debates to make this unnecessary.
Our friends who believe and are promoting the view that capital punishment should be abolished speak in idealistic terms of removing the convicted killer from society. They speak of protecting the public through the imposition of life sentences for capital murder and extended sentences for other classes of murder. I believe two hon. members of the House intend to propose amendments to this bill that will effectively remove murderers from society for 25 years. However, I am sure all hon. members of the House would agree that not all murderers deserve a sentence of 25 years. There is a difference between the coldblooded, hired killer and those who perhaps under stress, strain and in extenuating circumstances commit murder.
Secondly, I would ask what assurance we would have that the government would carry out a mandatory sentence. The government has refused to fulfil the will of parliament in allowing the penalty for the murder of policemen and prison guards to be carried out, so what guarantee have we that they would ensure that killers in this particular category would remain in prison for 25 years? If we could be guaranteed in some way that a convicted murderer would be isolated from society for the rest of his natural life in the case of premeditated murder, or until rehabilitation could take place in other cases, I am sure many Canadians would re-evaluate their position on this particular matter.
Again, there are those who would transfer the burden of responsibility from the shoulders of the murderer to society as a whole. I think I dealt with this matter in a debate a few days ago when I said that I and a great many Canadians objected to being blamed for the fact that people were put in jail. I cannot agree with this transfer of responsibility. The question is: Should there be any rules set in society? I believe that all or most hon. members agree that there should be. If we are going to have rules, let us obey

them. Personally, I am in favour of the rules applying to everyone. Although various arguments have been advanced in support of the retention of capital punishment, my main contention in this respect is that punishment in general is a technique for preventing breaches of rules, and like any technique it must be judged by its results.
Our society has set up a system of rules, one of which is that one person shall not willfully and intentionally take the life of another person. This system of rules or laws, like any other system of rules, once adopted implies there is a case for implementation in particular instances, so that in any normal case it is sufficient to point to a breach of a rule of the appropriate type to justify a penalty.
As well, when we allocate punishment to a class of offences we are, in a sense, deciding how much crime of that type we are ready to tolerate in preference to the alternative of a stricter penalty. If the penalty for taking the life of an individual is not severe, then we as a society are admitting that we are willing to tolerate more crime of that type. If, on the other hand, the penalty for taking a life is severe, then we are admitting that we are willing to tolerate less of that type of crime. If the penalty is not used, then the whole system breaks down. We set up rules and then let them be diluted, we insist on people being free and responsible, and then we make excuses for them so they do not have to take responsibility for themselves. Punishment, then is not the sole technique for ensuring that laws are kept. There are more responsible people who obey laws because they respect them than there are people who obey them because they fear the consequences of breaking them.
The government complains that there has not been sufficient time for an intensive study into the problem of capital punishment to warrant a decision one way or the other, be it abolition or retention. That is no reason for complaint. For 11 years we have had in Canada de facto abolition; every death sentence passed during that period of time has been commuted. In the last five years the number of death sentences has been lowered because of the provision in the bill passed in 1967. The majority of those convicted of premeditated murder were sentenced by the courts to life imprisonment; the rest of the sentences were automatically commuted to life imprisonment by the cabinet. The lack of action by the government in not undertaking a serious study in the last five years particularly indicates to me that the government really has no intention of carrying out the provisions of this bill, if it is passed by parliament, and that it will continue its policy of commutation, hence de facto abolition.
The question of the double standard for murder, death for the killers of policemen and prison guards and not death for murderers of others, has been dealt with adequately and effectively by other speakers during this debate. I would simply reiterate that I do not believe the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) seriously believes in this double standard. I have the utmost respect for the Solicitor General; I think he is sincere in his belief in abolition of the death penalty, as I think all hon. members are who espouse that view, and for this reason I cannot understand
May 23, 1973

why he would introduce a bill that would perpetuate this double standard.
This bill only confuses the question of capital punishment. If the government had the courage and the fortitude to face Canadians with a clearcut alternative, to retain capital punishment or abolish it, we would be in a much better position to decide on this question. However, I am afraid that if this bill is passed the situation we have had in the past five years will be perpetuated in that the cabinet will continue its practice of automatically commuting the death penalty.
My desire is that the government should invoke the law and the will of parliament, whatever that may be. If hon. members, in their wisdom, decide that the bill should pass, my desire is that the will of parliament be upheld and that murderers of policemen and prison guards be executed. If hon. members, in their judgment, pass an amendment that for instance would require a mandatory sentence of 25 years imprisonment for premeditated murder, then my desire is that the government obey the law and have the murderer serve the 25 years. If we decide not to pass the bill and decide that we should retain the death penalty for premeditated murder, I believe the government should obey the law as parliament has enacted it. In conclusion, then, I would say that it is the responsibility of members to decide what the law should be, but it is the responsibility of the government to carry out the law and to see that it is enforced. The people of Canada have the right to expect that much. We all expect the citizens of this country to obey the laws we enact, but what example do they have when even the government does not uphold the law? Finally, I would urge the government to respect and abide by the decision of parliament whatever that decision might be.


Mr. Joe Hueglin (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, it is often the ploy of abolitionists to raise the spectre of the horrors of hanging; of an innocent man being sent to his death and of the state being more deliberate, and thus more callous, with human life than the individual convicted. Retentionists do not insist on hanging, but on death; execution only for those clearly and unequivocally guilty on the basis of hard, and not circumstantial evidence, and then only for those who have premeditated a murder. These are my views and the views of the vast majority of the citizens of Niagara riding who returned a questionnaire sent to them in February of this year.
This questionnaire did not seek simply a yes or no answer to this question. Rather, it asked the citizens to select one of five options and to state their reasons for holding the positions they hold. The choices were: retention for all who premeditated and executed a murder, retention for all who murdered police officers, abolition totally with a minimum of ten years sentence to be served, a minimum of 25 years to be served and, finally, total abolition but with the sentence to be incarceration for the rest of the murderer's natural life. More than 5,500 questionnaires were returned. On the vast majority the names of the respondents were written, and in most cases two names were to be found; on many three, four and even five opinions were noted. It was a great outpouring of opinion that any professional pollster would find astounding and beyond his experience of percentage of return.
Capital Punishment
Both during the election campaign and after, many of my fellow Niagarans asked me what my views were on this issue. That the question was posed so many times illustrates clearly the interest my people have in this matter. Each person was given the same answer, that in my opinion anyone who uses his reason to plan and carry out an act which costs another human being his life has, by that act, forfeited his own life. I submit that it is reason which has developed society from chaos, and that the misuse of reason in planning the death of another places an individual in the position that he must be permanently removed from society. Both during and after the election this view was accepted by the vast majority of those who asked the question.
When this bill we are debating was introduced, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) quoted figures from a survey he said his department had undertaken. In order to determine whether the citizens of Niagara riding would affirm my position or whether they would support that of the Solicitor General and the government, the questionnaire was distributed. Overwhelmingly, those who replied rejected the present bill and seriously brought into question the validity of the Solicitor General's survey, a survey upon which he bases the desirability of the present bill being enacted into law. In his survey 20.9 per cent favoured complete abolition. In Niagara riding only 16.1 per cent were disposed toward complete abolition, and of these 8.9 per cent only on the basis of natural life being the penalty, something this bill in no way guarantees. In his poll, only 19.1 per cent favoured retention in all cases of premeditated murder, and 59 per cent in limited cases.
How different this is from the 80 per cent of Niagarans who chose retention for all premeditated murders, whereas only 1.3 per cent opted for selected instances such as the murder of police and prison guards. Clearly, the Solicitor General's survey was not conducted among a constituency representative of all Canadians. Rather, it presumably was held within a selected group. I say this for two reasons, firstly because the results of the poll in Niagara riding have been supported in ridings from one end of the country to the other, overwhelming public support for retention, and secondly because it follows the precedents set by other government soundings of opinion, be it the LeDain commission, the Committee on Youth, or what have you; the precedent of blithely ignoring the opinions of the silent majority and of mouthing the beliefs of the permissive, vocal minority that ignores responsibility to society and seeks personal freedom of action.
The abolitionists make light of the outpourings of public sentiment contained in the various polls we have conducted. Remember it was the Solicitor General who in opening this debate introduced his survey to enable him to justify this bill which, as it is written, can satisfy neither an honest abolitionist nor an honest retentionist. At page 689 of Hansard the Solicitor General is reported as having stated, using his poll as his basis of assessment:
-it would appear that to move to either extreme; to move either toward total abolition or toward total retention at this time is neither possible nor desirable under prevailing circumstances.
It was he who introduced a survey to justify this bill. It must now be he who, if he wishes to remain credible, must recognize that "prevailing circumstances" are not as he

May 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
perceived them through his limited survey but, rather, that there is a clear consensus among Canadians or, if you will, an absolute majority of somewhere between 70 per cent and 80 per cent that all convicted premeditated murderers should be the subject of sentence of death.
The minister stated that no alternative to this bill was possible and that it would not be prudent to go in either direction. There is an alternative clearly acceptable to the vast majority of ordinary Canadians but this abolitionist government cannot agree to it, just as it could not agree to honour the law of the last five years asTfwas written. The Solicitor General quite rightly states it would not be prudent to seek total abolition. Why should the government be imprudent by giving us a clear choice when it can have abolition in fact through the passage of this bill, even though it does not grant abolition in law? We all know that commutation for the murderers of police officers will follow their conviction surer than night follows day. This is the way honest, law-abiding Canadians perceive this bill and that is the reason it is so widely opposed.
* (1700)
Let us state it clearly: Canadians want retention; this government does not. It is using its survey as an argument for denying us a clear choice which it knows would be against its wishes, and offers us instead this compromise which has in the last five years, and will in the next five if this bill passes into law, enable it to achieve by executive decree what it could not obtain by legislative act-complete abolition of death as a punishment for the murder of anyone, by any means.
I find it ironic that this cabinet, by championing permissiveness in other areas, has been in large measure the author of the great popular resistance it is encountering in implementing this de facto abolition which it now seeks. It is interesting to look at the Gallup polls over the years. In 1953, 71 per cent were in favour of retention; in 1966, the number dropped to 53 per cent; in 1972, it rose again to 63 per cent; in 1966 to 1972, the years of the present government's administration, the number has risen and I would suggest that it has further risen since this poll was taken in February of 1972.
That this has been recognized by the cabinet and even by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can be proven by his speech of May 16 in which he cast himself in the role of the protector of society. It can be proven by his speech in which he stated that adjustments may be needed in certain areas and in which he begged people to differentiate between the present debate and the problem of the general direction of our society in matters of peace and order.
May I suggest that although the media may have considered this speech as proof that his countervailing theories are again coming to the fore, or as another act of contrition and renewal or as a brilliant recognition of reality sincerely delivered, in fact it was none of these. Actually, it was a thoroughly political move designed to shore up utterly bankrupt prison policies. The Prime Minister stated that he would save us from the perils that many of us feel, that others of us have suffered from directly, some to the point of their own death, and which arise directly or indirectly out of the innovations of this government over the last five years.

The Prime Minister spoke of protection from fear and uncertainty and he told us how he would provide protection. It was a speech that a pied piper of old could have given, a pied piper who, having deliberately introduced rats into a town, when faced with the cries of concerned citizens states, "Yes, there are rats and I will take care of them for you. Follow my tune and all will be well".
Many of my more learned colleagues will debate this bill on the basis of abstract theory-deterrence versus no deterrent effect, and moral right versus moral wrong. While some of the people in my riding argue this way, and as stated previously they believe overwhelmingly that retention is a deterrent as well as a moral imperative, most are concerned not with the abstractions of theory but with the practical reality of living. Their reasons for supporting retention are based upon their very real sense of insecurity.
The Prime Minister recognized some of the reasons for their concern when he stated that these factors should not be considered in dealing with this bill. But they are considerations of very real importance to most of the people in our society. Let the Prime Minister ignore these honest concerns, if he will, as he ignored them prior to October 30, but let his followers take note of the fact that the law of retaliation still exists and that artificial distinctions are not acceptable to a populace that considers itself at the mercy of the criminal element in our society.
It is my intention to put on the record the thoughts that have led the good people of Niagara riding to support retention. The ease with which criminals are able to return to society, the adoption of permissive attitudes on the part of this government, the fact that no death sentence has been imposed, together with the widespread statements regarding the cost of maintaining prisoners in the increasingly better-appointed penal institutions, have all led to increased support for the retention of the death penalty. Argue as you will, security of life and property is the greatest concern of all those who do not have it. Intellectuals and the wealthy, both of whom are insulated from the reality of life, can argue theory but the rest of us find real only that which is tangible.
In Niagara Falls we have experienced a particularly vicious and undoubtedly premeditated murder. A man and his mistress drowned his pregnant wife in her bath. By this act two lives, not one, were taken-one life that had quickened and another which some at least consider no less real, but as yet unborn. The man received a life sentence and the woman seven years for this heinous act. Within three years Louis Vigna may be given a weekend pass. Within ten years he may be released, and he surely will be for he is no doubt a model prisoner. In fact, he wrote me a letter congratulating me on my victory, wishing me a good Christmas season, and casually mentioning his parole. My people see no justice in this, and I find it strange to receive a letter from a man I would condemn, but so widespread is the belief that this government will countenance anyone obtaining an early return to society that it is the common belief in Niagara Falls that this man has already been released a number of times.
The cabinet must bear the responsibility for the abhorrence felt by the public at large and for their demand that such creatures who are able to return so easily to society
May 23, 1973

must be destroyed. Not only abuse of early parole and weekend passes is responsible for this insecurity, but also the manner in which the so-called bail reform act has been implemented. Time and time again, when men are apprehended in the commission of a crime, with no thought as to their past record, they are returned immediately to society under this bail reform act. When they go beyond their normal occupations of drug pushers and thieves and become murderers as well, does the government accept blame for the fact that they are at large? Not likely!
Not only will the government not accept any blame, but the police are accused by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) of attempting to subvert the act by returning these men to society. Not content with this, this same minister who is responsible for justice tells judges who criticize his policies that they are to remain silent, that they are not to comment on this government's policies. Surely it is irresponsible for a minister, when faced with the patent failure of a law to protect the public-however much it may be protecting the criminal-to further increase the insecurity of an already jittery public by attacking the very men upon whom our security rests on a day to day basis.
In this I do not exaggerate. Some of my people are concerned about the fact that under prevailing conditions it may no longer be possible to attract good men into our police force. It is clear that the present government has acted in such a manner that the police are seriously inhibited in the performance of their functions, and that this has engendered such insecurity that retentionist sentiment has grown.
The easy return of criminals into society is the greatest cause of insecurity, but the general tone of permissiveness that this government has engendered has played its part as well. Parents are concerned about the world into which their children are growing. The people of Niagara riding are concerned about drug abuse because they see its effects upon many of our young people. But the LeDain commission and the Committee on Youth are all for legalization. The Prime Minister stated "there is little difference between marijuana and alcohol use," and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) said that Rochdale is "an experiment worth continuing." The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) downgrades the drug problem by making alcohol the prime concern. These acts by the government have not gone unnoticed. In fact, they have led to many suggestions that drug pushers should be executed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) wishes to rise on a question of privilege?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the hon. member would want to mislead the House, but neither the LeDain commission, the government, the Minister of Justice nor the Minister of National Health and Welfare have ever suggested that marijuana should be legalized. I suggest that the hon. member read the report of the LeDain commission. It did not make that recommendation, nor did any members of the government.
Capital Punishment


M. Hueglin:: I did not mislead the House. I did not say that they said it should be legalized-the LeDain commission said that.


William Warren Allmand: It did not. It suggested that the penalties should be changed.


Joseph Fred Hueglin: What is the difference?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Unless these kinds of interventions are made so as to correct a misunderstanding, they are not in order.


Joseph Fred Hueglin: I take the matter under advisement, Mr. Speaker. If the minister wishes to make a distinction between removing the penalties and making marijuana legal, then I am prepared to accept the criticism. It makes no difference in the minds of the people.
"Doing your own thing" until the October 30 election was the theme of the government, and while it has not been so pronounced during this Parliament, the damage of four years has taken its toll. Average law-abiding citizens are concerned about the direction of the society in which they and their children are living. But what assurance did they get from the government, even as late as the Speech from the Throne? They got the reassurance that rehabilitation of the criminal element came first and that protection of society came second. First comes the individual, even though he has already outlawed himself, and only then comes society. Most Canadians are tired of being used as guinea pigs for fancy theories.
It is strange that even the argument used to justify the release of prisoners has come back to haunt the government: Save money by releasing prisoners. Save thousands of dollars per head. Well, this argument is now advanced by many who have been influenced by such propaganda, but in this form-if it costs so much to incarcerate a murderer, let him hang. Ironic, isn't it, how governments' arguments are of times used against them? Try as he will, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot make this question academic. He cannot do so because our citizens are concerned about the safety of their families and they perceive the law relating to premeditated murder as the keystone in the arch of justice, a keystone that if removed will cause the whole arch to tumble and leave them defenceless at the hands of criminals. In the words of Bernard Cohen, published in Chitty's Law Journal of March, 1972:
Nowadays, by common consent, murder is considered as no more than the principle highlight in a broad spectrum of impermissible acts. Since the intention is that everyone be penalized in proportion to the gravity of his offence, scarcely any sociological commitment is required on the part of anyone, to discover that the scaling down of the traditional penalty for murder, in all logic, ought to be attended also by some adjustment of penalties for secondary crimes such as manslaughter, rape, theft, and so forth; and this adjustment has indeed taken place. The cancellation of the death penalty for murder can be said to have marked the beginning of, and set the stage for, our present era of laissez faire towards all crimes and criminals.
Peace, order and good government are the primary responsibilities of the federal government of Canada under the written section of our constitution. That the

May 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
peace and order of this country are threatened is clear in the minds of most citizens. That the government's policies, as described above, have contributed to this insecurity cannot be honestly denied.
This present bill is an intellectual compromise, arrived at to bring in abolition in fact when it could not be brought in by law due to the oft expressed opinion of the vast majority of our fellow citizens. Both as an individual member acting on my own conscience and as the representative of the people of Niagara riding, I shall vote against this bill in favour of the maintenance of peace and order in our society.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Leimox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, one might deem this to be an historic debate: we debated this subject in 1967 and we are debating it again in 1973. But before I begin to talk about the theme of the debate, which rests mainly on law and order, I would like to make reference to a recent murder committed extraterritorially of this country. I refer to the recent foul and deliberate murder of two young Canadian girls by Zambian troops along the Zambezi River. I call on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government to demand a national apology to and restitution for the bereaved families of these girls from the Zambian government. Mr. Speaker, I took the liberty to make these remarks knowing that you, too, would be sympathetic.
Secondly, while still talking about law and order, which are the basic requisites of any civilized society, I take more pleasure in my next remark. On this occasion I wish to pay tribute to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as they and this nation mark the one hundredth anniversary of the founding of this typically Canadian body of men. One can truly say that Canada would not exist as it does today were it not for the services rendered in the past by this respected institution. Law and order and the protection of persons and property have been their duty and watchword. As just one of 22 million Canadians, I thank and congratulate the RCMP as they mark their centennial.
I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate on Bill C-2, a bill that seeks to extend the temporary ban on capital punishment. In one way, Sir, it is unfortunate the recent rash of prison breaks and the concurrent rash of murders of police officials have been occurring at a time when Members of Parliament are attempting to deal objectively with one of the most pressing problems of our time. On the other hand, it has become very clear in recent months that we cannot deal with this problem on an emotional basis. We must be prepared to be as objective as is humanly possible when we decide what we, as parliamentarians, must do in order to ensure that innocent people are not made to suffer because we are too squeamish and indecisive.
We hear over and over again that it is wrong to take a human life even in the name of justice. We are told that legal execution should not be reinstated as an instrument of the state and that there is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent against murder or other violent crimes. Mr. Speaker, you and most members of the House know where I stand regarding capital punishment. I say again that I am in favour of the retention of capital punishment, first because of my basic belief-and it is very basic and fundamental-that all civilized nations

which use what is called the democratic system should never relinquish the right to demand the life of any one of their citizens for certain capital crimes.
Arguments such as those that I have mentioned are specious. In the first place, there is no way that anyone can assess the effectiveness of a law unless that law is applied in the manner called for by its wording. The present government has not applied the law, approved by parliament, that we are debating today. The law as it exists today calls for the death penalty for convicted murderers of police officers and prison officials. This was supposed to extend for five years, during which time we would be amassing some good, solid evidence as to how this law would work if it were made permanent. At the end of the five-year test ban, parliament was committed to decide whether or not the death penalty would be permanently banned or whether it would be reinstated. We are not debating that issue, Mr. Speaker; we are debating whether or not to extend the test ban for another five years. In other words, we are being asked to allow the government to pass the buck to some other parliament five years from now.
This is the same government that was in power when the present law was approved by parliament. It knows very well what the intention of parliament was at that time. It is not surprising that the government wants to put off a decision as long as possible. I do not think that it has anything to do with the question of whether or not it is inhumane to carry out legal executions. The plain fact is that the present government cannot bring itself to make a firm decision on a matter as controversial as capital punishment. Over the past five years the government has commuted every single death penalty imposed by our courts on murderers of policemen and prison officials. Being realistic, I say that is not a good record because they have in this manner flaunted the orders put forward. This was a clear abdication of responsibility, and in a sense was tantamount to flouting the law.
I have said, Mr. Speaker, that the government has tried to follow two courses. I have here an article which appeared in the Kingston Whig Standard on Thursday, May 17. The front-page headline reads, "Trudeau backs legislation to retain death penalty". How devious can a headline be? It reflects either very poor proof-readers or a deliberate attempt to fool the readers of this newspaper. It is a perfectly good Canadian press article, but the headline is most devious. Referring to the Prime Minister the article says:
And he assured parliament that commutation of the death sentence for such murders will not be automatic if the bill is approved.
In the very first paragraph, correctly reporting the Prime Minister's speech the writer says:
He reaffirmed his position against the death penalty and he defended the government's actions in the past in commuting death sentences.
How equivocal can the Prime Minister be in his efforts to bolster his faded image regarding protection of persons and property in this country and the carrying out of the laws which this parliament has legislated? It cannot
May 23, 1973

be said by anyone that there were extenuating circumstances in each and every one of those commutations. Some of them were calculated, cold-blooded murders of policemen who happened to be in range of the murderer's gun; some were so completely senseless and brutal that I cannot see how any responsible minister of the government could vote to spare the life of the murderer. In commuting all these sentences the government served notice to all those who might be inclined to murder a policeman in order to avoid capture that the most they could expect by way of punishment would be a short prison sentence.
We know that our former colleague in the last parliament-I forget the name of his riding-Mr. Cowan, did a lot of homework during a former debate and found out that on average the death sentence meant a little more than eight or nine years. All recent death sentences have been commuted to life imprisonment, as we know. What is a life sentence? It is perhaps eight or ten years unless the prisoner gets tired of prison life and decides to climb the fence.
There is another aspect of the commutation of the death sentence that makes a mockery of the situation; that is the fact that the last five years have been a waste of time with respect to being a test of this legislation. When the government persisted in commuting all the death sentences imposed by the courts, it destroyed the validity of the data collected on this problem and it destroyed its own credibility, in the judgment of the Canadian people.
There is no way that anyone could talk knowledgeably about the deterrent effect of a law that has never been applied, Mr. Speaker. I cannot accept arguments that are based on the findings of the last five years in the operation of this temporary test ban. The temporary ban on capital punishment has been treated by the present government as a moratorium on capital punishment across the board, so the data that has been collected is useless to us. That is one reason why I am not quoting statistics in my speech. I have heard them quoted, and I give fellow members credit for digging them up, but I say they are no use to us because of the posture of the government during the past five years.
I do not want to pass the buck to some other parliament, and neither do other hon. members, for a number of reasons. The incidence of violent crime, against police officers in particular, the breakdown in the parole system, the increase in the number of prison breaks and the general deterioration in all aspects of law enforcement demand that we as parliamentarians take a firm and positive hand in these matters because the Canadian people are filled with revulsion at the way things are going now.
There are scores of specific cases that I could relate with respect to the seriousness of the situation, but these are well known to all of us. I will refer to one case; it concerns an inmate of Collins Bay medium security prison. That is the riding of Kingston and the Islands, but it is my neighbourhood. This man, Laslo Eper, was convicted of attempted murder of a policeman and was serving two life sentences. As I was preparing my remarks last night, Eper was still at large. A few days ago he stole an automobile from a prison employee at gun point. His warning to his
Capital Punishment
victim should go into the record: he said, "If you warn them in any way, I'll kill you and the cops as well. It'll be a bloody day today."
Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of how a criminal looks upon a law that he knows will not be carried out. Eper knows that if he kills anyone, even a policeman, he will have another life term tacked on to the two terms he is already serving, which does not mean very much to him.
This situation has been reflected in other parts of the world and other parts of this continent. I should like to quote an excerpt from the "Canadian Intelligence Service" of April, 1973. This is the truth, too. It does not necessarily reflect upon the Liberal party, but it reflects upon the type of liberalism that is rampant in the world today. I refer to it because I think the House would be interested to hear what it is all about. The article entitled "Incentive to murder" reads:
Does the death penalty provide a deterrent to murder? Learned authorities argue about this and often quote statistics which they allege support their conclusions. I suspect that most participants in the debate select the statistics they use to confirm conclusions they have reached by other means. However, when all the "experts" have given their arguments, most sensible people remain convinced that fear of the penalty of death will deter some people who may be considering committing homicide. Most of us know that the possibility of the death penalty would deter us if we were tempted to such a horrendous act.
While there is debate concerning the role of the death penalty as a deterrent, there can be no doubt that the abolition of the death penalty has created an incentive to kill. Most people who indulge in criminal activities wish to escape detection and punishment. Consider a criminal engaged in a major crime such as kidnapping or armed robbery. He is anxious to escape capture and punishment. If he is caught and convicted, the penalty is substantially the same whether he has killed or not. His security is enhanced if no witnesses survive who can identify him for the police and give evidence against him in court. The temptation to kill potential witnesses must be strong in such circumstances. The criminal has much to gain and nothing to lose by murder.
The abolition of the death penalty has placed the lives of many innocent people in jeopardy. It illustrates the paradox that characterizes this epoch: Intense concern for the rights and well-being of the criminal; little concern for the rights and well-being of the victim.
Is that not true, Mr. Speaker? I now come to the part of the article which impressed me most:
A shock of horror swept this nation when in Khartoum, the capital city of the Sudan, the Black September group of Palestinian guerrillas cold-bloodedly and brutally murdered the U.S. Ambassador to the Sudan, Cleo A. Noel, Jr., and the Charge d'Affaires, George C. Moore. Those who have succeeded in abolishing the death penalty in the U.S., share some of the responsibility for these deaths.
The guerrillas claim they killed because their demands were rejected. One of these demands was that Sirhan Sirhan, Arab assassin of Senator Kennedy, be freed. This demand was possible because Sirhan Sirhan is alive. After the death of Senator Kennedy, he was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death. This sentence was commuted to life imprisonment when the death penalty was abolished.
That is, it was abolished in the United States. I continue:
His presence in prison provided an incentive for the crime.
I think the hon. member who spoke a few minutes ago will agree that Sirhan Sirhan should not be alive. However, as his sentence of death was never carried out, he stayed alive and this provided the incentive to the Black

May 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
September gang for its actions, which led to two more murders. I will finish quoting from the article:
Most violent criminals have colleagues and friends who are also violent. Doubtless many ruthless men are presently considering their choice of victims to kidnap in order to force the release of some imprisoned murderer. One successful venture would trigger an epidemic.
Many thinking people throughout the world must have been startled when the U.S. Secretary of State, William P. Rogers, urged the Sudanese authorities to execute the murderers of Cleo A. Noel and George C. Moore. They knew that the American authorities could not have executed the assassins if the crime had been committed on American soil. To them this must have seemed imperialist hypocrisy, flavored with colonialism and racism-one law for the rich, the U.S.A.

another for the poor, the Sudan.
Whatever their motives, those who have succeeded in abolishing the death penalty in this country-
That remarks applies to this country also.
-have merely substituted the deaths of the innocent for the guilty.
I think that article is worthy of being included in the record and that is why I read it, Mr. Speaker. We can take this as the basis of a hypothetical case, and make a projection as to how an extension of the temporary ban would work in the future. We can suppose that a man such as Eper, to whom I referred, might kill a prison guard or two in making an escape and then shoot it out with the police to avoid being apprehended and returned to prison. He might kill one or more policemen, and in the end he might be given three or four or even five life sentences to serve. After a while it becomes ludicrous. Instead of dealing with crime, this bill will simply make a mockery of the law. And, Mr. Speaker, I cannot, nor can some other hon. members, be a party to anything that makes a mockery of the law. We already have a situation in which the only people who have any respect for the law or fear of retribution are those who obey the law.
It might be said by the total abolitionists that I have do not have any feeling for the sanctity of life. But nothing could be further from the truth. I have a deep-seated revulsion for violence and no one could have any more feeling for the finality of death than I have. However, unlike the abolitionists, perhaps, I reserve my deepest sympathy for the victims of violent criminals. My sympathies go first to those innocent, law-abiding Canadians who might be unfortunate enough to be in a bank when it is being robbed. My sympathies are for the policemen who are shot down in the course of their duties while protecting our lives and property from violent criminals. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I have been concerned since the convict Eper escaped that he might kill someone as he tries to get automobiles and money, or that he might kill one or more policemen if he is cornered.
In my view, it is strange logic when someone casually accepts the deaths of criminals in a gun battle with police officers at the scene of a crime. Hardly anyone mourns their passing. But if there happens to be a survivor and he is convicted and sentenced to death, there is a hue and cry about the sanctity of his life. He cannot be put to death by the state because, it is said, legal executions are barbaric. Some people even excuse this attitude by saying that anyone who choses the police as a career knows in advance that he might at some time be required to put his life on the line. They say it is one of the hazards of his

profession. I cannot excuse killers of policemen as lightly as that, Mr. Speaker, and I doubt if many people can accept this if they look deeply enough into their conscience.
I would not attempt to influence any of my colleagues in the way they will vote on this bill. It is much too serious a matter and can only be decided on the most personal basis. It is a question that defies an answer that would deal with criminals as harshly as they deal with their victims, but at the same time satisfy those who place the sanctity of the lives of murderers above the barbarity of the criminals' acts. However, although I would not attempt to influence them directly, I think it would be in order to suggest that every member of this House should think seriously about the way our statements and actions in this House will be viewed by the lawless elements in our society. I am sure that they are going to be heartened by comments to the effect that the sanctity of a murderer's life overrides the barbarity of a brutal, premeditated murder of an innocent victim.
There are hardened, vicious inmates in our prisons who would like very much to get out. Some of them will take the calculated risk involved in resorting to violence in order to gain their freedom. If they believe that the worst they can get is a prison sentence, then what have they to lose? The plain fact is that over the past year the violent criminal has been getting more attention and more consideration from the present government than has been given to his victims. Unless this attitude changes abruptly I am afraid the efforts of our police, our courts and our prison system in dealing with crime will be thwarted.
Sir, we have an opportunity right now, while we are debating whether or not we will pass the buck to another parliament, to take positive steps to deal with one of the most pressing issues of our time and of our civilization. We can decide now that we will not put off this opportunity to wage war on crime and on those who make crime their profession.
There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the government's handling of the test ban on capital punishment has created confusion in the minds of criminals and law-abiding citizens alike over the past five years. For one thing, we appear to take the same attitude toward the person who kills without intent or plan, and the criminal who kills in the course of following the profession of crime. When the government commutes the sentences of those specifically mentioned in a piece of legislation and accords them the same treatment as those who might be guilty of manslaughter, there is no way we can convince law-abiding citizens that their well-being is uppermost in our minds.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say to this House that I cannot in all conscience accept the premise of this bill. It is not designed to correct the present tendency toward violence in our society. It will not further the ends of justice and certainly will not serve to deter anyone who decides on a life of crime. It will not deter people from taking the lives of policemen or prison guards, and it will not give anyone the impression that we in parliament are interested in erecting safeguards for the innocent victims of crime. In fact, Mr. Speaker, short of giving comfort to criminals and potential criminals, passage and implemen-
May 23, 1973

tation of this bill will accomplish exactly nothing. I cannot, and will not support it and will register my vote against it.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill I think it is important for me to clear up a couple of matters. First, it is important to decide what this bill is not about. This bill is not about the present parole laws or their application in this country. This bill is not about the present bail laws or their application in this country. These are matters for the administration of justice. I know that this House is certainly taken up with concern over these matters and, along with many hon. members, I hope there will be a thoroughgoing debate and considerable deliberation in relation to them.
What we are talking about is a bill which has to do with the ultimate punishment, death, for certain crimes. I know that many members of this House, as well as members of the public, feel that the exercise we are going through is in a sense futile. Certainly it is a very slow and deliberate one. Even though it is a slow and deliberate exercise and some observers outside the House, as well as in, may feel that this parliament is not progressing all that much in the sense that not very many people are changing their minds, I rise to speak not in the hope that I will be able to change many minds but with the knowledge that men's minds have been changed over the years.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, in the city of Montreal a boy of 14 was hanged for stealing a cow. It is even more ironic to consider that his name was Clement. Certainly, none of us in this House today would consider restoring that kind of law which could apply that kind of severity to such a young person committing so paltry a crime. Over the years, slowly and imperceptibly, our minds are changed. We have arrived at a different conception of ourselves as human beings. We have different views with regard to our attitudes and how our attitudes affect our actions.
It is a matter of historical record that as the years have gone by and legislatures around the world have removed the death penalty from crime after crime, the incidence of those particular crimes has not gone up, but down. Members of this House were apprised of a study this year which indicated this fact very clearly. This fact was very well founded in statistics.
It is obvious to me, as it is to everyone else, that human progress, though slow at times, is sure. I take it that very few members entering this debate have quoted the ancient biblical words saying that we must take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. However, if the adage was quoted in support of the retention of capital punishment, I would have to say that the import of the adage was misunderstood. When it was said in those ancient days that we should take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, it was a progressive statement. Before that, more than an eye was taken for an eye and more than a tooth was taken for a tooth. It was a clear statement against the principle that vengeance had to be complete and thorough.
The principle had been that if a man found that another man had taken his brother's life, he was not only allowed
Capital Punishment
to take the life of the killer but the lives of the killer's wife, his children, brothers, sisters and all those in his house. We cannot go back to that adage and say that was a strict code of justice calling for total retribution. In its day, it was a progressive step. Just as it was a long time ago a progression in the ascent of man into a better conception of himself, so today we are considering an act which is a step, albeit a very small one, in that ascent of man toward a better conception of himself.
Along with many members of this House, I have received word from my constituents on the question of the retention or abolition of capital punishment. I am not disclosing any secret when I say that the opinion of those who responded to the questionnaire I sent out early in the year was overwhelmingly in favour of the retention of capital punishment. I forget the exact percentage breakdown, but roughly 70 per cent of the people who wrote in from my constituency said they wanted capital punishment retained or, more accurately, restored. Some 30 per cent were either indifferent or opposed to the retention of capital punishment.
I could try to explain away those figures by saying that I received only 2,000 answers and there are some 55,000 voters in my constituency. I could try to kid myself by saying there are many, many people in my constituency who did not answer and who probably favour the abolition of capital punishment. I can certainly try, as I do, to weigh this expression of opinion against the consistent expression of opinion on the part of church and other groups in my constituency, my city, province and country, which have written to me, as they have to other members of this House, asking us to vote for the abolition of capital punishment.
Certainly, there is a strong division of opinion. I cannot kid myself into thinking that there are many people in my constituency, city, province and country who agree with my point of view. However, I detect many of those who wrote to me in favour of retention were concerned about public safety. I have to respect their concern because it is very real. I cannot for one moment condemn them for expressing this concern or judge them harshly for resorting to the belief that the restoration of capital punishment would increase public safety.
I could certainly use an argument that would run like this: If you are so concerned about saving human lives, then why not concern yourself with changing the law as it controls construction safety in this country, because many more people are killed at work than are killed by murderers. I forget the exact figure for the last year, but it amounted to well over 900. If our concern was to preserve human life against accidents which are avoidable and which happen because we are all somehow greedy and want cheaper buildings, more profits and so on, then we should certainly address ourselves to the laws which control construction safety. As I suggested a moment ago, I am not going to divert the argument in this direction, although it is an important consideration.
I want for a moment to consider what justifications there are for punishment, and not just capital punishment. It seems to me there are three basic justifications for punishment. Safety is the first one. We put people away for reasons of public safety, and under this rubric of safety

May 23, 1973
Capital Punishment
is the notion of rehabilitation. We feel that if we put a person away for a time we can get him to mend his ways, to use an old term; that we can rehabilitate that person so that when he emerges into society again he will be no cause of threat to public safety. Very obviously-I am not trying to be ironic here-we cannot justify capital punishment on the basis of rehabilitation, so we have to look elsewhere for justification.
Deterrence is the second justification for punishment. For some years now I have become convinced that capital punishment is not a deterrent. It is understood, of course, that I tend to see statistics in quite a different way from a person who is convinced that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. But to me, the argument about deterrence is neither here nor there. I quite readily grant to those who argue that we need restoration of capital punishment that the case for a deterrent, either for or against, is not proven.
I repeat; the case presented by the statistics satisfies my judgment, but I can understand if other members of the House do not have their judgment satisfied by the figures. In an absolute sense, the case for deterrence is not proven. It is not destroyed. It is not established. It is not proven. However, I cannot help but be affected by the fact that in those jurisdictions where there is no capital punishment there seems to be a very low rate of capital murder.
A critic of my view could say, "Well, which came first? Was it the case that at first you had a relatively non-violent society which in turn felt no need for the imposition of capital punishment and therefore removed capital punishment from its laws, or did it work the other way around?" I do not think we can go through any kind of mechanistic calculation that will give us the answer. I suspect, indeed I believe very strongly, that a state that says simply and clearly that it will not take a life deliberately somehow sets up a tone, an attitude, a mood, a way of looking at things in that society which in turn tends to reduce the level of violence. And as it reduces the level of violence, so it also reduces the level of capital crime.
So I say to those who are concerned with public safety; Look to those states that have eliminated the death penalty and see how they have also reduced the amount of violent crime. The correlation may not be exact, the logic relating the cause to the effect may not be clear, but nevertheless it is there. If we are concerned about saving lives, I would advance the thesis, which may appear to be paradoxical, that the abolition of capital punishment might have more to do with the saving of lives than the harshest punishment can propose.
The final justification for punishment is that of retribution. I spoke earlier of retribution when I referred to the ancient adage of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I suppose that one form of retribution is vengeance, but I do not suggest for one moment that any member of this House supports the retention of capital punishment for reasons of vengeance. I do not even suggest that the people in my riding who want capital punishment reinstated are motivated by vengeance. I think what they are seeking is a sense of justice, a feeling that somehow this universe is a moral and fair one; that those who go to the ultimate step of taking another person's life deliberately must somehow make retribution so that justice is served.
The only argument in favour of capital punishment that is worth while looking at in a moral or philosophical sense is the one that says that society must impose capital punishment for certain crimes in order that society may clearly indicate to all its members its abhorrence for that kind of action. That is a serious argument, one on which we must dwell for a moment. I grant its power as an argument and I suspect that behind much of the debate we have heard in support of retention we can find the premise that somehow or other society has to indicate that certain actions cannot be taken with impunity, that punishment for certain actions must be absolute. Against this argument I pose a counter argument which says very simply this, that the state must indicate through its deliberate and considered action its sense of the value of human life, and it must state that it, the state, will not lower itself to the status and level of the criminal.
If you will allow me another 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, that is all I need to finish my point. I understand the motivations for vengeance. I have the same feelings myself. To the person who asks me what I would do if a rapist strangled and killed my daughter, my immediate reaction is to say that I would strangle him with my bare hands. But I know that I must not act in this way. The history of man is such that any man who acts according to these urges knows that this is the wrong way to act. What we are doing here is sitting in full, considered and cool deliberation, not in the heat of the moment. We parliamentarians, men and women representing the people of this country, must decide that our country, our state will not lower itself to the level of the criminal.
I hope that before this debate is ended I will have an opportunity of voting for total abolition. In the meantime,
I simply want to put my position before the House. I urge the few hon. members of this House who may be wavering to reconsider, because although it is a slow process we are here again re-establishing and restating our full consideration of the value of human life.
At 6.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
May 23, 1973


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Minister of State Urban Affairs Canada
April 13, 1973
Judge Charles O. Bick Chairman
Metropolitain Board of Commissioners
of Police 590 Jarvis Street Toronto, Ont. M4Y 2J5 Dear Sir:
I wish to thank you for having your Executive Secretary send to me a copy of the report dated March 9, 1973 from the Chief of Police concerning Rochdale College in the city of Toronto.
I join with the members of your board in expressing concern over the contents of this report and I appreciate your courtesy in sending to me a copy of it.
Because of statements attributed to members of the Toronto Police that Rochdale College should be closed, I feel that the federal government's responsibility in this case must be clarified. Our involvement, as you are aware, is through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation who hold a first mortgage dated February 15, 1967, which said mortgage was made for the purpose of financing what appeared to be a legitimate student co-operative residence. The loan was made following consultations with representatives of the University of Toronto and the government of Ontario. This residence was subsequently sold to Rochdale College and the mortgage went on repayment March 1st, 1969.
With the build-up of mortgage arrears, CMHC issued a writ of foreclosure on August 17, 1971, claiming foreclosure, suit on the convenant and possession. Due to the fact that the action for foreclosure and possession was opposed by Revenue Properties Central Developments Ltd., a secondary encumbrancer, and by Rochdale College, the owners, the main foreclosure action has not yet come to trial, and CMHC was barred from possession of the building. However, pleadings have been noted closed and
appointments are being made to examine witnesses as the result of issues that have been raised by the said pleadings. It is most difficult at the present time to give you any firm indication as to when this action will be finalized and possession and management obtained by CMHC but the solicitors have been instructed by CMHC and personally by me to proceed as expeditiously as possible with this action.
You are aware that CMHC's solicitor, having been denied possession by the court, made an application to the Supreme Court of Ontario for the appointment of an interim receiver to act on behalf of all creditors and obtained an order on September 14, 1972, appointing Clarkson and Company as the interim receiver and manager. It is to be noted that this court order was for the benefit of all creditors and specifically excluded CMHC from taking over possession and management of the residence. The administration of this institution would now seem to be accountable to the Supreme Court of Ontario.
I would like to assure you of all possible co-operation in resolving this very unsatisfactory situation but I must emphasize that the onus of law enforcement at Rochdale College is clearly the responsibility of the police and not that of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs or CMHC.
I have read with interest that the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario has asked for a report on Rochdale College following a recent coroner's jury recommendation which stated, "If there are any existing legal reasons why Rochdale College cannot be closed down, that the provincial Attorney General facilitate legislation to close Rochdale as it now exists, at the earliest possible time." In view of this I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to the provincial Attorney General.
In response to your last point I wish to assure you that officials of CMHC will welcome the opportunity of discussing the situation at Rochdale if, and when, the court grants possession and title of the building to CMHC, at which time we will look forward to your co-operation to enforce our rights.
Yours sincerely,
Ron Basford.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 24, 1973