1973-05-14

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF MR. SPEAKER DEWHURST OF SASKATCHEWAN AND MR. SPEAKER DOWDING OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

['The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: It shall be a condition of every appointment that except with the approval of the chairman and subject to such conditions as the board may prescribe the appointee shall not be a candidate or actively participate in work for or against a candidate for election to the House of Commons, the legislature of any province or the Council of the Yukon Territory or the\nOrder Paper Questions\nNorth West Territories or for or against any political party.']
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with routine business, may I be allowed by hon. members to bring to their attention the presence in the Speaker's gallery of two distinguished Canadian parliamentarians from the provincial assemblies who are in Ottawa along with other Speakers, Deputy Speakers and Clerks of the legislative assemblies to attend the annual meeting of the area council of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Two of these gentlemen felt it might be useful to them and to their assemblies, I suppose, to witness the proceedings of this distinguished House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members will allow me to signal their presence, I refer to Mr. Speaker Dewhurst of Saskatchewan and Mr. Speaker Dowding of British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the province of Quebec, 1973.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of the utmost urgency stemming from the incredible rash of breakouts from federal penitentiaries, the latest being the escape of five dangerous prisoners from St. Vincent de Paul. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That this House Orders a special committee be immediately set up to investigate all aspects of the penitentiary system, including the operation of weekend leaves, of the Bail Reform Act and, if the committee decides it is necessary, of the National Parole Board, and report its findings and recommendations to this House as quickly as is consistent with a thorough investigation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


FISHERIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of very urgent and pressing necessity. Tomorrow, May 15, is one of the deadlines established by an agreement signed between Canada and the United States on April 19 of this year, the effect of which, if fully consummated, will be to deny Canadian salmon fishermen on the west coast access to certain stocks of United States salmon while opening up the access that United States fishermen will have to Canadian salmon, particularly Fraser River stocks. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this House disapproves of the agreement between Canada and the United States of America dated April 19, 1973, which seeks to give salmon fishermen of the United States undue access to Canadian stocks of salmon.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.
Nuclear Tests EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

May 14, 1973


FORTHCOMING NUCLEAR TESTS BY FRANCE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the impending French nuclear tests in the Pacific some time this month and in view of the mounting world protests, including those from our Commonwealth partners, Australia and New Zealand, I seek, under Standing Order 43, unanimous consent of the House to move a resolution in similar terms to those adopted by this chamber in regard to the Amchitka test by the United States and the nuclear tests by France last year. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather):
That the Canadian House of Commons again calls on all nuclear powers to cease all testing of nuclear devices and specifically on the government of France to cancel all its proposed nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent? It is difficult to determine. Perhaps we should call for the "nays" this time.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is unanimous consent provided the motion is not debated.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed? Is there unanimous consent to the proposal of the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is unanimous consent, the motion will be put.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the order: Motions.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do so at this time because it appears we are at the conclusion of the item, motions, on our agenda and no one on the government side has risen to make an announcement to the House about a matter of very great importance that I raised a while ago. I refer to the agreement between Canada and the United States signed on April 19 of this year which, effective tomorrow, seeks to bring about a severe restriction of the opportunities for Canadian fishermen on the west coast to fish stocks of United States-bound salmon while enhancing and increasing the opportunity of United States fishermen on the same coast to fish close to shore up to our three mile limit and seriously impinge on the stocks of Canadian-bound and Canadian-owned Fraser River Salmon.
I think it is an affront to the House for the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. I realize that hon. members sometimes would like to hear statements on motions from hon. members on the government side, but I doubt very much that the failure on the part of a minister or of the government to make a statement on motions can be brought to the attention of the House by way of a question of privilege. I am not sure whether this is the kind of matter that the hon. member thinks should be referred to the Committee on Privileges, and this in itself may be the best indication that there is not a real question of privilege. The hon. member has made his point, but I doubt that the matter should be pursued by way of a question of privilege.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Howie: 1.	What are the names of all lawyers and law firms in Fredericton, New Brunswick, who performed services for the Department of Justice from January 1, 1971 to January 1, 1973?
2.	What was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: The following lawyers and law firms in Fredericton, New Brunswick acted as agents of the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of client departments from January 1, 1971 to January 1, 1973:
1.	Lawyer or Law Firm
Appleby, Olmstead, and Quinn
Richard B. Cochrane
Hoyt, Mockler and Dixon
W. L. Hoyt
David Hughes
Hughes and Malone
Arthur Limerick
Eugene McGinley
Brian Malone
Charles A. Sargeant
2. Amount Paid $
465.85
1,886.35
58,873.89
4,480.10
3,561.50
10,890.80
75.00
1,822.30
7,913.95
378.15


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	For what reason was there no mention in the Speech from the Throne of any intention of the government to bring in legislation with respect to our National and Royal anthems?
::

May 14, 1973

2.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation in this session with respect to these anthems and, if so, on what date?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices and the Department of the Secretary of State as follows: 1. The Speech from the Throne did not list all items which might be included in the legislative program.
2.	The matter is under consideration and it will be announced in due course if such legislation is to be introduced.


Mr. Carter: 1.	What were the dates on which private buses were hired by CNR to augment its Newfoundland service since its inception?
2.	What were the names of persons and/or companies from whom they were hired and the cost involved?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1 and 2. Information for the period of time prior to 1972 is not available. During the year 1972 buses were hired from the undernoted operators. As to the cost involved it is not the practice to disclose terms and conditions of transactions with other parties. January 3: G. Burke, Parsons, Carpenter & Stroud, Don Adey, Carpenter & Stroud. January 4: S. F. Kelly. January 4: Carpenter & Stroud, Carpenter & Stroud. January 5: Murphy's Transport, Sheppards, Kelly's, Quinlans, Adey's, Carpenter & Stroud, Eddy's Murphy's, Bailey's. January 14: Bugdens (12 Seater). January 28: Bugdens (20 Passengers). January 31: Pike's. February 25: Gladney's. February 26: Gladney's, Bugdens (20 Passenger). February 28: Bugdens (20 Passenger). February 29: Gladney's, Power's, Fleetline, Fleetline. March 5: Murphy's, Murphy's, Murphy's, Fleetline, Fleetline, Fleetline, Fleetline, Pike's. March 31: Hayes. April 2: Carpenter & Stroud, Harbour Motors, Adey's. April 3: Harbour Motors. April 13: Gander Taxi. April 19: Bugdens (20 Passenger). April 20: Metro Bus, Metro Bus. April 27: Metro Bus. May 5: Gladneys, May 12: Gladneys. June:-. July 1: Bugdens (20 Passenger), Bugdens (12 Passenger), Gander Taxi. July 2: Parsons. July 14: Gladneys, Adey's. July 15: Gladneys. July 31: Bugdens (20 Passenger). August 1: Adey's. August 7: Bugdens. August 14: Carpenter & Stroud, Carpenter & Stroud. September 1: Quinlans. September 2: Quinlans. September 4: Sheppards. September 5: Murphys, Fleetline, Osmonds. September 6: Murphys, Murphys. September 8: Bugdens (20 Passenger). September 30: Bugdens (20 Passenger). October 6: Bugdens. October 8: Deer Lake Bus Co. October 12: Bugdens (20 Passenger). October 15: Bugdens (20 Passenger). October 22: Carpenter & Stroud. November 7: Gladneys, Bugdens (20 Passenger), Hayes. November 8: Bugdens (20 Passenger). November 9: Bugdens (20 Passenger). November 12: Harbour Motors. November 13: Quinlans, Fleetline, Fleetline, Adeys, Carpenter & Stroud, Kellys, Fleetline. December 16: Bugdens (20 Passenger). December 23: Gladneys. December 29: Adeys. December 30: Carpenter & Stroud. December 31: Adeys.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Harding: 1.	What is the maximum allowable charge for the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund on each ton of oil imported into Canada or shipped from any place in Canada?
2.	What rate was charged per ton of oil at the inception of the plan and what is the rate being charged at present?
3.	Does the same rate apply uniformly in all parts of Canada over the same period of time?
4.	If there are any exceptions to a uniform rate, where are they and what rates apply in these cases?


Jean Marchand: 1. Fifteen cents.
2.	Fifteen cents.
3.	Yes.
4.	N/A.


Mr. Harding: 1.	Has any revenue accrued to the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund from any pollutants other than oil?
2.	What other cargoes of pollutants are liable for payments to the Fund and what is the rate charged on each different pollutant?
3.	Have any of these shipments of pollutants had claims against the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund?


Jean Marchand: 1. No.
2.	None.
3.	No.


Mr. Howie: How much money was paid for the production of the so-called Bryden Report concerning the Public Service Staff Relations Act and to whom was it paid?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The total amount paid out under contract for the production of the Bryden Report was $39,894.61. This amount was paid out to the following persons: 1. Mr. John Bryden received $29,364.41 of which $6,131.79 was reimbursement for expenses incurred by him.
2.	Dr. W. R. Dymond received $3,500.
3.	Father Gerard Hebert received $7,030.20 of which $905.20 was reimbursement for expenses incurred by him.


Mr. Harding: 1.	How much money is currently in the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund?
2.	How many claims, to date, have been charged against the Fund and what was the amount paid on each claim?
3.	How many claims against the Fund are pending?

May 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Jean Marchand: 1. $7,947,142 as of March 31, 1973.
2.	Nil.
3.	No claims against the Fund are pending. Since the Fund is in the nature of an unsatisfied judgment fund, claims are made on the Fund only after other remedies are exhausted; and some claims that are now being disputed with polluters may eventually become claims on the fund.


Mr. Hueglin: With regard to maternity benefits from January 1, 1972 to the latest month for which statistics are available (a) how many women received benefits for the maximum time period under the provision for maternity leave (b) what was the average number of weeks for which maternity benefits were received (c) how many of the women who have taken advantage of maternity benefits under UIC have returned to the labour force?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a) and (b). In order to provide the information requested, the Commission would have to prepare special computer programs. This would entail inordinate costs and time in (a) the preparation and testing of the programs (b) the use of computer facilities to extract the information; (c). This question cannot be answered as the Commission has no way of knowing if a claimant returns to the work force or merely stops drawing benefits and ceases to report to the Commission.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Were the objections in the Fisher Report on the access system expropriation on Sea Island disregarded by the Department of Transport and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What review of these reports is made before a decision is reached?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. The objections questioning the need for the proposed roadway and its associated expropriations were examined by the Ministry of Transport, but raised no new evidence to invalidate that requirement.
2.	The Minister of Public Works reviews each report before making the decision to expropriate. Before doing so, it is customary for the minister to obtain the views of his cabinet colleagues, especially the minister responsible for the program involved and whose senior officials review the report concerned in detail.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Does the Department of Transport lay down ground rules for the publication of financial statements by harbour commissions in B.C. and, if so, what are the requirements for financial detail?

2.	Does the Department make payments to support the operations of such harbour commissions and, if so, upon what terms or conditions?
3.	Does the Department have any role to play in the determination of how harbour commissions may use this income for such purposes as the solicitation abroad of business?
4.	Are the detailed expenses of all employees of the Fraser River Harbour Commission available for the years 1967, 1968, 1970, 1971 and 1972?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Department of Transport does not prescribe rules for the publication of financial statements by harbour commissions. The department does, however, prescribe a form of accounts and requires each commission to report to it annually in the form prescribed.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Not available.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Justice on (a) January 1, 1963 (b) January 1, 1973?
2.	How many people in each of these years were receiving salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) over $20,000?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned; 1. (a) 159; (b) 715.
2.	(a) 1963, 131; 1973, 386; (b) 1963, 27; 1973, 185; (c) 1963, 1; 1973, 144.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Public Works on (a) January 1, 1963 (b) January 1, 1973?
2.	How many people in each of these years were receiving salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) over $20,000?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.
(a) 6,030 (estimated); (b) 6,296.
	1963	1973
(a)	5,870	4,579(b)	156	1,574(c)	4	143Total	6,030	6,296
Note: Figures shown for 1963 at 1(a) and 2(a), (b), (c) are approximate as the detailed records for two of the department's regions are no longer available.


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6317?
May 14, 1973

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 19, 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6340?
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 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6320?
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?
Order Paper Questions


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 12 1973.	'
2.	Rejected on February 19, 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT-PROJECT No. H-6314


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6314?
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 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT-PROJECT No. H-6515


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6515?
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 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.

May 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT-PROJECT No. H-6537


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6537?
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 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT-PROJECT No. H-6182


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6182?
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 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6448?
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 16, 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT-PROJECT No. H-3891


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3891?
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 8, 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT-PROJECT No. H-3967


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3967?
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 11, 1972.
May 14, 1973

Order Paper Questions
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT-PROJECT No. H-3990
2.	Rejected on February 19, 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT-PROJECT No. H-3988


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3988?
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 11, 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT-PROJECT No. H-3991


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3991?
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 11, 1972.
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.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3990?
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 11, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT-PROJECT No. H-3989


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3989?
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 11, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 24, 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.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Hueglin: 1.	By what method does the government determine the number of (a) conditional (b) absolute discharges dispensed by the courts in Canada since the inception of the law relating to them?
2.	How and when can various organizations in Canada involved in monitoring such matters secure the information relating to the number of absolute and conditional discharges granted and what

May 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions
supervision of these discharges is carried out by the federal authorities involved?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of Justice as follows: 1. (a) and (b) As a result of the new law passed on July 15, 1972, the forms used by the clerks of the adult courts and juvenile courts to report information to Statistics Canada, were redesigned for 1973 to include the items absolute and conditional discharges. Data are collected on an individual basis according to the statutes in each province under which an individual is charged. For the remainder of the
1972	calendar year (after the law was passed) the clerks of the adult courts were requested by circular letter to report the additional information on the forms already in use for
1972.
2. Data from adult courts for 1972 should be available for all provinces except Quebec and Alberta, by December
1973.	Data for Quebec and Alberta should be available by mid 1975. Information was not collected from juvenile courts for 1972. Data from adult and juvenile courts for the first quarter of 1973 should be available by December 1973. Data pertaining to the second, third and fourth quarters of
1973	should be available 60 days after the end of each quarter. Revised court forms were introduced on April 1, 1973 and will be processed by computer which explains why data from the first quarter will take longer to process than for the following quarters. There is no supervision of these discharges carried out by the federal authorities involved.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Has a decision been reached to allow a fifth car rental concessionaire in Department of Transport airports and, if so, what are the reasons for allowing a fifth car rental concessionaire to compete for the already over-crowded facilities at DOT airports?
2.	Have blueprints been prepared which show the location of the fifth concessionaire in some DOT air terminals?


Jean Marchand: 1. No,
the department has not received any application from a fifth car rental company for permission to operate at DOT airports.
2. No.


Mr. Matte: What percentage of the nominal value of bank-notes and coins does the cost of printing and minting thereof represent?
[ Translation]


Hon. John Turner (Minister of Finance):: The 1973 coinage contract between the Department of Finance and the Royal Canadian Mint provides for the following minting charges: Nickel dollar, 50 cents, 25 cents, and 10 cents coins-20% of the face value of the coin. 5 cent coins, 55 per cent of the face value of the coin; 1 cent coins, 70 per cent of the face value of the coin; Silver dollar coins, 60 per

cent of the face value of the coin. The Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the Bank of Canada published in its 1972 Annual Report shows notes in circulation amounting to $4,806,241,000. In the accompanying Statement of Income and Expense bank note costs for 1972 are shown as $8,195,000.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Is there any government financial involvement in the second refinery at Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland, announced on February 26, 1973, by Shaheen Natural Resources Company of New York and, if so, to what extent?
2.	Are there any federal tax concessions being granted to the Company?


John Mercer Reid: 1. No.
2. No.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the Department of Transport aware that Canada Steamship Lines has announced that it is ending its Package Freight Service by ship to lake ports including Montreal, Valleyfield, Port Credit, Sarnia and instituting a substantial cut in this service in its Lakehead operations?
2.	Is the Department of Transport exploring with other Canada shipping companies the possibility that they provide this type of service, particularly in view of the large facilities for such service at the Lakehead provided by the government at the time of the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway?


Jean Marchand: 1. Yes.
2. Not at this time. Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. has been well equipped with specialized vessels to provide this service for many years but has now found it necessary to reduce its over-all service. It is our view that any additional service which may be required can best be provided by the private sector in response to shipper demands, either by Canada Steamship lines or by any other Canadian shipping company.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many Air Traffic Controller Assistants are there in Canada at the present time?
2.	How many were there in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
3.	How many hours of overtime have been worked by the Air Traffic Controller Assistants in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973 to date?
4.	How much was paid in overtime in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
5.	What are the present salary levels of Air Traffic Controller Assistants?


Jean Marchand: 1. Three hundred and eight.
2.	230; 237; 257; 275.
3.	15,167; 26,426; 28,787; 30,605; 3,206.
May 14, 1973

4.	$78,026; $136,657; $202,109; $224,647.
5.	CR 3-$6,707 to $7,372; CR 4-$7,496 to $8,238; CR 5- $8,569 to $9,415.


Mr. Reynolds: Will there be shut-downs and curtailment of production in the Forest Industry in British Columbia because of a boxcar shortage and, if so, what is the government doing to solve this serious problem?


Jean Marchand: Both major railways are taking steps aimed at providing an adequate supply of cars during this period of exceptionally high demand for the products of the forest industries of British Columbia. New equipment is being purchased while efforts are being made to secure the prompt return of lumber cars from the United States. At the same time, the railways have held discussions with the producers to investigate ways and means of optimizing equipment utilization. In short, the railway companies are taking all possible steps to avoid dislocation of the British Columbia forest industry. The effectiveness of these efforts depends upon a number of factors, one of which is the B.C. forest industry itself. It is difficult to foresee whether the future will be free of delays or other problems but it must be stressed that the railways are making every effort to eliminate or minimize any disruption.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	What are the names of the airports in Canada at which United States airline operators exercise landing rights on scheduled flights and which airlines exercise those landing rights at which airports?
2.	What are the names of the airports in the United States at which Canadian airline operators exercise landing rights on scheduled flights and which airlines have these landing rights at which airports?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Vancouver, United Airlines, Western Airlines; Calgary, Western Airlines, Hughes Air Corp.; Toronto, United Air Lines, American Airlines, Eastern Airlines, Allegheny Airlines, North Central Airlines; Montreal, Delta Airlines, Eastern Airlines, Allegheny Airlines; Ottawa, Eastern Airlines; Winnipeg, North West Airlines; Prince Rupert, Alaska Airlines; Whitehorse, Wien Consolidated Airlines; Thunder Bay, North Central Airlines.
2. Seattle, Pacific Western Airlines; San Francisco, CP Air; Boston, Air Canada; New York, Air Canada; Chicago, Air Canada; Cleveland, Air Canada; Los Angeles, Air Canada; Tampa, Air Canada; Miami. Air Canada; Honolulu, CP Air; Pittsburgh, Nordair Ltd.
Order Paper Questions CANADA-UNITED STATES LANDING RIGHTS


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Do any Canadians airline operators enjoy landing rights on scheduled or charter flights to United States airports which they do not exercise and, if so, which ones and in what locations?
2.	Do any United States airline operators enjoy landing rights on scheduled or charter flights to Canadian airports which they do not exercise and, if so, which ones and in what locations?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Yes; Fairbanks; CP Air.
2. Yes; Gander; Seaboard World Airlines, Pan American World Airways, Trans World Airlines. There are no specific points or routes assigned to charter operations.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many more trucks, full-time and part-time drivers and total employees does the Post Office Department use in the operation of urban mail services in each of the cities of Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax as compared to the period up to April 1972 when private contractors handled the collection and distribution of mail service?
2.	What was the total cost of the Task Force Report on Mail Transportation submitted to the government in June 1969, by Samson, Belair, Riddell and Stead Incorporated?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1.
Drivers
Trucks Full Time Part Time Total
Employees
Vancouver	
1	more	44 more	18 less	14 moreEdmonton	
7	less	14 more	9 more	17 moreCalgary	
5	more	20 more	17 more	31 moreRegina	
5	less	9 more	5 less	3 moreWinnipeg	
1	more	13 more	18 less	3 moreToronto	
44	more	68 more	1 less	100 moreMontreal*	
10	more	48 more	14 less	160 moreHalifax	
1	more	9 more	7 more	19 more
'Montreal was actually taken over by Post Office on April 1, 1970. Figures shown above reflect difference between standing as at March 31, 72 and February 28, 73.
2. $239,472.91.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many licensed civilian flyers are there in Canada?
2.	How many were licensed in each of the years 1960-72 inclusive?
3.	Does the government subsidize the licensing and training of civilian flyers and, if so, to what extent and what was the cost in each of the years 1960-72 inclusive?
4.	Is it the intention of the governmen't'to continue a program of flying assistance grants for civilians?
5.	Is the program open to men and women and, if so, at what age can they apply and receive government assistance?


Jean Marchand: 1. As of
December 31, 1972, there are 39,351 Canadian Pilot Licences in force.
3702

May 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	Summary of Pilot Licences issued for the Years 19601972 inclusive. 1960, 4,246; 1961, 4,759; 1962, 3,763; 1963, 3,169; 1964, 3,329; 1965, 4,013; 1966, 6,251; 1967, 7,549; 1968, 7,671; 1969, 6,698; 1970, 5,975; 1971, 5,599; 1972, 5,975.
3.	No; with the termination of the scheme of assistance to private pilots on March 31, 1969, and to flying clubs and schools on March 31, 1970, the MOT no longer provides any form of assistance for the training of private pilots. The cost of the scheme was as follows:
Fiscal Year	Amount $	Fiscal Year	Amount $1960-61	606,000	1966-67	546,2391961-62	360,000	1967-68	631,6001962-63	249,074	1968-69	651,6001963-64	239,126	1969-70	188,4001964-	65 1965-	66	241,894 311,518	1970-71	1,6001971-	72 No scheme
of assistance
1972-	73 No scheme
of assistance
4.	A loan program to assist pilots in obtaining advanced flight training is under consideration by the Ministry.
5.	The proposed program would be open to both men and women. The age requirement has not yet been determined.


Mr. Neale (Vancouver East): 1.	Is the car ferry Travetal operating under Canadian registry and, if so, on what date was it registered?
2.	What financial assistance has been provided by the government towards the operation of this vessel?


Jean Marchand: The
Ministry of Transport advises as follows: 1. No. The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
2. For the fiscal year 1972-73 and based on $12 per ton of general cargo carried between Halifax and St. John's or other Newfoundland ports. $368,100 has been paid by the federal government up to and including March 4, 1973.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): Has there been any increase in the past three years in the number of recruits for Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if so, how many have been recruited?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Recruitment for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police during the past three years was as follows:
Fiscal Year	Recruits Engaged
1970-	71	8441971-	72	8081972-	73	681


Mr. Bawden: Does the Postmaster General intend to issue a commemorative stamp on the occasion of the 1975 centennial of the founding of Calgary?


André Ouellet: The 1975 centennial of the founding of Calgary is one of the subjects recorded for consideration in due course, but a final decision regarding the 1975 postage stamp program will not be made until late in 1974.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	To what extent has the government advised the provinces and provincial treasurers not to borrow money from foreign bankers, trust companies and other lenders in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	Is the government prepared to accept responsibility for increasing international exchange rates in connection with borrowings made by provinces in foreign markets that must be now repaid at current exchange rates?
3. Is the government prepared to direct provinces and municipalities that they may not, without specific permission from the Minister of Finance and/or the Bank of Canada, borrow money in foreign markets?


John Napier Turner: 1. The
former Minister of Finance, the Hon. E. J. Benson, requested provincial governments and agencies to limit their foreign borrowing in June 1970 at a meeting of federal-provincial ministers of finance following the floating of the Canadian dollar on June 1. The first formal request to Canadian borrowers to explore fully the Canadian capital market before floating issues abroad was included in a statement on economic policy by Mr. Benson on October 13, 1970 during debate on the Speech from the Throne. A letter was sent by the Hon. E. J. Benson to provincial treasurers and finance ministers and to investment dealers most active in international underwriting transactions on April 22, 1971, reiterating his request that foreign borrowing be kept to a minimum. A copy of the text of this letter was released April 23, 1971. The minister alluded to this request on several other occasions in the latter half of 1971. The subject was again discussed by federal and provincial senior officials at a Federal-Provincial Continuing Committee meeting in June 1972 and shortly thereafter the Minister of Finance visited his provincial counterparts to express concern over the level of foreign borrowing. From time to time through this period, the minister and his officials have been in touch with individual borrowers and investment dealers to discuss individual borrowings in relation to the minister's request. The Governor of the Bank of Canada made reference to the minister's request and concurred with this request in speeches made by the Governor in October 1970 and April 1971. The Bank of Canada also made note of this request in its Annual Reports for 1970, 1971 and 1972.
2.	No.
3.	No.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): What fees and salaries have been paid to each member of the Board of Directors of the Canada Development Corporation since the Board was established?


John Napier Turner: Pursuant to Section 31 of the Canada Development Corporation Act the CDC is not an agent of Her Majesty or a Crown Corporation. The directors' remuneration is determined by the board of the CDC which has not made the information public. Consequently the information sought concerning fees and salaries of directors is not available.


Mr. Douglas: 1.	How many copies were printed of the booklet "Proposals for a Communications Policy for Canada" issued by the Department of Communications?
2.	What was the cost of printing this booklet?
3.	What was the method of distribution and to what categories of persons was the booklet distributed?
4.	What firm did the lay-out and copy for this booklet and at what cost?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in view of the length of this answer perhaps it might be printed in Hansard today as having been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	Eight thousand copies.
2.	The cost of printing was $11,510.13.
3.	Some 900 copies of this booklet were distributed to Senators and Members of Parliament, provincial ministers responsible for communications, as well as to the parliamentary press gallery on the day it was tabled in the House. Other copies were mailed the same day by the Department of Communications and the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission to departments, organizations, associations, companies, industries, broadcasters, cable undertakings, media and individuals, the names of which appear on the distribution lists of the Department of Communications and the CRTC. Two thousand other copies were offered for sale in all provinces by Information Canada.
4.	The lay-out, type specifications and calculations, design and printing of screens, type composition for the covers and title pages and "camera ready" lay-outs were done by Gilles Robert et Associes, in Montreal. The cost was $1,154.72 (including federal taxes). Information Canada printed the booklet at the cost shown above.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Since the announcement of the Secretary of State on July 4, 1972 "that the National Film Board will no longer be the exclusive recipient of government commissions" (a) how many film contracts have been awarded by federal departments and agencies to private film producers (b) how many films were produced in the same period by the Film Board for federal departments and agencies?
2.	As provided for under the National Film Act, is the National Film Board still responsible for allocating all film contracts for federal government departments and agencies and, if not, what agency has been set up to handle this responsibility?
3.	As it is impossible both to compete and control, is it the intention of the government to amend the National Film Act so that the National Film Board "will now have to compete with private producers for all film contracts awarded by a federal department or agency" as outlined in the Secretary of State's announcement of July 4, 1972?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1.
The announcement by the Secretary of State on July 4 was a statement of intention on the part of the government and so far no legislation has been changed. The National Film Board is still responsible, under the National Film Act, for allocating all contracts for government departments and agencies. I am informed by the National Film Board that (a) 36 contracts were issued by NFB on behalf of government departments to private film producers for the period July 4, 1972 to March 31, 1973; (b) 52 government department film projects were assigned to NFB Production for the period July 4, 1972 to March 31, 1973.
2.	Yes.
3.	As a follow-up to the policy statement concerning the film contracts awarded by the federal government, a committee presided over by Treasury Board and including representatives of the National Film Board and the Secretary of State Department has been set up to consider various matters respecting the implementation of this new policy. The committee is also examining private producers' views on this matter. This may result in amendment to the National Film Act.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	By province, what was the total number of applications received by LIP for assistance in the fiscal year ended 1973?
2.	By province, of those received, how many applications were exercised by the applicants?
3.	What was the total operating cost of the program for the same period (a) exclusive of grants (b) inclusive of grants?
4.	What was the average cost, based on the above cost exclusive of grant payments, of each decision made by the program on applications (a) received (b) accepted (c) rejected?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. See
attached Schedule, Col. 1.
2.	See attached Schedule, Col. 2.
3.	(a) Estimated $2.7 million. Actual costs will not be available until May 1973. (b) Estimated $98.7 million have been paid out in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1973.
3704

May 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions
4.	Costs of the various types of decisions cannot be identified separately. The average cost covering assessment, monitoring and other administrative functions for the year ended March 31, 1973 was $462. per project approved.
Local Initiatives Program 1972/73
Applications Applications
	Received	Exercised
	(Col. 1)	(Col. 2)
Newfoundland	1,309	327Nova Scotia	1,098	358Prince Edward Island	251	95New Brunswick	960	408Quebec	5,635	1,724Ontario	2,617	1,247Manitoba	533	242Alberta	733	277Saskatchewan	379	182Northwest Territories	78	41British Columbia	1,640	911Yukon Territory	58	3415,291	5,846


Mr. Matte: Can the provinces apply for the establishment of a charter bank and, if so, under what conditions?


John Napier Turner: No. Provisional directors applying for incorporation of a bank under the Bank Act must be subscribers for stock of the bank and a province may not be a subscriber or registered owner of shares of the capital stock of a bank.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Did an advertisement appear on March 17, 1973 in the Economist under International Appointments, stating that the Public Service Commission of Canada was seeking Management and Financial Auditors for the Audit Service Bureau, under reference number 73-ASP-F1-2?
2.	Will these persons work in Canada and, if so, will they be moved to Canada at the taxpayers' expense?
3.	For what reasons is the Public Service Commission recruiting outside of Canada, especially taking into consideration the low levels being recruited?
4.	How many positions are to be filled from this competition?
5.	What efforts have been made by the Public Service Commission or the department involved to staff from within its own ranks, or from Manpower Resources of Canada?
6.	Did the advertisement appear in Canada and, if so, where and on what date?
7.	Who waived the requirement that the applicant should be first a Canadian citizen, and second, a landed immigrant?

8.	What would be the cost of transferring the successful candidate, his or her family, and household effects?
9.	Is there a probationary period for the successful candidate, and if he is not successful, will he or she be returned to England at government expense?
10.	Who has authorized the funding for this recruitment commitment?
11.	Will this competition require a recruitment officer to travel to London, England to interview the candidates?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. An advertisement appeared on March 17, 1973 in the Economist under International Appointments, stating that the Public Service Commission of Canada was seeking Management and Financial Auditors for the Audit Services Bureau under reference number 73-ASP-FI-2.
2.	Qualified candidates who are offered employment and who accept the offer of employment will work in Canada. They will be moved to Canada at the taxpayers' expense.
3.	The Public Service Commission, after exhausting internal manpower resources and conducting 11 separate "open" recruitment programs within Canada during the period of March 1972 to March 1973, did not meet the manpower requirements of departments at the entry level of the auditing group.
4.	There are 30 positions to be staffed by means of this overseas recruitment campaign.
5.	Extensive training programs have been under way in the four main user departments and have been the prime source for appointment at the entry level. However, the resource is insufficient to meet the current demands. As noted in item (3) above, 11 separate "open" recruitment programs for auditing positions at the entry level were conducted by the Public Service Commission within Canada during the period of March 1972 to March 1973.
6.	The advertisement referenced was directed specifically towards auditor recruitment in the United Kingdom and therefore did not appear in Canada. However, 11 advertisements were placed in major Canadian newspapers and journals periodically over the last year (see item 3).
7.	Section 17, subsection (4) (iv) of the Public Service Employment Act authorizes the Commission to recruit other than Canadian citizens when qualified Canadian citizens are not available.
8.	It is not possible at this time to state a cost. This will only be possible when the successful candidates are known; the granting of removal expenses is a departmental responsibility.
9.	Yes, there is a probationary period. In the event that a candidate did not complete successfully his/her probationary period, the decision to grant the candidate any removal expense to return to England would be a departmental responsibility.
10.	The Public Service Commission has authorized the funding for this recruitment campaign.
11.	One officer of the Public Service Commission and two officers of the Department of Supply and Services will interview candidates in London, and possibly other centres in the United Kingdom.
May 14, 1973


Mr. Arrol: Do the coal mining companies of Canada receive a subsidy for each ton of coal mined and, if so, what is the amount paid per ton?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the total cost, to the government, of the Study of Grain Transportation and Handling?
2.	Who were the consulting firms that carried out the study and what were the amounts paid to each firm for its services?
3.	How were the firms selected?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Total cost was $587,950.
2.	Personal Service Contracts & Computing Services, $40,000; Grain Industry Personnel on Personal Service Contracts, $94,950; Country Grain Elevator Study, University of Manitoba, $12,000; Country Grain Elevator Study, P. S. Ross, $27,000; Cost Ascertainment Study, Thunder Bay & Pacific Terminals, P. S. Ross, $15,000; Eastern Terminal Grain Elevators, P. S. Ross, $19,000; Farm Trucking Costs, University of Manitoba, $5,000; Commercial Trucking, Trimac Transportation System, $5,000; Inland Terminal Design, P. Foody & Co., $45,000; Cleaning and Storage Study, P. Foody & Co., $50,000; Saskatoon Terminal Study, P. Foody & Co., $5,000; Economic Effects of Rationalization of Prairie Communities, Underwood McLellan & Assoc., $44,000; Grain Handling and Transportation Costs in Canada, P. S. Ross, $25,000; Grain Transportation in Eastern Canada, Kates, Peat, Marwick, $46,000; Costing of Terminal Elevator Design, Barnett McQueen, $5,000; Solids Pipeline for Grain Study, Hedlin Menzies, $3,000; Testing of High Speed Cleaning Machine, P. Foody & Co., & Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, $147,000; Total $587,950.
3.	In most instances special knowledge of grain handling systems was required in carrying out the research. Work was contracted out to individuals and organizations having the requires experience or demonstrated competence. Where more than one group met these requirements, contracts were awarded by competitive bidding.


Mr. Mazankowski: What is the policy of the Farm Credit Corporation in respect of Corporation officials participating actively in federal election campaigns and openly supporting specific political movements?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: It shall be a condition of every appointment that except with the approval of the chairman and subject to such conditions as the board may prescribe the appointee shall not be a candidate or actively participate in work for or against a candidate for election to the House of Commons, the legislature of any province or the Council of the Yukon Territory or the
Order Paper Questions
North West Territories or for or against any political party.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of the Solicitor General on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

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 Unemployment Insurance Commission 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.



LAWYERS AND LEGAL FIRMS EMPLOYED BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN QUEBEC

Mr. Wagner: 1.	What were the names of lawyers and legal firms in the Province of Quebec who were employed by the Department of Justice January 1, 1972 to January 1, 1973?
2.	What specific work was done by each?
3.	What amount was paid to each in (a) salaries (b) disbursements (c) travelling expenses?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS

Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many public works projects were there in each province in 1972?
2.	What was the total amount spent on these projects in 1972?

May 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3.	Of these projects, how many were post offices?
4.	What were the locations of these post offices in Saskatchewan?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES, 1972

Mr. Mather: What was the total in dollars of all government advertising in all media outlets in 1972?
Return tabled.



LIP PROJECTS-DRUMMOND CONSTITUENCY

Mr. Boisvert: 1.	What Local Initiative Programs were approved for the constituency of Drummond in 1971 and 1972?
2.	What were the amounts paid to each project?
3.	Who were the co-ordinators of each project?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE-APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ASSISTANTS

Mr. Matte: 1.	How many special assistants are there in the various departments?
2.	What departments have special assistants?
3.	(a) Who are the special assistants (b) how were they appointed (c) do they all draw the same salary and (i) if so, what is it (ii) if not, for what reasons?
Return tabled.



CITIZEN ADVOCACY GROUP PROGRAMS

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What grants have been given to citizen advocacy group programs (a) in what centres (b) in what amounts?
2.	What measure of non-financial assistance is given by the Department of National Health and Welfare to such programs?
3.	In so far as the knowledge of the Department goes, how many such programs are in existence in Canada and in what centres?
Return tabled.



PERSONNEL ATTACHED TO OFFICES OF ALL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names of all persons employed by, on loan to or attached to, the offices of all Parliamentary Secretaries 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?
2.	Do any of these persons receive indirectly government funds paid as research monies to the Liberal Party of Canada and, if so, who are these specific individuals and how much do they receive?
Return tabled.



LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Matte: What are the titles, locations and amounts of LIP projects approved in the constituencies of (a) Champlain (b) Portneuf (c) Trois-Rivieres-Metropolitain (d) Saint-Maurice (e) Berthier (f) Villeneuve?
Return tabled.



LIP PROJECTS-PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	How many projects were received from the Province of Quebec under the Local Initiative Program?
2.	How many projects were submitted from each constituency in the Province?
3.	How many of these were (a) approved (b) rejected?
Return tabled.



CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	How many charitable organizations have been incorporated in each year 1960 to 1972 inclusive?
2.	(a) How many charitable organizations have ceased to operate in each year 1960 to 1972 inclusive (b) what are the names of each (c) where was each located (d) for what reason did each cease to operate?
Return tabled.



LIP GRANTS TO ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

["The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has given the Chair due notice of his intention to request leave to move a motion to adjourn the House in order to discuss the subject matter of reciprocal fishing rights and privileges in the Pacific between Canada and the United States. It should also be said that the background material appended to the hon. member's notice was found to be most useful. I will add also that the Chair appreciated the hon. member's co-operation in placing for the consideration of the Chair a motion in a proper form without argument and supporting material in the motion itself.\nThere can be little doubt, of course, of the importance of the matter raised now by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and by other hon. members during motions. The desirability of carrying on further negotiations with the United States is probably indisputable. However, as has been said often in the past, it is not the importance and\nOral Questions\nurgency of the matter itself which the Chair ought to consider primarily, but the urgency of the debate.\nIn making a determination whether or not the matter should have urgent consideration under the provisions of Standing Order 26, the Chair must have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means. It does seem to the Chair that there are a number of steps available to the hon. member to bring on a discussion and consideration of the substance of the matter which he has requested be set down for debate. In my view, the proposed motion does not meet one of the basic requirements of the Standing Order and of our practice, and consequently it cannot be put to the House at this time."]
Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I have four or five questions on the order paper, all of which may have embarrassing results for the government, but that does not excuse the delay in answering them. One is starred question 1,800 which has been on the order paper since March 29. It reads as follows:
1.	On what dates since January 1, 1973, did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce communicate with the Secretary of Commerce of the United States regarding possible or potential trade action by the United States against Canada?
2.	Have letters of protest to the United States government been sent by either the Prime Minister or the minister and, if so, on what dates and to whom?
No matter how free one is from suspicion, the fact remains that this answer could have been given long ago. The answer would be very simple. I think it is that no communication has taken place, and that is the reason there has not been any answer.


Mr. Gillespie:: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to look into this question. Quite frankly, I thought it had been answered and I regret it has not.

May 14, 1973


John George Diefenbaker: Then I would suggest a little better communication among members of the Cabinet.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, last March I placed a number of questions on the order paper on the subject of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group. All these questions were answered within what I consider a very reasonable length of time with the exception of one question, namely, No. 1,769. If the other questions could be answered as quickly as they were, I fail to see any valid reason for the delay in answering this particular question, which simply asks who were the employers during the previous five years of the 17 persons whose names the government has admitted in an answer to one of my previous questions and who comprise the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group. If there is no reason for the government to desire to hide what these people were doing before they went to their new positions, would the parliamentary secretary give the House some indication when this question will be answered?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I will get in touch with the minister and report back to the hon. member.



Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely: the impasse which exists between Canada and the United States of America for a continuing agreement on reciprocal fishing privileges in each other's fishing zones, and what further steps are necessary to secure a new agreement or, alternatively, what steps are necessary to protect Canada's fishing interests if the United States will not renew the agreement on equitable terms.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has given the Chair due notice of his intention to request leave to move a motion to adjourn the House in order to discuss the subject matter of reciprocal fishing rights and privileges in the Pacific between Canada and the United States. It should also be said that the background material appended to the hon. member's notice was found to be most useful. I will add also that the Chair appreciated the hon. member's co-operation in placing for the consideration of the Chair a motion in a proper form without argument and supporting material in the motion itself.
There can be little doubt, of course, of the importance of the matter raised now by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and by other hon. members during motions. The desirability of carrying on further negotiations with the United States is probably indisputable. However, as has been said often in the past, it is not the importance and
Oral Questions
urgency of the matter itself which the Chair ought to consider primarily, but the urgency of the debate.
In making a determination whether or not the matter should have urgent consideration under the provisions of Standing Order 26, the Chair must have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means. It does seem to the Chair that there are a number of steps available to the hon. member to bring on a discussion and consideration of the substance of the matter which he has requested be set down for debate. In my view, the proposed motion does not meet one of the basic requirements of the Standing Order and of our practice, and consequently it cannot be put to the House at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Solicitor General but he seems to have escaped from the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps I might direct my question to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Justice. I would ask whether either gentlemen can report any progress in respect of the capture of the five dangerous prisoners who escaped yesterday from St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, and what security provisions are being undertaken at this time to avoid any further escapes from this penitentiary?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General would have very much liked to be here to meet hon. members but longstanding commitments in Victoria, including a meeting with the John Howard society, have kept him away. The matter of escapes and additional procedures is, of course, receiving very careful attention. At the same time, a decision has been taken and the commissioner will be authorizing an inquiry under Section 12 of the Penitentiary Act into the circumstances surrounding these escapes. The whole matter will be pursued with the vigour which I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition has come to expect of the Solicitor General.


Mr. Baldwin:: That is what worries us.


An hon. Member:: Give us an explanation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Solicitor General does the best he can in view of the people he has to work with.


An hon. Member:: That is a reflection on public servants.

May 14, 1973
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Minister of Justice say whether the government has received any detailed explanation as to the latest escapes? Has it received any explanation of why a guard tower 30 feet away from the point where the men are said to have gone over the wall was empty at the time?


An hon. Member:: He was at a luncheon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister say whether this guard tower and others at this penitentiary are now being manned continuously? What assurance can the minister give the House?


Mr. McGrath:: They shouldn't be allowed to escape during the lunch hour.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is true it appears that two of the towers in question were unmanned at this particular point in time. It ;s also a fact that this was directly contrary to instructions which were given again in writing as recently as May 1 that these towers were to be manned at all times.
This discrepancy in conduct compared with the directions which existed is part of the elements which have led to the need for an inquiry.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As I understand it, the inquiry referred to by the minister relates to prisons, security and breakouts in the province of Quebec. I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice whether the inquiry will be broadened so as to include the penitentiary system in the whole of the country, either in the form of a royal commission as proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert last week or in the form of an inquiry by a special select committee of the House as proposed today by the hon. member for Yukon? Will the government broaden the inquiry to include the whole penitentiary system in Canada and all its aspects?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry to which I referred a moment ago was specifically in relation to the incidents that took place over the weekend. The Solicitor General reacted in quite a positive way to the suggestion of a broader inquiry in terms of the consideration he wanted to give to that suggestion when put to him in the House the other day. I am sure he will include in his consideration of the appropriate inquiry the suggestion contained in the motion of the hon. member for Yukon.


ESCAPES FROM INSTITUTIONS-REQUEST FOR BROAD JUDICIAL OR OTHER INQUIRY
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the escapes reported in the last day or two are the most recent of a number that have taken place in the last number of weeks or months, and in view of the fact one may reasonably suspect there is some kind of loss of discipline or morale in the system at the moment-I address this question to the Prime Minister-can we have from him an assurance today that there will be a broad independent judicial or other inquiry into the whole system of the guards and supervision of penitentiaries in Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice just gave the answer I would repeat to that question, that the Solicitor General did indicate his sympathy with the suggestion. He referred to other inquiries that had been made in recent years into the penitentiary system. He indicated he would want to consider all these and then give his opinion to cabinet and make a statement to the House, if necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question really follows that of the hon. member who preceded me. This is a matter directly for the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister whether consideration is being given to the suggestion I made two or three weeks ago, concerning the open-door proclivities that are becoming part and parcel of the penitentiary service today so far as inmates are concerned, I asked for the setting up of a royal commission. This is a very serious matter and one in respect of which the administration of justice is being widely criticized?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the question is an elaboration of the question just asked by the Leader of the New Democratic Party and my answer, I must say, is along the same lines.


John George Diefenbaker: It seems hard to get an answer from the Prime Minister. I do not want him to draw on his imagination for his facts, but I am wondering whether he could answer the question. Has the subject been before the cabinet and I would like an answer instead of these smart-aleck answers the Prime Minister regularly gives the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon on a supplementary.


SECURITY IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC-REQUEST THAT TERMS OF REFERENCE OF INQUIRY COMMISSION BE BROADENED
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Justice. In light of the announcement by a spokesman for the Solicitor General that a three-man inquiry commission will be set up this week to investigate penitentiary security in the province of Quebec and in view of the obvious reluctance of the government to broaden that inquiry to include the whole of the country, will the minister at least assure the House that the inquiry will be prepared to examine recent disturbances at Millhaven, Cowansville, St. Vincent de Paul, Dorchester and Prince Albert penitentiaries as well as its existing terms of reference?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly discuss that representation with the Solicitor General. I should think that the objective in maintaining a somewhat narrower ambit for this particular inquiry is to deal with the very specific issues that are involved here. The broader questions are important and the Solicitor General attaches great importance to the questions involved as he indicated to the House earlier, including the over-all question of morale, and is considering the
May 14, 1973

nature of the broader inquiry which may be required with regard to these matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure I can spot ten members rising on supplementary questions. All these hon. members cannot be recognized on the very first question, but perhaps we might have two or three further supplementaries. The hon. member for Yukon has a supplementary. He will be recognized, and so will the hon. member for Skeena. We will then try to complete the first round of questioning and return later to others who want to ask supplementaries on this subject.


Erik Nielsen: I have one last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the delays in previous inquiries into prisons by this government, would the Prime Minister assure the House that the report of this particular inquiry or commission will be submitted directly to the House rather than to the minister or to the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot give that assurance.


ESCAPES OF PRISONERS-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO COMPETENCE OF COMMISSIONER FAGUY
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as there is obviously a need for two types of inquiries, one into the escapes a few days ago and the other into the general competency of the penitentiary service, will the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General cause an inquiry to be undertaken into the competency of Commissioner Faguy, because that is where the problem seems to stem from?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to accept the premise of the hon. member's question, at least to the extent of prejudging the very issue of the inquiry and the many factors which may be at work in creating the difficult problems that exist. I think it would be a mistake to start with a prejudgment about the nature of the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe on a last supplementary question, after which we will continue the first round of questioning. I will recognize the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta, the hon. member for Calgary North and others later on this subject.


ALLEGED ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL PASSPORTS TO ESCAPED PRISONERS-REQUEST THAT NO NEW PASSPORTS BE GRANTED
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Considering that one or several escapees now being sought were issued special passports on the occasion of their most recent evasion, did the minister give specific instructions that new passports not be issued?
Oral Questions


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not given any such instructions. The hon. gentleman will recall that when this was done in the past it was in order to help to apprehend the criminals, and they have been apprehended.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is it the minister's intention to issue a passport if the police force asks for it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will agree that the question asked in these terms is hypothetical.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. He has informed us that he intends to present a bill dealing with conflict of interest of members of the House of Commons. I should like to ask him whether he is also in the process of preparing legislation to deal with the conflict of interest of public servants, particularly in the higher ranks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the present plan is to produce, some time in this session, a general statement on the question of conflict of interest relating to Members of Parliament, ministers and public servants. The reason that legislation may be desirable for Members of Parliamem and Senators is that this particular field has already been dealt with in various acts of parliament. The objective would be to reconcile and probably update some of these acts of parliament. At the moment, according to the present situation it would be intended to reflect the procedures with regard to conflict of interest in the case of public servants in the form of guidelines rather than legislation, but that is a tentative judgment at the moment.


ALLEGED HOLDING OF BELL CANADA SHARES BY MEMBER OF TRANSPORT COMMISSION
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising out of a statement by the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission on a television program yesterday in which he indicated that there is a section in the National Transportation Act prohibiting members of the Canadian Transport Commission from having an interest in transportation or communication enterprises with which the CTC has to deal. May I ask the President of the Privy Council whether he is aware of the fact that one member at least, and perhaps more than one, of the Canadian Transport Commission has or has had and continues to have shares in Bell
3710

May 14, 1973
Oral Questions
Canada? If he is not aware of it, will he undertake to make an inquiry and inform the House as to that fact?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not aware of any such situation. I will discuss the matter with the Prime Minister, and if there is any further report to be made to the House it will be done.


POSSIBILITY OF GUIDELINES FOR CABINET MEMBERS DISTINCT FROM THOSE FOR OTHER MEMBERS OF HOUSE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether it is intended to produce any guidelines in respect of members of the cabinet as such as distinct from ordinary members of the House of Commons, and whether it is intended to do this by the publication of guidelines or by statute?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, following the answer just given by the President of the Privy Council, my answer would be yes, we do intend to make public guidelines applying to ministers as well as to members of the House, senators, public servants and, indeed, appointees in general by order in council. As to the second part of the question, legislation is not contemplated at this time for any of the other categories but Members of Parliament and Senators who, as the President of the Privy Council said, are presently dealt with by legislation.


APPOINTMENT IN 1968 BY FORMER MINISTER, EDGAR BENSON, OF FIRM WITH WHICH HE HAD BEEN ASSOCIATED AS CMHC AUDITORS
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is a follow-up question, but I would like now to correct an error I made in answer to a similar question on Friday or Thursday when I said that Mr. Benson had resigned or severed any connection with a chartered accountants firm upon his entry into politics. The answer should have been that he resigned or severed such connection when he became a member of the cabinet. There is a two-year period between the two dates. I might have said also that the appointment was made by cabinet rather than by the minister, as indeed it is an order in council appointment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Benson would still have a benevolent interest.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ROLE OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT IN SELECTING PROJECTS- FURTHER APPROVALS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Some ten days ago the minister sent to the members a list of Opportunities for Youth projects definitely

approved by his department. Could he tell us what effect could the members' recommendations have on projects from their own constituency?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of opinion. As I have said before, the responsibility for rejections is in all cases one that I assume as Secretary of State and is not a responsibility of Members of Parliament. We consulted Members of Parliament who were free to offer advice if they wanted to. Some took advantage of the opportunity and some did not. But I want to emphasize that the refusal was my own and that of my department.


René Matte: Could the minister tell us whether another list of approved projects will be drawn up?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, Mr. Speaker.


ALLEGED PROMISE OF REINSTATEMENT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROJECT AT LAC MEGANTIC IF CROWD PROVIDED FOR PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the minister ordered an investigation into the report in Saturday's Globe and Mail that sponsors of an OFY project at Lac Megantic were promised by a Liberal organizer that their program would be reinstated if the project sponsors provided a crowd for the Prime Minister's visit, and will the_ minister undertake to advise the House of the full results of that investigation?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, that is the first I have heard of it. It sounds like patent nonsense to me, but I will look into it.


Charles Joseph Clark: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for his supplementary, but I think we should try to proceed in an orderly fashion if we can. There are still supplementaries on the first and second questions and further supplementaries on the third question. Perhaps we should set a full 40 minutes aside just for supplementaries. However, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Rocky Mountain for his supplementary and then we will have supplementaries on the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister tell the House, categorically and for the record, that no Liberal organizer is in a position to cause any OFY application to be accepted, rejected or reinstated, and will he introduce a statute for the opportunities for youth program to help avoid this kind of abuse?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I answered the first part of that question in my response to the hon. member for Champlain. The decision was taken by myself and the people in my department. With respect to the second part
May 14, 1973

of the question, we have gone into that proposition at length before the standing committee and my position remains unchanged.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister. It concerns one of the escapees, Jean-Paul Mercier, who pleaded guilty last week to the murder of two game wardens, Mederic Cote and Ernest Saint-Pierre. He committed those crimes, to which he pleaded guilty, after escaping from the penitentiary where he had been serving 24 years for armed robbery and attempted murder. In light of that fact I ask, and I say this with a kind of respect to the ministers, will they now make a categorically clearcut statement to the House with reference to this person and the circumstances surrounding the escape of this man who has been found guilty of two murders, one attempted murder, and one armed robbery?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the escapes include this individual and others about whom one could make very serious statements in regard to their being at large. This is one of the reasons for the inquiry. The Solicitor General, I think, indicated to the House in the case of this particular institution, with the inclusion in it of persons requiring great security, that greater security provisions were made. Part of the problem, of course, is that some of them were not in fact in place at the time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the circumstances I have set out, would the minister now advise the House, with respect to the plea of guilty by this particular individual, whether he pleaded guilty to non-capital murder or capital murder and whether he pleaded guilty to capital murder while the temporary abolition of capital punishment was still in operation?
Also, In light of these circumstances and until all this is clarified, would the minister undertake to see that the debate on capital punishment is further adjourned in view of these horrible, terrible, tragic facts until they are all straightened out and a statement made to the House so that debate can proceed in an orderly fashion?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am glad that we will have an opportunity this afternoon to examine the rather serious lack of logic in some of the remarks by the hon. member. With regard to his inquiry respecting the circumstances of a particular plea and so on, I will be glad to seek this information from the provincial Attorney General under whom the prosecution would have taken place.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Can he inform the House how long the guards' coffee breaks are?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: I imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the Solicitor General, who is still appearing before the committee with his estimates, would be glad to discuss this matter.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST THAT INSTITUTION BE BROUGHT UP TO DATE TO FACILITATE REHABILITATION
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the deplorable conditions at the British Columbia penitentiary which I visited last week, and in view of the fact that a stabbing took place in that prison last Wednesday which has yet to be reported, can the minister advise when this prison will be brought up to date so that it and other prisons will be more acceptable for rehabilitation purposes instead of being training grounds for escapes and further criminal activities?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Solicitor General will welcome the interest of the hon. member in support of his hopes for improving the conditions of prisons in this country and for the way in which, as a result, we will be able to deal with the rehabilitation problem.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the minister more. We all hope for rehabilitation, but this prison is 100 years old. I am asking when we can expect some action in that area so that prisoners can be rehabilitated instead of what is going on right now. We still have not had the stabbing explained that took place in that prison last week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley who has a supplementary to the second question, and after that the hon. member for Kootenay West.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It deals with cabinet ministers and conflict of interest. Did he look at any papers in regard to the severance of Mr. Benson from his former firm to ascertain whether there was any residual or beneficial interest retained by him in the firm or, just like another political leader not too far away from us, did he take the word of someone else when ascertaining the facts? Further, while I am dealing with cabinet ministers, in view of the question by the hon. member for York South about the Canadian Transport Commission, does the Prime Minister intend to develop guidelines or present legislation to define the present situation of cabinet ministers and any holdings they have that are related to applications to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission so that there can be no doubts, in view of the recent allegation in St. John's about one particular cabinet minister and the potential conflict of interest there?
26314-18J

May 14, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member put so many questions in one that I am afraid I will not be able to do them justice. I can just say that the guidelines applying to ministers will be one thing. The guidelines applying to public servants and order in council appointees will be something else. The general approach will be the same. The principles will be the same for everyone, but they will have different applications as they apply to Members of Parliament, members of the cabinet, members of the public service, and order in council appointments.
With regard to the other part of the question, I looked at the papers and the evidence which were put before me and I have no cause to believe they contain anything erroneous, but if the hon. member has any grounds for suspicion I feel he should see it his duty to inform me of it and not let this kind of innuendo circulate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In order to avoid the possibility of any innuendo, would the Prime Minister consider tabling the papers he looked at so that all members of the House could look at them? Also, in order to avoid any innuendo in the second part of my question which dealt with the CRTC, would he or someone in his cabinet in the near future please define the position of cabinet ministers who have holdings as a result of CRTC decisions or licences given by the CRTC so that there is no misunderstanding?


TRANSPORT
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the environmental threat posed by any oil tanker route along our Canadian coastline, and in view of the fact that oil refineries are being established on the Atlantic coast of Canada and must be supplied by oil tanker fleets, are discussions going or or have discussions been held with his or any other government department as to the routes which these oil tankers must use in supplying these refineries?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are discussions with environment and even with external affairs, and in the case of the west coast I think we are discussing it with a committee of the UN to make sure that the coasts are protected and the fisheries too.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that my question referred primarily to the Atlantic coast. Has the fishing industry been involved in any of the discussions relating to the oil tanker routes?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There was a meeting last week at a very low level in Halifax, a meeting which I was not aware of and which was referred to by two members on the other side of the House. I think they are to receive a letter to this effect. It was to that meeting that the provincial government was invited. The

industry was invited, and they were discussing the impact of the tanker route on the fishing industry.


Randolph Harding: What is the basis of the discussions taking place? Do they include safety measures, including the limiting of the size of tankers in certain areas?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have not received a full report on the meeting that took place in Halifax. As soon as I have it I will be happy to indicate what it is. It was a public meeting, Mr. Speaker. I am waiting for a report from my officials who were there. It was not a secret meeting, as was indicated in the newspapers, because even the provincial minister who was referred to was at that meeting. Nothing secret was going on there. As soon as I have the report I will be happy to communicate the conclusions of the officials attending the meeting.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, related to one I asked last week. In view of the concern expressed by the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, especially the lobster fishermen of Nova Scotia, about the proposed new tanker routes, will the minister or his officials be holding still further discussions with the oil industry and representatives of the fishing industry before any of these proposed routes become finalized?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I have to answer that I do not intend to have special routes for tankers; routes must be determined for all ships, including tankers. What we are interested in is the impact on the fisheries, and that is what has been discussed in Halifax. If it is necessary to have different routes for tankers, probably we will have a recommendation to that effect. I do not have the report yet, but these are the questions we are looking into.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can he tell the House whether he has initiated negotiations with the Quebec government to designate Montmag-ny and suburbs as a special area?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: No, Mr. Speaker, not yet. However, I will be meeting with the government of the province of Quebec on Wednesday or Thursday of this week and I have no doubt that will be one of the matters that will be up for discussion.
May 14, 1973


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the announcement by the Bank of Canada of an increase of half a per cent in the bank rate and of the announced or expected increase in the prime rate, would the minister make a statement tomorrow on the whole of the Canadian financial scene in so far as it affects interest rates and the government's fiscal policy in travelling again, shall we say, this old route in its fight against inflation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the implications in the preamble but I will take the general intention of the question into consideration.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should also like to ask the minister to make a statement either tomorrow or later this week with regard to the effect on Canadian interest rates of the international monetary situation, the high price of gold and the same dreary symptoms we are now seeing of the crises we have had twice in the last year, and on just what this is going to do for the whole Canadian financial picture, so that the minister and the government can come clean with the Canadian public.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have already got a very open government.


Gerald William Baldwin: What about the tax cuts?


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT HOLD DOWN INTEREST RATES ON MORTGAGE LOANS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance based on the announcement today by the Royal Bank of Canada that its prime rate for loans of over $200,000 is being raised to 7 per cent. In view of the fact the Bank of Canada is encouraging this two-rate system, and in view of the fact that many borrowers at the prime rate are mortgage and trust companies, will the government commit itself to a policy of holding down the interest rates on mortgage loans?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take the general tenor of the hon. gentleman's remarks into consideration. Obviously, the day to day responsibility for the monetary policy of the country rests with the Bank of Canada. It is only when the general thrust of that policy comes into conflict with that of the government that the Minister of Finance has to intervene.
Oral Questions OIL


PROPOSED WEST COAST TANKER ROUTE-GOVERNMENT POLICY IN LIGHT OF RECENT STATEMENTS BY U.S. OFFICIALS AND PREMIER BARRETT'S PROPOSAL
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of some recent statements by United States officials about Canadian energy and oil policy being in a quagmire and nothing but fantasy, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is government policy to give the Alaskan oil tanker route the green light, as published on Thursday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the publication on Thursday that the hon. member refers to. I can say that government policy has not changed in this regard. It is that we do not favour the route from Alaska which would take oil tankers over the ocean into waters that are very narrowly confined between the United States and Canada. That is still our policy, and our policy is still to indicate that the Mackenzie route is one which we would be prepared to consider if there is application made in the proper form, and that we would be very happy to follow up on that.


John Allen Fraser: In view of the Prime Minister's reply, can the Prime Minister tell the House why the government is presently studying Premier Barrett's alternative oil and gas route through Alaska, the Yukon and British Columbia? Does that indicate some change in government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure of the premise of the question. As of a week ago we had not received the studies behind Premier Barrett's proposal, although we had asked for them repeatedly. So we cannot say that we are studying them. We have not received them. This may have changed in the past week. The minister is to return from Europe today and he no doubt will be in the position to supplement this answer when he is in the House tomorrow.


INCOME TAX
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It arises from a number of inquiries I have received, and I am sure many other hon. members have received similar inquiries concerning the delay in income tax refunds. Can the minister advise those people when they may expect their refunds?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, that would depend on when the returns were filed and whether there were errors in the returns. However, there have been close to four million refunds processed and these should be now in the hands of some four million Canadians. The others are being processed very quickly. I hope that all refunds on returns which were properly completed and submitted on time will be in the taxpayers' hands within the next two weeks.
Oral Questions AIR CANADA

May 14, 1973


CONSTRUCTION OF NEW COMPUTER CENTRE AT DORVAL-EFFECT ON WINNIPEG CENTRE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the construction by Air Canada of a new computer centre at Dorval Airport. Can the minister assure the House that the building of this new facility will not render the Air Canada computer centre in Winnipeg obsolete?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to ask for a report from Air Canada on this.


A. Daniel McKenzie: During that inquiry, will the minister find out whether all Air Canada reservation and computer services are eventually to operate from Dorval?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any definite information he can present to the House respecting the reported shelling of an ICCS outpost in Viet Nam, and can he say whether this incident has in any way affected his judgment about how long Canada should remain there?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that we have no direct information yet from Saigon. We are expecting it at any time.


VIET NAM-REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON CONTINUING ROLE OF CANADA IN CONTROL COMMISSION AND PLIGHT OF CIVILIAN PRISONERS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister take this opportunity to say whether or not an opportunity will be given to the House soon to debate the whole question of the continuing role of Canada in the ICCS and another question that is disturbing many Canadians, the plight of civilian prisoners in that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, before the end of the month the government must, of course, make a decision whether we will continue to participate in the International Control Commission. I will make that announcement in the House. On the question of whether it would be desirable or necessary to have a debate at that time, I certainly have a sympathetic attitude and will give the suggestion very careful consideration, as I said some weeks ago. With regard to the question of civilian prisoners, very slow progress is being made. There have been some exchanges of a few hundred prisoners on each side recently. Both

sides charge, of course, that there are hundreds of thousands of civilians still incarcerated. Unfortunately, very little progress is being made. This is one of the aspects of the peace agreement that is so disturbing.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
With reference to discussions held at the last federal-provincial conference of ministers of industry, trade and commerce, can the hon. minister inform this House if he intends to take the necessary steps to establish as soon as possible offices of his department in each province so as to give further assistance to small undertakings?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I did discuss this question with the provincial ministers. I indicated there would be additional regional offices opened in the course of the present fiscal year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the urgent appeal from the Food and Agriculture Organization for help to relieve the famine in the five western African nations where some 10 million people are either dead or in a state of malnutrition, is there anything the minister can do to take the lead among Canadian ministers and among other countries by bringing some help to this hard-pressed area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have already anticipated this question. As I announced in Moncton on Friday, we have already given $2.5 million in food aid to the area surrounding the Sahara. We are looking very sympathetically at requests for help because this is a very serious situation.
May 14, 1973


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Has the government made a decision with regard to the appointment of a special task force to study the feasibility of the development of a national capital district, that task force to be headed by Mr. Douglas Fullerton, the present chairman of the National Capital Commission?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there will be a more precise announcement made later, but there has been a feeling within the government of the need at this time for a study of the future administration of matters relating to the national capital region. The person who has asked to head that is the chairman of the National Capital Commission. However, a more formal announcement will be made in due course. The report of such a task force will be useful for something I have felt the need of for a long time, as have as other members, namely, a parliamentary inquiry into the operations and the role of the National Capital Commission and what changes in the law should be made.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact Canada has imported some millions of pounds of butter, and in light of the fact we have a surplus of skim milk in this country, can the minister inform the House at an early date as to how he intends to help cream shippers to continue or perhaps increase quotas in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might be allowed to give a brief reply to the question asked by the hon. member. I would not want him to make a lengthy statement which normally should be made on motions. After the minister has replied, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and then the hon. member for Davenport.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, my answer will be as short as possible. Most of this policy is set by the Canadian Dairy Commission. It will be in a better position to do this soon because I am recommending an appointment from western Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to our reciprocal fishing
Oral Questions
arrangements with the United States. This will give the minister an opportunity to do something more than move his head back and forth in a north-south direction. Precisely what arrangements has the government made with regard to having further discussions with the United States on the matter of the reciprocal fishing arrangements which are in such an uncertain state at the present time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can agree with the hon. member. We have had some very difficult negotiations with the hon. member. We have had some very difficult negotiations with the United States. They are not yet concluded. We expect to meet again with the Americans before the end of the month, well in advance of the June 15 deadline that is provided in the agreement. In a related matter, we have also had discussions about salmon in particular which, if anything, are even more difficult. It is the intention of the government to resume these negotiations in due course.


UNITED STATES RIGHT TO CATCH FRASER RIVER SALMON-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF MAY 8 COMMUNIQUES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the House whether Canada intends to take an unequivocal position with regard to the claim by the United States that it has rights in perpetuity to catch Fraser River salmon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I always hesitate to make public announcements about a negotiating position. I do not intend to do so on this occasion. I can tell the hon. member we will defend the rights of Canada just as strongly as he.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for one last supplementary on this subject, then the hon. member for Davenport, and perhaps we will have one last question before calling orders of the day.


Frank Howard: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs table the two communiques dated May 8, one from Canada and one from the United States, that resulted from the last talks in Seattle where the question of the claim by the United States about rights in perpetuity to Fraser River salmon was discussed? Will he table those communiques?


Mitchell William Sharp: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. If there were communiques I will see that they are tabled so that all members will know what was agreed upon.


MANPOWER
Mr. Chas L. Caccia (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immi-

May 14, 1973
Capital Punishment
gration. Is it the minister's intention to broaden the criteria for granting extensions to local initiatives projects?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to the statement I made the other day.


MEASURES TO INFORM PUBLIC OF DRUGS NOT THERAPEUTICALLY EQUIVALENT ACCORDING TO QUAD STANDARDS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact many patients are continuing to use drugs that are not therapeutically equivalent as determined by QUAD analytical standards, will the minister indicate to the House the measures being taken by the government to inform the public of these potentially ineffective drugs so that appropriate substitution can be made?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the QUAD program is in operation and the department will issue another publication next year, with an additional list of drugs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice a number of members are seeking supplementaries to previous questions. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to note the supplementaries of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for St. Paul's and give them some kind of priority tomorrow, although in fairness I think I should recognize the hon. member for Lambton-Kent now for one supplementary.


John Robert Holmes: Will the minister indicate if the government has plans to reimburse those patients who have found it necessary to discard a drug that has failed to pass one or more of the QUAD analytical standards? I refer in particular to those on fixed incomes such as our old age pensioners?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the implication of the question, and the answer is no.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 20, 1973, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-2,

to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: When this debate was adjourned some weeks ago, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) had the floor.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that a large number of members wish to participate in this debate, I wonder whether the House would agree to limiting the speeches to 20 minutes. If we impose this restraint, it will provide an additional amount of time for other members who wish to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered?


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, our party will not agree with this suggestion as long as we shall not come to an understanding regarding the use of Thursday as an opposition day.


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I began this speech on February 20 by indicating I would vote for second reading of Bill C-2 in the belief that detailed discussion of the subject in committee would probably result in the passing of amendments. I also indicated that I believed the vote should reflect the will of the majority of Canadians, just as my vote will reflect the majority opinion of my constituents.
I had been presenting different opinions, and today I should like to read two more. The first is an extract from an article which appeared in Le Devoir on February 6 by Fr. Guy Bourgeault. He said:

... I could quote various studies for the benefit of our bilingual members of Parliament... they all go to show that the abolition of the death penalty has no noticeable effect on crime.
Despite the progress made by the abolitionist movement, and despite all the studies that have been made into the subject, there are still many who wish to retain capital punishment. They see it as primarily a means of intimidation and dissuasion, and consequently, a means of protecting society against criminals. But the experience of many countries demonstrates that the death penalty does not have the intimidating effect that we tend to suppose it has, and that abolition does not bring about an increase in crime.
For society to protect itself, it will have to prevent crime by applying the necessary socio-economic adjustments.
.. . sub-human socio-economic conditions are an important factor in crime. In other words the criminal is often-perhaps always-both a victim of existing social disorder and the cause of a new social disorder. Or again, to quote the title of a once-famous film, we are all murderers. For collective responsibilities are not only sub- or super-personal ones; they are also personal responsibilities. All of us together are ... responsible for the continuation of unjust social structures which prevent some individuals from fulfilling their possibilities. If these people end up committing murder, dare we judge them and punish them just like that?
However, those who seek to justify the death penalty invoke much more than societys need for protection by intimidating the potential killer. It becomes a requirement of justice; the murderer shall be put to death, the Bible said . . .; and St. Paul considered the prince raising the blade to the murderer as "a minister of God
May 14, 1973

carrying out vengeance on him who has done evil" .. . "Killing sinners is not only allowed, but necessary, if they are harmful or dangerous to the community", Thomas Aquinas was to say later . . the part must be sacrificed that the whole may remain healthy ...
. . . for the Christian these are evangelical landmarks that he cannot easily ignore; they tell him what, in God's eyes, is the value of any human life. The value that God puts on man's life was revealed to man in Jesus Christ: his life and his death. And his ressurection.
[ English]
I should like also to read extracts from the brief on capital punishment submitted by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. First, on deterrence;
The threat by society to punish must not be an empty one.
And on the possibility of error;
The safeguards which presently exist and the principles governing the judicial system virtually guarantee freedom from error.
And on the question of justification:
Is society justified in taking away a life? This question can be answered by another question- "Is society justified in making war?" There is a fundamental answer which even from the philosophical point of view cannot be refuted. Society does have the right to protect itself by whatever means are necessary.
From a booklet on capital punishment produced by Mr. Guy Favreau when he was Minister of Justice in 1965, I should like to read the following;
Some persons approach the issue of a death penalty from a straightforward moral viewpoint, the abolitionists among them believing that it is wicked and unwarranted for the state to take a human life in any circumstances and the retentionists believing that the crime of murder is so heinous that death is the only punishment which is consonant with a sound moral sense in the community. Neither of these groups is likely to change camp upon considerations of deterrent effect; the conclusions are deeply and subjectively rooted in background, training, philosophy and religion.
Further on in the booklet we read, and I underline this statement;
The rights of the individual must not be considered as sacred to the point where the rights of society are subjugated thereto.
And another extract which is relevant:
If a threat is an empty one which cannot or will not ever be actualized, it will not influence conscious or unconscious deliberations of the individual. It is, therefore, not a question as to whether society imposes capital punishment or life imprisonment for murder, it is whether those sentences are actually carried out.
Five thousand of my constituents replied to a ques-tionaire on this subject. Only 22 per cent of them favoured abolition. Thirteen per cent supported the limited retention, provision for which is made in the bill before us. An overwhelming 65 per cent supported the death penalty for all first degree murders. I have presented a selection of the opinions which have been material to me in reaching my own decision. As one medical doctor in my county stated, an abolitionist cannot vote for retention of capital punishment even if that is the majority opinion of his constituents. Possibly, one day, I shall vote for abolition, but while I am willing to send a man to die before enemy guns, and while I believe the rights of society cannot be subjugated to the rights of an individual, I shall continue to support effective measures to protect society, including the death penalty for all first degree murders.
Capital Punishment


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough);: Mr. Speaker, this is a most important subject and a most difficult one. I think it is the third debate on capital punishment in which I have engaged, and I find that, generally, members are more inclined to bare their souls in a debate of this sort, which I think is all to the good. I am always pleased when we in this chamber have what we call a free vote. I think the less frequently we have the laying on of the party whip, the more mature becomes our deliberative assembly.
I find this a question of extreme difficulty, a sentiment a number of my colleagues have already expressed. Last October, a reporter from one of Canada's great newspapers called me up in Charlottetown and asked me for my views on this question. I told him it was not easy to give my views but I tried to give him a balanced statement. A few weeks ago a reporter from another distinguished Canadian journal asked me the same question, and I gave what I thought was the same balanced answer. I may say that neither of these answers ever saw the light of day, because to be moderate in one's view is not the way to get in the press.
I am not able to be dogmatic or precise on the matter, not because I have not thought about it, but because I have thought much about it. When I spoke in this chamber seven years ago I confessed then that I entered the debate with a feeling far removed from supreme over-confidence in the rightness of my view. I may say that I have not moved toward any greater dogmatism in the years since; nor have developments in our society made the question any easier of adjudication. Indeed, it seems to me that this present time is an unfortunate time to be discussing an issue with such ramifications.
This very day we find great anxiety about what is going on in our penal institutions. We have an aura of violence which is disturbing. We have very serious assaults upon our police forces. Indeed, I thought earlier in this session that probably it would have been the course of wisdom for some agreement to be found to extend the provisions of the present act for a year or two and then to bring it up again, perhaps more hopefully, at a stage in our society which was a little more stable and which would be conducive to a little easier in-depth study of this very fundamental question.
In addition to the basic challenge in dealing with a question which has broad sociological, philosophic and indeed moral aspects, we have in the Canadian situation and in the bill before us some other factors which add grave difficulty for those trying to make up their minds. One which comes to mind is this, that for years in this country, no matter what the law said, no matter what the Code decreed, we had ipso facto abolition of the death penalty. Every Canadian knew this, every legislator knew it, and that historic fact makes this kind of debate totally academic. Even in cases involving the death of policemen, wardens and the like, and in the absence of any appeal for clemency, the sentence of death has been commuted without exception year after year. So, in a sense, we know in our hearts that we are talking in vacuum.
Another matter that disturbs people is that in today's reality life imprisonment means something quite different from life imprisonment. We find that a short passage of

May 14, 1973
Capital Punishment
years is sufficient before one who is committed to life imprisonment is again moving about in society, and this of course adds to the gravity and the seriousness, of the matter, as well as to the perplexity and concern of the Canadian people.
The present bill also has an obvious, easily recognized and patent inconsistency which makes it extremely difficult to be enthusiastic about it, or certainly to use a logical approach to it. If capital punishment is abolished because it is not a deterrent and that generally is the reason given for its abolition-then why is capital punishment retained for the murder of certain citizens? If the death penalty is viewed as a deterrent to the murder of police and penitentiary officers, why is it not considered a deterrent to the murder of other members of society? This seems to me to be a logical question that should present itself immediately to the members of the House. Because we cannot have it both ways. If the death penalty deters, why limit its deterring effect? If it does not deter, why pretend that as against certain members of society it in fact does?
I take second place to no one in my regard for the police forces of the nation, nor in my appreciation of the tremendous responsibilities and risks that they are taking in the protection of the generality of society in an age where violence if far too rife and tranquility far too rare. I have paid especial attention to the representations from the various police organizations that have come to me, as they have come to all other hon. members. If I were convinced that the death penalty helped diminish the risk faced by our police forces, I would support its return. But if I were that convinced, then I would not limit this protection to our police forces only; I would draw the mantle of that protection over all members of society, over all my fellow citizens.
I listened with interest to the speech made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) on January 30 when he addressed himself to this particular aspect of the bill. As reported at page 787 of Hansard, the right hon. member said:
If a man goes to Government House and assassinates the Governor General, he is liable to be sentenced to life imprisonment. If in running away he fired a shot, not towards the police officer who is following him but ahead and the bullet ricochets off a plate on a tree and kills the policeman, he is guilty of capital murder.
He then went on to say he was opposed to the system of selective condemnation for murder as an expedient that would not work and which has not worked. I find that a compelling observation. As the hon. member who preceded me mentioned, all of us have received numerous representations. One which moved me greatly was a very, very perceptive and sensitive letter from a group of pupils in a junior school in my constituency. I was impressed by their interest and in the clarity of their thought. Many have written to us and brought forward moral reasons for their point of view, and they have prevailed upon us to take a similar point of view.
Some people in Canada are convinced that the execution of a citizen by the state is immoral and that should end the matter. They contend that the basic ethical underpinning of our social structure is vitiated by the taking of a life by those placed in authority over society. I have the greatest respect for the sincerity of those people who feel so con-

vinced, and I wish today, as I wished in 1967 when I last spoke on this subject, that I could base my judgment so firmly on moral and religious grounds and be so sure of the rightness of my presentation.
Others have written to us quoting Holy Writ as leading ineluctably to the imposition of capital punishment. Happily my church, the Presbyterian Church of Canada, does not lay upon its members any directives in the matter, but a recent issue of the Church's publication, the "Presbyterian Record," produced something which I found extremely interesting. I quote:
A recent news item included the following quotation from the minutes of the Presbytery ... of . .. "Whereas the word of God teaches that capital punishment is the will of God for those guilty of murder, the Presbytery of ... of the Presbyterian Church in Canada urges the government of Canada to reinstate the death penalty for those found guilty of murder."
The writer of the article to which I referred of April, 1973, in the Presbyterian Record went on to state:
The presbytery is quite correct. The word of God teaches that "the murderer must be put to death." As a matter of fact the word of God tells us that whoever strikes or reviles his mother or father, whoever commits witchcraft, beastiality, adultery, incest or homosexuality should also be put to death. Furthermore, the story of Ananias and Sapphira strongly indicates that those who lie or withhold any possessions from the church should also fall under set sentence of death. If the Canadian government asked the Presbytery of . . . to state the word of God regarding these offences it would appear that the presbytery would have no choice but to state it is the will of God that the entire population of Canada be executed!
This writer did not think of it and I do not know why I did not, but I remember Christ defining adultery in a very broad way. He said that he who lusted after a woman committed adultery with her in his heart, so that would take quite a wide sweep, I am afraid. He then went on to say that St. John said anyone who hated was in fact a murderer. There are very few people in our society who have not at one time or other said they hated this, hated that, hated him or hated her.
This was all serious, but in a much more profound delineation of this argument, this writer went on to state:
If any murderers should be executed it should be those who murdered the Son of God.
For those, even Christ himself proclaimed not death, but forgiveness. I do not want to use my whole time as this is a very important debate and there are many people who wish to talk about this matter, but I have read a great deal of material on the subject. One of the best articles was the second research report of the Solicitor General's department brought out by Mr. Fattah. He opened with a foreword which is a quotation from a great literary man of our time, Boris Pasternak, and I quote:
If the beast who sleeps in man could be held down by threats- any kind of threat, whether of jail or of retribution after death- then the highest emblem of humanity would be the lion tamer in the circus with his whip, not the Prophet who sacrificed himself.
That is a powerful quote, one which should cause some reflection. He then quotes George Devreux as follows:
The theory of capital punishment is the most conspicuous instance of hedonistic rationalizations and the most convincing example of its fallacious nature. The failure of capital punishment
May 14, 1973

as a deterrent is rooted in a peculiar aspect of human psychology. I refer to man's inability to conceive of his own death.
That too is a pungent comment, Mr. Speaker.
John Bright was one of the great figures in British history, he said:
A deep reverence for human life is worth more than a thousand executions in the prevention of murder; and is, in fact, the great security of human life. The law of capital punishment whilst pretending to support this reverence, does infact, tned to destroy it.
This, too, I find impelling.
As I see it, Sir, we all must in the long run leave our representations, our notes and our Gallup polls aside and make up our own minds. As I see it, the basic question is whether the death penalty is a deterrent to the crime of murder. I do not belong to those who argue that the right to impose death is beyond the ultimate right of the state. I think the state, in the interest of the safety and security of its members, acting in the interests of its members, may impose the ultimate sanction. If I were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a state hangman would make for a more safe and more secure society, I would support his return as a move toward the over-all good of the members of society. If the evidence which I have studied led me to that ineluctable conclusion I would support that return, but I have to come back to the essential question: Is capital punishment a deterrent to the crime of murder?
The statistics here are no more persuasive, although almost as pervasive, as the scriptures. The data I have checked would lead me to believe there is not a clear-cut case that the imposition of the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. With all the inadequacies I have mentioned, and I hope that some improvements may be made in the committee, where we can put ourselves on a level with something closer to our view, I am prepared to support the measure for another five years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: One of the pieces of evidence which impressed me most was that again found in the first conclusion of Mr. Fattah's report as follows:
If the increase in homicide were solely due to the suspension of capital punishment then it should be limited to this offence. Other offences of violence for which there has not been a change in punishment should show no increase or at least a lower increase than that in criminal homicide. Our data amply show that this is not true. Actually the increase in criminal homicide is the lowest among all crimes of violence studied, a fact which indicates that such increase can neither be attributed nor related to the suspension of capital punishment.
I think that is a very important observation because we are all much disturbed by the rise in violence in our society, and it compels us to look with greater clarity than ever before for the real reasons. I believe that if \ye came to the easy conclusion that society generally would be better with the return to capital punishment we would be misreading our society's needs and intentions, and perhaps seeking a form of relief which in effect would not be efficacious.
So, Mr. Speaker, without any degree of self-righteousness or any abundance of surety on the matter, I have come to the conclusion, after the most careful and earnest thought, and after as much reading and consultation as
Capital Punishment
one can do, that in the circumstances the best course of action I can carve out for myself, thinking of the people of my riding and the people of Canada, is to move on to the committee stage with this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of capital punishment has been an agonizing one for me. Before I was elected to the Parliament of Canada and before the FLQ crisis, I had a very distinct and positive position. I was opposed to capital punishment. During the capture of Pierre Laporte and his subsequent murder, I must admit that I thought the whole question over again. It did not seem proper to me that, under the law, one who would kidnap someone like Pierre Laporte should be subject to the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and yet, if that person were to murder Laporte, as happened in that particular case, he would be subject to the same penalty. This gave rise to a whole rethinking of this question.
Having rethought the matter, I have come now to the conclusion that capital punishment, in spite of these considerations, is something I cannot support. I say that after very careful consideration of the question. I believe that the problem I alluded to a moment ago, that is the disparity of penalty between kidnapping and murder, can be corrected without the use of the ultimate penalty of death itself.
I should like to address myself specifically to the bill before us. The intention of Bill C-2 is to extend the five year moratorium on capital punishment for murder, with the exception of prison guards and police officers, which was introduced in the year 1967, to expire on December 31, 1972. Following second reading which we are considering at the moment, the matter will be referred to the standing committee for further consideration and possible amendment. In my remarks here today, I should like to suggest certain specific amendments that I believe should be undertaken by the committee or which might be suggested by the committee which affect not only the Criminal Code and offences under it, but also penal reform generally and the whole question of parole. I think it is quite clear that every man in society really believes in certain basic, fundamental principles which relate to this question.
First of all, it is paramount today that we, as legislators, give consideration first to the protection of society itself. I think every person we represent really believes this is our first priority. Second, we must make sure that whatever laws exist in the Criminal Code must exist not only to protect society but also to provide a deterrent to others so that they will not commit crime. That is really what the Criminal Code, in my view, is all about.
In addition, I think most people believe in the rehabilitation of the criminal. That is what penal reform, parole and so on are all about. But the rehabilitation of the criminal, important as that is, should not take precedence over the protection of society. I believe it also goes without saying that revenge has no place in our Criminal Code. The prevention of crime is really the name of the game.

May 14, 1973
Capital Punishment
This embraces a respect for mankind, a respect for the individual's rights, a respect for an individual's freedom and respect for his property. Indeed, if we have any respect at all for man we must have a basic respect for life itself, not only my life or your life but all life, including that of the criminal. We must respect life, in so far as it is humanly possible without destroying the basic principle of protecting society itself.
Bill C-2 deals specifically with murder, culpable homicide, and not murders by reason of passion or manslaughter. So, arguments in respect of crimes of passion and a person in that particularly agitated state being deterred from committing a crime because of the existence of capital punishment are not relevant to the bill in front of us. I think it is clear, however, that persons committing crimes of passion are not affected by any penalty that might be imposed because such persons are to some degree insane, are not in control of themselves and certainly not thinking rationally of all the consequences which may befall them if caught. In any event, we are talking about culpable homicide, murder, within very strict terms.
Basically, I am opposed to capital punishment unless there is no other way to protect society. Man clearly has the right to protect himself by using any means that is essential to do so. It is quite obvious that one could easily think of a case where an individual, in order to protect his wife and family, would have the right, if it were absolutely essential, to commit an act of murder. If this is true in respect of an individual, I would think that, at least in theory, it would also be true of the state. I do not really subscribe to the argument that the state does not have the right to impose capital punishment. I believe it has that right if that is the only course available to it. I would argue, however, that it is not the only course it could follow in order to achieve its essential objective of protecting society.
Clearly, the policeman or the prison guard is an instrument of the state. In cases of robbery or attempted murder, surely a policeman has the right to protect society by shooting the criminal if that should be the only way to prevent him pursuing his illegal end. That point alone surely is sufficient proof that the state, under certain circumstances, not only has the right but possibly the obligation to exercise that right. However, we are not talking about that temporary resort to violence in order to protect society. We are speaking here of a person who has been convicted of a crime. At that point, hopefully, he is safely in jail and has been taken out of society. We must judge whether we have the right to impose capital punishment on him. Admittedly, in such circumstances the man has already been taken away from society, and society for at least that moment is adequately protected.
Unfortunately, the question of capital punishment is being discussed today against the vivid background of what I would call the permissive society. Many people are moving toward the re-instatement of capital punishment because they are really fed up with the permissive society. Many people feel that capital punishment is advisable because they suspect it is the only way to protect themselves. They feel that a person who is found guilty of culpable murder, is sentenced to life imprisonment but in fact, in a few years he is back in society, able to impose his
[Mr. Cafik.)
particular views on society and possibly to murder again. It is against that background that we must look at the question. I think it is in that area we must take some kind of corrective action. There is a feeling that we are far too lenient in rehabilitating the criminal, and that too little cognizance is being given by the Parole Board and by others to the real principle of protecting society. There is a lack of trust in those particular institutions. In my view the question of capital punishment can be properly considered only as a part of the over-all question of the law and penal reform. I hope that the committee which reviews this question will bear in mind this important point.
Earlier I referred to the Laporte case and I should like to talk about it in some detail. I mention that case because it has caused me great concern. In looking at the Criminal Code, we find that the maximum penalty for kidnapping is life imprisonment. The court does not have to impose life imprisonment, but that is the maximum penalty. In respect or murder, the maximum penalty and the minimum penalty are the same, life imprisonment. Let us look at these two things in the concept of someone who would kidnap a person, as happened in the case of Laporte. The penalty would be different if the men kidnapped him or kidnapped him and murdered him. The fact is that in murdering him they did not expose themselves to any further penalty. Given that example, I think we must take some kind of reasonable action. We must look at the maximum penalties and see them in relation to parole.
Under the present law relating to kidnapping, if one is sentenced to life imprisonment one is eligible for parole in a period of seven years. In the case of non-capital murder, which means the murder of anyone other than a policeman or prison guard, one is eligible for parole in a ten-year period. This means that in terms of eligibility for parole, there is only a three year difference between the time when a person sentenced for murder is eligible for parole and the time when the person sentenced for kidnapping is eligible for parole. I think that situation has to be corrected somehow or other. If the person guilty of kidnapping were given less than life imprisonment, then that person would be eligible for parole after the expiration of one third of his sentence or four years, whichever comes earlier, with a minimum amount to be served of nine months. Therefore, a person who is found guilty of kidnapping and is given, say, six years, would be eligible for parole after two.
Another distinction which I have to point out here is that anyone who is given a life sentence is never really free. He may be out of jail on parole, but the fact of the matter is that he is on parole for the rest of his life. This means that any violation of that parole will put him back in jail, which is a very important point to recognize.
Let us have a look at some of the offences for which imprisonment for life becomes the maximum penalty. They are: hijacking according to section 76(1) of the Criminal Code, endangering the safety of aircraft in flight, causing injury with intent, rape, causing death by criminal negligence, capital murder, non-capital murder, manslaughter, attempting to commit murder, kidnapping, abortion, robbery, breaking and entering with intent of committing offences in the dwelling. All of these, and
May 14, 1973

some others, carry with them the maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. It seems to me to be inappropriate that in the case of culpable murder, whether it be of a policeman or whoever, the maximum penalty is exactly the same as for some of these other offences. I have illustrated that point before, and I will make some proposals to try to correct that problem.
I will not propose capital punishment. I think what the situation calls for is the imposition of some minimums, some mandatory regulations in respect of parole in respect of murder. I will suggest that all those who are guilty of culpable murder, whether the person murdered is a prison guard or a policeman or any other member of society, shall not be eligible for parole under any circumstances within a 15 year period. That is a change from 10 years to 15 years. Some people to whom I have spoken feel that perhaps it should be 20 years. It is difficult to make a value judgment on what it ought to be. I am simply saying that my personal view is that it should be 15, but I am willing to recognize that others who perhaps know more about the problem might want to change it, and if the change were from 15 to 20 years I would certainly go along with it.
Second, I should like to propose that all who commit murder while in the process of committing another criminal offence which carries with it a maximum sentence of life imprisonment shall not be eligible for parole in less than 20 years. This means, first, that a person who murders a policeman while committing armed robbery would not be eligible for parole in less than 20 years. Second, it means the same thing in most cases of the murder of prison guards, although there is a flaw in the formula which I think the committee should consider. My definition, while committing another crime which carries with it life imprisonment, would not include the person who, in attempting to escape from prison, commits murder. A specific reference would have to be made to that case, and I would be willing to go along with that. In my view this would provide a deterrent, and would provide a significant difference between a sentence of life imprisonment for offences other than murder and a sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of murder.
I would like to deal for a moment with the question of whether the death penalty is, in fact, a deterrent. I indicated earlier that I believe the state has the right to protect society. I believe that it has the right to impose the death penalty. But I do not believe that it should impose the death penalty if there is any other alternative available which is equally effective, and I believe that there are other alternatives available which are equally effective. In my view the death penalty for the offence of murder is certainly not a deterrent. People can argue this in both directions, but let me quote some of the statistics which have been quoted in the House before but which have led me to believe that the death penalty does not provide a deterrent. The study which I have before me reads:
New Zealand abolished capital punishment in 1941, restored it in 1950 and again abolished it in 1961. During the 1961 debate on the Crimes Bill, the Minister of Justice, the Hon. J. R. Hanan, noted that although the penalty for murder changed three times, in 1935, in 1950 and in 1957, the figures for murder were not affected. During seven years of capital punishment (1951-1957) 22 murderers were convicted. Eight of the murderers were hanged. In the nine years following the suspension of capital punishment the figure was 24.
Capital Punishment
In New Zealand, from 1936 until 1941 the death penalty was never carried out in practice. If as a starting datum the year 1936 were taken, then it would be found that in the 15 year period during which the death penalty was not imposed in New Zealand (1936-1950) there were 148 murders; in the 15 year period before 1936 there were 154. In other words, there was a reduction of six in the number of murders after executions had stopped. This figure is very significant if examined in relation to what was happening to the population of New Zealand. At the beginning of the 30 year period in 1920, the population was approximately 1,250,000, and in 1950, the end of the 30 year period, the population was about 2,000,000. Such an increase demonstrates that the decline in the murder rate was substantial although the difference in the number was only six.
That certainly indicates to me that at least in that country, the abolition of capital punishment did not-give rise to an increase in the murder rate. The same conclusion can be reached from a study of almost all the statistics you want to find. I believe the murder rates in the death penalty states and in the abolitionist states of the United States have been cited. The rate in the abolitionist states per one million of population was .510. In the death penalty states it was .570. So, it would seem to me that those figures as well would tend to lead one to believe that there is no direct relationship between abolition and the incidence of murder.
I should like to quote further in respect of this:
With regard to the United Kingdom figures, an article commenting on criminal statistics for 1966 said:
"In the statistics covering the first year since the suspension of the death penalty, the murder figures naturally attract particular attention. The murders recorded during the year numbered 143 which was 10 less than in 1965 and 12 fewer than 1964. Such a variation is within the normal range of variations in the crime over the years, and appears only to confirm the experience of this and other countries that the presence or absence of capital punishment makes little difference to the number of murders committed."
I think that ought to be enough to indicate that capital punishment does not have any significant effect on the number of murders committed. If it is not a deterrent then why use it, unless you want to use it as some form of revenge, adopting the argument of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? It seems to me governments should not exercise themselves in that kind of moral judgment.
Our responsibility is to protect society and we have to use every means available to us to do that, but we must never use the absolute punishment of death unless it is the only means available. I do not believe it is. I think the death penalty is a very effective deterrent with respect to some crimes, and to use a reductio ad absurdum argument, if you applied it for exceeding the speed limit, you would certainly cut down on the number of offences. But it would be an inappropriate penalty. You could impose the death penalty for all kinds of minor crimes. As a matter of fact, many countries do that, and it can have a great effect. However, in respect of murder, the worst of crimes, I do not believe that it has any effect at all. In cases where it does have a deterrent effect, I think it is totally inappropriate.
Over the passage of the last few thousand years, we have moved away from the idea of corporal punishment which was carried out with great abandon in many countries. People guilty of certain crimes had their right arms

May 14, 1973
Capital Punishment
cut off, and people guilty of other crimes had their left arms cut off. People had their eyes plucked out, or the foreheads were branded to indicate to everybody in society to beware of them because they had previously committed a crime. That kind of corporal punishment is frowned on today. I do not think that anybody in our society would say we ought to cut off both the legs of a murderer, but surely that kind of punishment is something less than putting him to death. If we do not subscribe to putting out his eyes or cutting off his limbs, how can we subscribe to breaking his neck? I really don't understand that.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to capital punishment because, (1) it is not a deterrent to murder; (2) it is unnecessarily severe and we do not have to go to that length to protect society; (3) society can be properly protected without the use of capital punishment and I have outlined some changes in the parole system and Criminal Code which would assure that, and (4) there is too much room for error. If one looks at the statistics in respect of the hanging of innocent people, one will find they are much more significant than one might have thought possible. I find it reprehensible that any society would take such a final step, in many cases on the basis of hearsay evidence or in conclusive evidence. Those who advocate capital punishment consider wrongful conviction as only a limited possibility. But although most mistakes are prevented by the judicial system and executive clemency, some occur due to mistaken identification, inadequate circumstantial evidence, perjured testimony, overlooking and suppressing of evidence and unreliable expert evidence, not to mention excessive zeal on the part of investigators or prosecutors.
In a 40 year period, 12.3 per cent of the 406 persons sent to Sing Sing prison for execution were found, upon reconsideration, to have been sentenced in error. Hartung found that in Michigan, which does not have the death penalty, judges and juries erred in 10.9 per cent of 759 life imprisonment convictions for murder in the first degree from 1942 to 1951. I suggest that it is inconceivable that we in this parliament could advocate such a final solution to a problem, considering the enormous possibility of error and the fact that the error can never be repaired. Under these circumstances I, personally, refuse to be the hangman for society. I have too much respect for human life, and I have too much concern for society itself to think that it is necessary to impose that kind of solution on a problem that can be solved in a less dramatic way.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, lest there be any doubt, first of all I would like to stipulate that I am an absolute and total abolitionist. I make no apologies for it, and I have no qualms about it. Perhaps it is because I am an impressionable person, or was very impressionable when I was young. I remember that in the 1930's a young man was convicted of murder and sentenced to hang. All the people in the area signed petitions and requested clemency. I remember people going around looking for dollar bills, even for nickels and dimes to help this man. There was very little money in those days. That man was hung, and I heard many of the neighbours say that they wished capital punishment would be abolished once and for all. Not too long ago I talked to some of the signers of the petitions. Many of them are still ardent 
abolitionists. However, a few of them now say that they want the death penalty. It seems that the further people are removed in space and time from the act of putting a man to death deliberately, the more likelihood there is that they will be in favour of capital punishment.
Several months ago, when this debate began, one of the members of the Conservative party indicated that his party would be the only party that would have a truly free vote on this issue. I want to assure that hon. member that the members of this party will also be free to vote as they wish. Each member of the NDP will vote according to the dictates of his conscience. I am an abolitionist and I will vote for Bill C-2, although it still has provisions for capital punishment for the murderers of prison guards and policemen. I think that this provision should also be removed.
Statistically, the likelihood of a policeman or prison guard, who is doing his job, losing his life is about three in 10,000. The likelihood of a miner doing his job and losing his life is about 11 in 10,000. and the likelihood of a farmer losing his life when in the fields working with farm equipment is about six in 10,000. That is one of the occupational hazards. I want to point out that abolition has been party policy with us for years. One reason I am a New Democrat is that my party has policies. I would not doubt that most NDP members will vote for this bill, although I understand that several of them are seriously thinking of not voting for it. Most of the members of my party will vote for this bill because they know this is one of the things the NDP stands for, and that is perhaps one of the reasons that brought them to our party in the first place.
Our party has adopted policies which originated at our conventions. I remember that policies on abolition were adopted as long as 25 or 30 years ago. Of course, these policies have formed the basis of our action in the political arena, whether it be the House of Commons, a provincial legislature or our own constituencies. Other parties have policy conventions, but I have heard it said, or read somewhere, that they have made it a habit to burn their policy statements after a new leader is chosen.
Let me now turn to the question of abolition. Why am I an abolitionist? I am an abolitionist because in periods of crisis, and whenever reactionary elements become more powerful, it becomes too easy for society to make hasty judgments as to the innocence or guilt of a man. Let me preface my remarks by saying that from 1881 to 1960, on the average, approximately 52 persons out of 100 convicted for murder were in fact hanged; the other 48 had their sentences commuted. In other words, 52 per cent of those convicted were executed.
Now, let us look for a minute at the years 1931-35. Here, we find that there were 83 executions out of 106 death sentences. The percentage of executions in death sentences was approximately 83. This was the highest percentage of executions in Canadian history. The period between 1931 and 1935 was also an age of reaction, counter-reaction and discontent. These were the days of the depression, drought, unemployment, riots, the Ku Klux Klan and the communist scare. Many authorities have pointed out that there were several executions during this period which were probably not justified, since some of
May 14, 1973

the accused were immigrants not cognizant of their rights. The translators used were not always the best, either, and because of the lack of proper defence counsel in some cases it was believed that not all evidence was brought to court. In passing I should mention that this was the age in which the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation was born.
I am an abolitionist because, once in a while, I like to take a leaf out of the thoughts of certain minority groups in this country; in this particular instance I am referring to the original Canadians, the Indians. Many Indian tribes in Canada never did believe in capital punishment and they never practised it. The Indian people feel that one murder does not justify another murder by the state. They feel that a murderer should have an opportunity to regain his honour. This presupposes that an execution does not take place. I also know that Indian people accept a paroled murderer in their midst far more readily than white society does; indeed there are many instances of the acceptance of a murderer after parole even by close relatives of the victim. I know of such cases in my native north-western Saskatchewan.
I am an abolitionist because there are many deaths in our society which in many instances are tantamount to murder but which are not considered in this light, and the perpetrators get off scot-free. We, in this House, do not prohibit cigarette advertising; yet how many people in this country die each year of lung cancer? How many deaths are there because of the sloppy work of some doctors? Yet, what sentence is meted out to these doctors, if any? There have been instances when bridges under construction have collapsed and many men have been killed. Subsequent investigation has revealed that inferior materials had been deliberately used; yet the presidents of these companies got off scot-free. There have been instances where improper shoring or no shoring at all was used when sewer trenches were dug and men have died; yet no one was charged with murder. There are mines in this country where conditions are conducive to silicosis and lung cancer. Miners die, yet many people who could do something to solve hazards in mines do nothing about them. This includes Members of Parliament.
I am an abolitionist because society collectively breeds murder and when a murderer is guilty, we are all guilty to a degree. Many here consider me as a bleeding heart. I do not think I am one. In 1967, there were 29 murders in Saskatchewan; nine of these occurred on August 15, 1967, when a family of nine were ruthlessly shot down in the early morning hours. Within several days the murderer was apprehended because of the astute work of the RCMP. The murderer was 21 years old and evidence produced at court later showed that he had symptoms of schizophrenia when he was six years old. In the murderer's own words "he had to kill, and kill, and kill", because he felt he was acting as the agent of the devil. He was a patient in a mental hospital from May 29 to July 26 of that year. He was discharged, partly because the psychiatrists thought there was some regression of schizophrenia and partly because there was a great deal of pressure being put on the hospital by the government of the day to cut down on medicare and hospitalization costs. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. However, if he had been kept in hospital awhile longer this tragic event may not have
Capital Punishment
happened. Immediately after this crime, the mental hospital authorities took steps to screen their discharges a lot more carefully than they had in the past.
On January 30, 1969, seven people were slain with an axe in a community in northwestern Saskatchewan. The suspect was apprehended almost immediately and in the wake of the slaying the Saskatchewan government liquor board store was closed and a scheduled showing of the murder-mystery "Beserk" in a local movie house was cancelled. It turned out that the suspect was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Long before the murder, he confided that he had thought about killing mounties. No one really suspected he was mentally ill and he was never treated. During the trial his mother was described as a woman who drank all the time and was never married. He had three brothers and five sisters, most of whom were from different fathers. In his youth he was inadequately clothed and did not have enough food. He was taken away from his mother at age 11 by the Department of Welfare and lived in a series of foster homes from which he usually ran away. The only happy foster home he had was at Swift Current. But he felt lonely and missed the north country.
I have mentioned these two cases, Mr. Speaker, because to me they illustrate that if somehow the environmental circumstances of these two murderers could have been changed, then perhaps these tragedies could have been avoided. I am an abolitionist because, despite the basic integrity of our judicial system, I sometimes question its infallibility. Judges and juries have been known to make mistakes and the utter finality of capital punishment leaves no room for correction of them. In England, in 1953, Timothy Evans was hanged for a murder he did not commit.
I am an abolitionist because it is in keeping with my personal Christian beliefs. Many retentionists quote from Genesis to justify capital punishment, as do various church groups. They say, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." However, I think of Jesus Christ and the prostitute who was to be stoned by the crowd, and Christ said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone . ..". Somewhere in the Bible the statement, "Vengeance is mine... saith the Lord" also appears. Consequently, as a Christian, I feel that a murderer should be segregated from society and God, in His ultimate wisdom, will pass final judgment on him.
Retentionists argue for the death penalty. They say that ultimately it will save more lives because of the deterrent effect. However, I remind hon. members that many more lives could be saved by more intensive research into the causes and cure for cancer and heart research, alcoholism rehabilitation centres, providing conditions in mines which will make it less likely that miners will die an early death as a result of silicosis or lung cancer, enforcing safety regulations in our construction industry and so on. We can save many more lives by other methods than by capital punishment.
All violent crimes have been on the increase. Most of these are increasing at a faster rate than murder. Of course, we are not suggesting capital punishment for assault and battery. I believe in law and order and in

May 14, 1973
Capital Punishment
maintaining the integrity of our police forces. There is one area in my constituency where women and children are afraid to go out after nightfall. One individual has been charged with assault on three different occasions. Each time he obtained a suspended sentence. He has so little respect for the police now that he deliberately flaunts them and makes the whole business of law enforcement very difficult.
Surely our courts should give a little more support to the police, especially if the evidence is foolproof. Letting a man off once on a suspended sentence is fine. In many instances, that is all that is required. However, when the same man repeats the same offence a couple more times, surely the man should be removed from the community for a time. It also behooves me to say that a little more regard should be given to the appointment of judges. This should be done on the basis of merit rather than on the basis of political affiliation. Under these circumstances, perhaps it might be possible to have a little more uniformity in the application of our laws.
Someone in this House stated today that we have a permissive society. This is so because of permissive parents and permissive institutions. We live in an age of violence. I wish to give an example of what happened several months ago in a hockey game between Portage la Prairie and Humboldt. It was a junior hockey league series for the Centennial Cup. Humboldt withdrew because of excessive violence. One Humboldt player was severely maimed at Portage la Prairie. He may never be able to play again. While on the ice, the players were slashed and speared. It seems that the players on the opposing team were trying to perform deliberate mayhem. The Canadian Amateur Hockey Association reprimanded the coach and players of the Humboldt team for withdrawing from that series.
Here we have a form of legalized violence in a national sport. I feel that for this sport and many others, laws should be made to protect people whether they are on or off the skating rink. Any hockey player causing violence deliberately should be criminally prosecuted. This is a difficult decision for many Members of Parliament. Many have conducted polls in their constituencies. I have never conducted a poll, but t nave received many letters on the subject. Fortunately, my choice will be much easier than that of many members. Approximately 60 per cent of the correspondence I received is from people basically in favour of Bill C-2. The only point they have made, and this is in keeping with what was said by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), is that life imprisonment should be just that. After deliberately committing murder, a person should not be eligible for parole after six or seven years. The people who wrote to me feel that life imprisonment should be at least 20, 25 or 30 years. They also feel that more care should be taken by the parole board before letting a murderer out on parole. These people have expressed some reservations about granting leave to a supposed murderer a few months after being convicted and put in prison.
Many Canadians are frightened because justice is not always administered as it should be. I agree with having a humane prison system as well as granting leaves to certain types of murderers. I also believe in training for those who

have committed offences against society. However, we have an important duty to preserve the safety of the communities of this country.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, many previous participants in this debate have remarked that at this stage most members have already made up their minds and it is hardly likely that their attitudes will be changed in the course of the debate, even by the most eloquent speeches. I am sure this is probably true, but I hope many hon. members will be listening to the speeches because perhaps some of them can be swayed.
I, personally, during my election campaign told the people in my constitutency that I would support the abolition of capital punishment. During the period after the election and before this House opened, I took it upon myself to do a lot of research into this subject because I knew it would be coming up. I read many books, I interviewed inmates from our federal penitentiaries and, after this procedure, I have changed my mind.
I will speak on some of the reasons why I have changed my mind in a moment, Mr. Speaker, but I would not be doing my duty as a member of this House if I did not mention my concern over the government presenting this bill to this House as a priority item when we still have over 500,000 people unemployed and many old age pensioners and other people on fixed incomes having a hard time with the cost of living rising from month to month. I cannot understand this government bringing in this bill. Why do I say this? Since the Trudeau government was first elected in 1968, capital punishment has been abolished. As a matter of fact, there has not been one single person hanged since this government came into power, so what is the big rush to get in this bill? I say the government is wasting time, stalling. They should be dealing with positive programs to stop high unemployment and high inflation. Where is their contingency plan for price and income controls?
I should like now to get back to some of my reasons for changing from an abolitionist to a retentionist. We must realize that when we are talking about the criminal element in our federal penitentiaries in this country, we are only talking about 1/30 of 1 per cent of all the people in Canada. It seems strange to me that this House has to spend so much time on the death penalty and bail reform debates when we are only dealing with 1/30 of 1 per cent of all the people in Canada. I think it is time we got a little tougher with these people who cannot conform in society and did a better job of looking after the 99 29/30 per cent of the people who are not in our penitentiaries.
When we talk about capital punishment, we are not talking about hanging everyone who commits murder. We are talking about the hard-core criminal who premeditates and decides he is going to kill somebody. This is the man we are talking about. We are not talking about the man who commits murder in a fit of passion, the man who is insane. We are talking about the hard-core criminal who cheats the public, breaks the laws to make his living, who doesn't want to change and who looks upon murder as part of his business. I say that these murderers who murder for a living should be eliminated from society. Like most
May 14, 1973

Canadians, I am heartsick at listening to the quotes of so-called research experts who will go to any length to rehabilitate, at the expense of the taxpayers, killers who in many cases have proven themselves, by repeated crimes, unworthy of such consideration.
I ask the government to prepare a plebiscite for the next national election on the abolition of capital punishment. Let the people of Canada decide what they want to do with their murderers. To this end, I have introduced a private member's bill, No. C-117, an act to provide for a national plebiscite on the abolition of capital punishment. I hope the government will see fit, before my bill comes up for debate, to adopt this proposal for the next election so that the people of Canada can decide on this very serious moral issue.
I certainly believe in rehabilitation of the criminal, but some of the acts of this government in the past four years have just gone too far for the average Canadian to take. I should like, just for a couple of minutes, to discuss our new bail reform laws.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in a press release issued a few weeks ago stated, and I quote:
Although the new bail laws have not been in operation long enough to judge accurately the impact and results, there was general agreement across Canada that the new regulations were working well and offered a significant improvement in personal liberty over the previous existing laws and practices.
Where has the minister been? Certainly not out in British Columbia. Has he talked to any judges or policemen? The new Bail Reform Act is a farce, and I suggest to the minister that he must be having too many meetings with the so-called research experts. The government should stop listening to these bleeding hearts. Mr. Speaker, can you believe that four convicts in British Columbia were given a $10,000 LIP grant to do a study on heroin? The result of the study, other than many free hours outside their cells, was a recommendation by the four convicts to legalize heroin and abolish prisons! I guess this could seem humorous to some people, Mr. Speaker, but I feel it is totally irresponsible. Donald Anderson, who is 48 years old and head of the project, disappeared with a 17-year-old girl and $3,000 at the end of the program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member in the midst of his speech, but it does seem to me he is straying away from the question of capital punishment. I ask him to address himself to the subject under consideration.


John Douglas Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just trying to show, with the aid of these examples, why the present bill is not working.
Now, I would like to get down to some facts. Many members in favour of abolition stood up and said the whole world is abolishing the death penalty. Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Canada is one of 58 countries which retains the death penalty. At last count, authorities in 27 countries had given up the death penalty either by law or by virtue of simply not executing anyone. That is a fact. Another fact: two countries are experiencing strong support for the return of the death penalty. In Britain, where capital punishment was abolished except for treason after a five-year period in 1969, and also in West
Capital Punishment
Germany, there is strong feeling for the return of the death penalty. I think the reason for these reinstatement movements in Britain and West Germany is that the people of these countries feel like the people of Canada- that the hard-core criminal who does not want to live by the standards society sets should go to jail, and that a hard-core murderer who wants to murder an innocent victim should pay with his own life.
Mr. Speaker, I would like now to review a couple of murder cases in British Columbia. The first is that of a Mr. Rene Castellani who was sentenced in 1966 for the murder of his wife. His method of murder was putting arsenic in milk shakes during a period of 13 months. Our laws state that 10 years must be served before parole, but Mr. Castellani is living in Abbotsford, B.C., and working in a bookstore. I understand he checks into the prison once or twice a week, and punches the time-clock like a regular working man. What kind of punishment is this for a man who committed such a brutal crime?
The second case, Mr. Speaker, concerns Mr. Lorenzo Hiscock who was sent to Kingston in December, 1962, for the murder of his first wife. This charge was later reduced to one of manslaughter and he was sentenced to 14 years. Mr. Hiscock was paroled from Joyceville on January 19, 1968. He was readmitted to penitentiary in British Columbia on July 5, 1972 and has been charged with the murder of his common-law wife. This case shows that the death penalty can be a deterrent.
In one of my previous comments I mentioned the words "research experts" once or twice. I think I would refer to them rather as bleeding hearts. I would like to read into the record of this House of Commons a letter I have in my possession. It is written on Canadian penitentiary stationery. The heading is: British Columbia Penitentiary, Box 150, New Westminster, B.C. The letter is addressed to the District Representative, The National Parole Service, 2nd floor, 32988 South Fraser Way, Abbotsford, B.C. The reference number is 3808-Head CDG. Mr. Speaker, the comments in this letter are about Charles Head, the same Charles Head who has been mentioned in this House of Commons by some hon. members many times; the Charles Head who on four different occasions was convicted of brutal, sexual assaults on girls between the ages of six and nine years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member poses an interesting question. It is usually the practice here that when a document is read into the record, a letter, for example, the author is identified. Perhaps the hon. member could assist me in reaching a decision as to whether the letter should be read into the record. Is he prepared to identify the author?


John Douglas Reynolds: I do not have the name of the author but I do have a copy of the letter in my files. If you wish, I could paraphrase the letter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to me that it names somebody who has been before the courts and who has been convicted of the crime of murder. I really should like to hear some argument from hon. members before I would be prepared to permit the hon. member to read a statement which has apparently been written about somebody else

May 14, 1973
Capital Punishment
by a fellow inmate in a penitentiary, for example. Am I correct in my understanding?


John Douglas Reynolds: It was not written by a fellow inmate, Mr. Speaker, but by somebody who works for the parole service. I think it important that I should read the letter and get my message across that the rehabilitation facilities in prisons are not doing their job.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member be prepared to name the person who wrote the letter?


John Douglas Reynolds: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I could get it later, but at the moment I do not have the name of the person who wrote the letter.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Really, I think I should hear further argument on this point. My feeling is that under the rules which govern us, and which have governed us in the past, I should ask the hon. member not to read the letter. However, I am prepared to hear argument. I gather the hon. member for Yukon wishes to assist the Chair to reach what I regard as an important decision.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is the practice of the House for members to be permitted to read such correspondence into the record when the hon. member himself, and no one else, takes responsibility for what he is reading. Quite apart from that, the letter deals with an individual whose background and activities are notorious. They are public knowledge. Individuals have been named over and over again in this Chamber, and correspondence related to them cited without the names of the authors having to be read into the record. I submit it is not in accordance with our practice to insist that this be done. Even if that were not so, the subject matter with which the hon. member is dealing in this debate is a person by the name of Head, whose character, reputation and activities, both past and current, are notorious throughout the length and breadth of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a brief word, Mr. Speaker. May I begin by agreeing with the statement made by the hon. member for Yukon that it has been the practice of this House for a member to be permitted to read a letter without giving the name of the author if he is prepared to make the ideas in the letter his own.


Erik Nielsen: That is what I said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But at that point I am afraid I must part company with the hon. member for Yukon. It is not simply a case of taking responsibility; he must give the ideas as his own. It seems to me that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta is trying to give the House the contents of a letter that has come from outside the House without giving the name of the author. In fact, he admitted that he does not have the name before him at the present time. Therefore, I think the hon. member is perfectly free in argument to say that

certain ideas have been presented to him with which he concurs; but to read the letter so it goes into Hansard in fine print as though it were a piece of evidence from the outside would not, I think, be appropriate in this case.


Erik Nielsen: If I might add to that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon has already spoken on the point of order. Are there any other contributions to the point of order?


Erik Nielsen: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon on a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: I just want to point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, through you, Sir, that what I said was that an hon. member who reads such correspondence into the record must take responsibility for doing so. I meant precisely the interpretation that was put upon it by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely that the hon. member adopt the ideas as his own.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a question of privilege and the hon. member really should not have raised it as a question of privilege. Are there any other hon. members who would like to make a contribution to the point of order?


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, in order to get around a little bit of difficulty here, I understand that the hon. member has quoted from a letter which, as a matter of fact, has some very great significance. It is apparent that, for various reasons, the latter part of the letter is not available. I suggest the best way out of the difficulty is this. It is too late for the hon. member to paraphrase it, as he could have in the first instance, so I suggest he simply adopt the thoughts as his own in some way that might be akin to paraphrasing, which would get us out of the hole. The letter as such does not have to go into the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their contributions. Whether the person referred to in the letter has a reputation of the utmost notoriety or has no reputation whatsoever which would interest anybody, the fact is that the Chair cannot, of course, make a ruling on that ground. I think it is the duty of the Chair and the responsibility of all hon. members to see that people are treated within the proper limits.
I would ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta if he is prepared, as suggested by the hon. member for Yukon, the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to paraphrase what is in the document and make the comments his own responsibility in regard to what somebody felt about this particular person. This would be permitted by the Chair, but this is the responsibility that now rests on the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. That is the ruling of the Chair.


John Douglas Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that I have not quoted anything from the letter as yet. If I may repeat my previous comments, I was talking about the same Charles Head who, on four different occasions,
May 14, 1973

was convicted of brutal sexual assaults on girls between the ages of six and nine years; the same Charles Head who, during the time he was under a life imprisonment sentence, was once declared criminally insane and had the sentence reduced to 15 years; the same Charles Head who, on a weekend pass, raped, mutilated and murdered Tanya Bush, a girl of seven years, who was the daughter of a prison guard.
I believe, as many others do, that Tanya Bush was killed because there is no death penalty at present for the murder of the wives or children of our prison guards and policemen. There would have been a death penalty if the same Charles Head in his vendetta had killed the prison guard, the father of the little girl. I suggest that by separating prison guards and policemen, we put their families in jeopardy against vicious attacks by these hard-core killers.
I suggest that some of the comments made by people in the parole system about inmates are of interest, and I should like to refer to some comments made about Charles Head:
This inmate from Mountain Prison was seen today at his request. He had also been reported as becoming emotionally upset again. On the whole, Head has adjusted well to his institutional life at Mountain Prison, and he states he had a short pass to visit his mother at New Year's, 1972. Physically, he looks well, much better than he was when he was confined to the protective custody unit here for several months.
Attention is drawn to my memo to the Vancouver office of the National Parole Service dated-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I ask for the co-operation of the hon. member. He is obviously reading from some kind of statement that has been sent to him, a statement of which he himself says he does not know the authorship. It would, therefore, seem to me impossible for the hon. member to vouch for the facts contained therein, since he would have no way of checking their authenticity. I think perhaps he has made his point about the person to whom he has referred and I do not think it would help debate in this parliament if reports such as this, of which there is no authorship, are put on the public record; I do not think that would help our institution at all. We do want to have fair play on matters that are of public interest, so I would ask for the hon. member's co-operation in not reading the document he has before him.


John Douglas Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I shall abide by your ruling. I should just like to say from my own knowledge that this same man, Charles Head, of whom I am speaking, four months to the day before he killed Tanya Bush was recommended for parole. This recommendation was made by one of the so-called research experts. This is the point I am trying to make. I should like the minister to ascertain who is the author of this letter, and I can supply him with the first page of it. I think people of this sort are the ones who are causing this problem, these so-called "bleeding hearts".
I might also mention at this point that I support the motion moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to set up a parliamentary committee to review our prison system. We should not foist this off on a royal commission or leave it to our judges. The
Capital Punishment
members of this House who have been elected by the people of this country should solve this sort of problem.
The case to which I have referred proves there is an argument in favour of having a deterrent; I think it is a fine example. Who knows how many people capital punishment has deterred from committing murder?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the next speaker I should like to thank the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. It is an extraordinary situation, one in which passions run much higher perhaps than is the case in the ordinary type of debate that we have. I do thank him for complying with the wishes of the Chair.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to hear the speeches on a bill being examined in our spare time. Since there is nothing else for us to do, I would like to make a few remarks on Bill C-2, to extend the abolition of the death penalty for another term.
Mr. Speaker, when similar debates took place in 1966 and 1967, I was not at all convinced that the abolition of the death penalty could solve anything concerning the problem we want to solve in Canada. After a five-year experiment, I am not more convinced. The government itself, the supreme authority, has decided to abolish the death penalty for criminals, but we unfortunately have had to realize that these individuals have continued to apply the death penalty. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the law is society's safety valve and without the law, there would be only anarchy.
The events which have taken place, especially in the past two weeks, concerning a host of prisoners condemned to life imprisonment, or very long imprisonment, have shown us that, whether we like it or not, we were unable to have them serve the sentence which had been imposed upon them.
This very morning, we heard that a bunch of prisoners

 for when a group of about half of dozen escape, I suppose you can call that "a bunch"-have escaped from prison while outside the prison with a large number of others, which could only make it easier for them.
We see a steady rise in crime in Canada, and the death penalty as we have known it since 1961 applies to premeditated murder.
Listening to the liberal member speak just now, I got the impression that he was speaking as if we were still living at the time of la Corriveau. But since then, there have been many amendments to our penal code, among them that, since 1961, the death penalty applies only to premeditated murder. And I am in favour of capital punishment in such cases. There are a number of points I should like to take up in a few minutes that are allotted to me. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the way in which justice is carried out in Canada. Not so long ago, during the 1970 October crisis, a man-and not just anyone, but a minister of the Crown-was kidnapped and strangled. I do not know if it is because the police are unable to find the perpetrators of this crime, or because the courts are unable to apply strict laws to those who are

May 14, 1973
Income Tax Act
believed to be the perpetrators, but in any case, nothing has been done so far to punish this abominable crime.
Some time ago, another "crime" took place near where I live, in La Sarre, Abitibi. A father who was out of work snared, not a minister, but a hare in the woods, and he had to pay a $25 fine, plus $16 in court expenses. Now, in all fairness, I think that the man who killed a hare in his snare was more harshly punished than the man who strangled a minister. This leads one to wonder about the enactment of justice in Canada.
In the last few years the laws have been made much more lenient.
Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out that it is five o'clock, so that I may continue my remarks at eight o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark)-National Parks-Banff and Jasper-Lack of accommodation for summer employees-request for statement on housing; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Supply and Services-CF-5 Aircraft-Reason for additional purchases; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Post Office-Request for tabling of Samson-Belair report.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there might be agreement to take item No. 16.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there such agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Income Tax Act to provide that an individual, in computing his taxable income for a taxation year, may deduct from his income for the year (a) the amount paid by him in that year in respect of municipal taxes or $500.00, which-

ever is the lesser (b) the amount paid by him in that year by way of mortgage interest on his principal residence or $2,000.00, whichever is the lesser.
He said: This motion is aimed at what I consider to be one of the fundamental needs of the people of Canada today, and that is shelter. I submit that in the way it has been framed it favours no one. This is ensured by the limitations.
If one considers present government policy in respect of housing, or perhaps I should say the lack of it, in conjunction with interest rates and the oppressive tax structure under which people suffer at the present time, he will see that there is no doubt that it is impossible for low and average income families to purchase homes. Home ownership has been a dream of many people in this country, but this government makes this just a dream.
Task forces have travelled around this country studying housing problem and have found that 80 per cent of the people contacted would like to own their own homes. This is not possible. This government has an unemployment problem which could be solved easily if something were done to encourage home construction, but this government refuses to remove the 11 per cent tax on construction materials. Surely the government could do something about encouraging people to own their own homes. This could be done by adopting this motion. There is a requirement for homes by 200,000 families.
Any student of first-year economics could tell the government that encouragement of the construction industry would stimulate the whole economy. If the government would adopt this motion it would increase the demand for housing, stimulate the economy and put thousands of people back to work. What is the cost of the interest paid by people who own homes? The interest rate has been raised from 6 per cent to 9 3A per cent. That is the rate this government is allowing now. In the last month the bank rate was increased from 5 per cent to 5 94 per cent and the CMHC rate increased to 9 94 per cent, thus raising the monthly cost to the person owning a home. This, in itself, is inflationary and adds a great deal in the way of interest payments.
To attack the inflation the government could adopt a motion such as this. The major costs of any home to the average man are the interest payments and the amount of money he must pay in the form of real estate taxation. These people should be given a break in respect of reduced cost of shelter which, in turn would reduce inflation. I think this is something this government does not seem to understand. By reducing the interest rate and giving these people a break the government could reduce the cost even of the rental payments on homes. This would reduce the pressure for increased wages, and would stop the cost-push inflation which we have in this country today but which this government cannot seem to recognize. Let us stop the cost-push and keep the inflationary costs down.
The single family dwelling is the best security any Canadian can have against the inflation which this government seems unable to cope with. Some people may ask how we can pay for this. I say simply by the encouragement of new home construction more people would be
May 14, 1973

paying taxes and this would stop the drain of hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal treasury to the provincial treasuries by way of transfer payments such as the $1,800 million that was required last year because of the high unemployment in this country. What is the experience in respect of this type of approach? This is not a new idea. It has been followed in the United States. It has also been practiced in the United Kingdom. Both countries use this method quite effectively.
I take no credit for originality. I am merely trying to have this government see the direction in which it should move. It appears to me that what we must attempt to do is give the average Canadian some historical heritage. We must give him some roots in Canada and thus enrich his life. I wish all members could read a book by I. H. Asper called "The Benson Iceberg" published by Copp-Clark in 1970. I would refer them to pages 16 and 17 in which he refers to the deductions allowed in the United States. All federal and local taxes are deductible. So also are sales taxes, gasoline taxes and any other taxes. These may be deducted from income when one computes one's federal income tax. This is the type of program we must have in this country.
When the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) presented a somewhat similar motion before this House in April certain options were presented. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc), who replied on behalf of the government, obviously read a prepared statement because he did not reply to what the hon. member for Regina East had to say. He started off by making some rather irrelevant and inaccurate remarks about the Progressive Conservative party and the hon. member for Regina East. The hon. member for Laurier said that there had been more housing built in Canada from 1968 to the present time than in the last 20 years. The logic of this argument must have been mixed up in the translation because I do not understand it. It does not deal with the position of the thousands of people who live above the level at which they would be entitled to subsidized housing. These are the people whom we must help, but that was not apparent obviously to the hon. member for Laurier. However, he took great pride in pointing out to the House that businessmen may deduct their expenses, that if a corporation wishe: to buy share-capital it can borrow the money and charge that interest.
Surely the average Canadian has an entitlement to what one might call social capital by way of owning his own home. Surely, that is just as important as allowing corporations to deduct their interest payments when buying share-capital. The average Canadian should be worth as much as any businessman or corporation. He went on to explain that fundamental concept of income tax that expenses are allowed only when they are used to create income. I would invite the hon. member for Laurier, and the government on whose behalf he was speaking, to look at the numerous and varied examples in the Income Tax Act. That will put the lie to that statement. He also said that the basic deductions allowed to Canadians are even better than those allowed in the United States of America. I would invite him to read Asper. All I have to say to that comment is balderdash.
The hon. member for Laurier, speaking on behalf of the government, went on to indicate that Canadians are not
Income Tax Act
charged a capital gains tax on their own residence. It was suggested that the government was being a big brother for not imputing income in respect of a person living in his own home. My, how magnanimous this government is! But we are not dealing with capital gains. We are dealing with the right of a Canadian to own his home and to be encouraged so to do. We are not dealing with the adding of an additional burden to the already oppressed income tax payer. We are trying to lighten his load. The government says there is a difference between the tenant and the owner. I would ask the government to re-read the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Regina East in which the position is adopted that there must be a benefit to the tenant as well as to the owner.
Again the hon. member for Laurier, speaking on behalf of the government, said this provision would be much better for the rich than for the poor because if a man did not own his own home he would not have enough money to receive these benefits. Let me point out to the government, and to the hon. member for Laurier if he has failed to realize it, that if a man is that poor he would be living in subsidized housing. The hon. member dealt with two extremes. First, he dealt with the man who owns his own home whose income is so low that he would not benefit from the deductions. Such a person is already faced with economic doom. There is the other extreme of the person who happens to own an oil well in Calgary. No one would really care if he did not receive the benefit of the full deductions allowed. The fact that this is an item for the rich is merely taken from the textbooks which now have no relevancy due to the fact that we do have subsidized housing.
Are we not trying to take people out of what we may call the beer parlour society and encourage them to build up an equity of which they may be proud so that they will not be living just for today. If a man is renting, the rental people will also receive a deduction from this. I hope that these deductions would permit people to save enough for the necessary down payment. This is what this motion aims to do. The limit on the amount deductible for real estate taxes and for mortgage interest purposes ensures that it will not be detrimental to any other Canadian taxpayer. I am surprised at the hon. member for Laurier who says that this legislation is for the rich and not for the poor. He knows, all too well, the many special favours given to the rich under the Income Tax Act to which the poor or even the average income man is not entitled.
The hon. member for Laurier says that such an item in the Income Tax Act would tend to raise interest rates. People would not care what they paid if they could deduct it. That is nonsense, and he does not back up his statement with any facts whatsoever. It is certainly not the case in the United States where such deductions are permitted. Then, he made the point that people would put a mortgage on their house to buy a new car or a new boat. The hon. member knows very well that this is being done with investment loans, but it can only happen to the rich who cash in their stocks, get some money, buy their boat, or borrow money from the bank, buy the stock and deduct the interest. But only the rich can do that. That puts the lie to that one, Mr. Speaker. I believe the government,

May 14, 1973
Income Tax Act
through their spokesman, have made the worst of a very bad argument, but apparently this is the official line. A study must be undertaken immediately. The Carter Commission, having been abolished or abandoned, we now have a patchwork quilt of special subsidies to the rich but not to the average man.
The tax cuts arguments do not make sense because no consideration is given to the fact that people who rent would also get a deduction and would reach the limit put on the amount of those deductions. This relief is needed by the people in Canada who live on fixed incomes, such as pensioners. The provinces have a variety of schemes for deductions from income tax of real estate taxes. Surely, this government must realize that these provisions must be co-ordinated and made fair for all the people of Canada. The government should ensure that the scheme is the same from east to west. I would like to draw attention to the Income Tax Journal of 1967. There is an article there on home owners, in which the whole subject is dealt with in great detail.
The core of this motion is to help the home owners, especially those on fixed and low incomes. They are the ones who need help most. There will be, by way of the property tax, a differential between the commercial and industrial properties, one which is long overdue. People on low and fixed incomes pay a high percentage of their income in real estate taxation and mortgage interest, and I suggest this is not fair. They are burdened with all kinds of education taxes for which they do not get any benefit. I think this is something which can be corrected by this government, if they saw fit to help those people who really need help.
Some people argue that we should give direct aid to municipalities instead, but anyone who has served on municipal councils knows well that if you get an extra dollar from the provincial government you tend to increase the work done on roads and sidewalks within the municipality. The benefit of this dollar will not be passed on to the pensioners, to the fixed and low income group who need the help so desperately. Within the world in which we find ourselves, where high unemployment and inflation exist and where we almost see a technological revolution taking place and oppressive taxation is imposed, this motion would at least make economic survival possible. The young would take a creative step and the old would find some security, but most important of all we would give some social capital to the people in need of a home.
Lastly, the argument put forward by this government has been that the Progressive Conservatives are always complaining about the complexity of the Income Tax Act and that if this motion were adopted it would only make it more complex. In view of the present income tax law, how can this government blithely bleat on and say that this provision would make things that much worse, for that becomes the cruellest joke of it all.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to this motion. In principle, I have always favoured a reduction of the income tax by the amount paid in interest on mortgages on housing as well as of taxes paid on house property. At the same time, however, I have always argued that one must

consider priorities, one must make decisions on what one should do first. So, I want to repeat these arguments as I presented them in the past on what would be the effect if we were to introduce a measure of the type proposed.
The Income Tax Act currently follows the principle that deductions cannot be made for personal or living expenses. This extends as well to interest paid on money borrowed to purchase goods and services which are for personal as opposed to business use. It also applies to taxes paid on living accommodation, to provincial sales taxes on purchases, to provincial fees such as car licences, and to municipal taxes and charges of all kinds. In keeping with this principle, a taxpayer may not deduct expenses of repairing and maintaining his residence. If one could deduct all expenses of a personal nature, very few people in this country would have any taxable income at all.
Rather than allow such deductions, the act provides for basic personal exemptions, $1,500 in the case of a single individual and $2,850 in the case of a married couple. The February 19 budget proposes to increase these to $1,600 and $3,000 respectively, as well as to index these exemptions to cost of living increases. Additions to these basic exemptions are granted where there are dependent children, where a taxpayer is over 65 years of age, and where a taxpayer is blind or confined to bed or wheelchair. The deductions granted in Canada are among the most generous in the world. For instance, in the United States the basic deduction for an individual is $750 and for a married couple is $1,500.
The hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Morgan) would allow the deduction of municipal taxes to a maximum of $500, and mortgage interest to a maximum of $2,000 if these amounts were paid in respect of a principal residence. In concept, the purchase of a home is no different from the purchase of any other item for personal use, even though such a purchase is usually the largest single expenditure which a taxpayer will make in his lifetime.
When the Royal Commission on Taxation thoroughly reviewed the income tax system several years ago, it recommended that the principle of not allowing a deduction for personal or living expenses be retained. It did not recommend a deduction for municipal taxes or mortgage interest. I also note that there is no mention in the motion of school taxes which in my county in many cases are probably running at least double the municipal taxes. Incidentally, I would like to see these school taxes as a deductible item, if this were possible, but rather than that my own opinion is that school taxes should be removed entirely from residences.
When tax reform was introduced, it was recognized that the encouragement of home ownership was desirable. On the other hand, it was thought best not to deviate from the basic rule regarding deductibility of personal expenses to which I have already referred. The Income Tax Act, therefore, provided two major incentives to home ownership.
The first incentive was to allow a taxpayer to make a capital gain on the sale of his home without incurring tax liability. This is particularly useful to people like myself. I imagine there are many of us at the present time. We are the "do-it-yourselfers" who spend money and time adding
May 14, 1973

to and improving our residences. The second was to continue the practice of not including in the taxpayer's income the economic benefit which he receives from home ownership. This benefit, which is the value of his accommodation, may be looked upon as the return he has received on the capital he has invested. It should be noted in passing that other countries, including Great Britain, have added this "imputed income" to the taxpayer's income for tax purposes in years gone by.
A comparison between a home owner and a home renter should illustrate this point. Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith each have $20,000 to invest. Mr. Jones buys a house and Mr. Smith buys securities which yield him a return of about $1,000 a year. Each year Mr. Smith has to bring into his income $1,000 while Mr. Jones brings in nothing. But Mr. Smith also has to pay rent for his living accommodation, and of course the rent is not a deductible expense. It is unlikely that the $1,000 per year, after paying income tax, will provide him with equivalent accommodation to that which Mr. Jones has received for his $20,000 capital expenditure. Thus, we can see that Jones is ahead of Smith from a tax point of view.
Suppose that after 15 years Jones' home is worth $40,000 and Smith's securities are worth $40,000. If they each sell, Jones receives all his money free of tax, but Smith would have to bring half his capital gain, $10,000, into income. Thus Jones is again ahead of Smith. Thus, the Income Tax Act at present favours home ownership to a very considerable degree.
If the government adopted Mr. Morgan's proposal-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Harold Thomas Herbert: I am sorry. If the government adopted the proposal of the hon. member for St. Catharines concerning a deduction for mortgage interest, Jones would pull even further ahead of Smith because he could buy a more expensive house, getting a mortgage and writing off the interest. His untaxed imputed income would be greater and his potential capital gain would also be greater. So, we can see that accepting such a proposal discriminates against the person who rents.


J. Trevor Morgan: It is also deductible for him.


Harold Thomas Herbert: This is not made clear in the hon. member's motion.
Adoption of this type of proposal would favour high income tax payers in three ways. First, if a man were too poor to raise a down payment on a house, he could not take advantage of this provision. Second, if a man owns his home but has taxable income of less than his mortgage interest or municipal taxes, he could not take advantage of the full deduction. Third, because of the progressive nature of the personal income tax, the deduction is worth more to a taxpayer with a higher marginal rate than to one with a low marginal rate. The maximum deduction proposed of $500 for taxes plus $2,000 for mortgage interest would be a very generous tax deduction that would result in a very large tax saving to a high income tax payer.
It is a little clearer to me now because of the interjection from the hon. member for St. Catharines, but it was not clear whether the proposal he made contemplated that
Income Tax Act
those who rent would be permitted to deduct a portion of their rental payment, up to $500 per year, but even if this were done the proposed deduction for mortgage interest would benefit only those who own their own home. It should also be noted that Manitoba and Ontario have adopted, with the co-operation of the federal government, a plan to give tax credits to help offset the cost of municipal taxes. But these credits have two important distinguishing features. First, they are constructed in such a way as to give most benefit at the lower income levels. Second, they are a deduction from provincial taxes payable, rather than from federal taxes payable, thus in effect being an indirect grant by these two provinces to the municipalities within their boundaries.
There are two other points which could be made. First, it is possible that a deduction for mortgage interest would force up interest rates on mortgages because there would be increased demand by potential home buyers, and the potential home buyers might be ready to pay higher interest rates since they could deduct the interest. Second, such a plan would encourage people to mortgage their homes in order to raise money for other types of personal expenses, because they could not deduct the interest on money borrowed to buy other personal items.


J. Trevor Morgan: You did not listen to my argument.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I listened to your argument. Thus, we might be encouraging people to mortgage their homes to buy cars and boats, and to take vacations. We might end up with a situation where the ownership of a house "free and clear" would be indicative of bad tax planning. I say this with all sincerity. In my own case I am in the fortunate position of having a home without a mortgage, a home built over 25 years ago, which I have been able to improve and enlarge substantially over the years. It does not have a mortgage at the present time simply and honestly because the interest on that mortgage would not be deductible.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if this motion were to be carried, and interest on mortgages became deductible I would be one of many, many people who would be seeking a mortgage on my house, and I would have a use for the money. It is a straight matter of economics, that on the use of those moneys in other places I would be likely to get more than the net interest I would be paying for them. An interest rate of somewhere between 9 per cent and 10 per cent for a person in a higher bracket would be an effective rate of something like 5 per cent.
I also suggest that persons whose mortgages are nearly paid off will be thinking about increasing their mortgages for the same purpose. Most of us are perennially short of cash. How do we go about getting cash? We borrow. What better way is there of borrowing than by mortgaging our homes? If this proposal were adopted we would gain the advantage of being able to deduct the interest payments from our income and thus, in effect, we would get cheap money.
The hon. member suggested that his proposal would encourage home construction. As I see it, it would do quite the reverse; it would discourage home construction. Home

May 14, 1973
Income Tax Act
building is now going on at a much higher rate than ever before, much higher than that considered essential by the Economic Council, and there is such a great demand for mortgage moneys that the rate of interest has been pushed to a high level. Our efforts, surely, should be directed to bringing that interest rate down. If we increase the demand on available moneys, as this proposal would do, the interest rate would go up and the people who really need this money will be outbid by those who, like myself, are quite willing to pay 10 per cent or more for it provided the interest is deductible from income tax. After all, it is top dollars we are talking about and this money would be deducted from our top rate of tax. As I see it, this is a discouragement to homebuilding rather than an encouragement.
It is very difficult to estimate the effect on revenue of the proposed deductions because it is not known whether those who rent are included. As I understand it, those people are to be included. How many taxpayers would be able to take full advantage of the reductions? To what extent would they rearrange their affairs to take advantage of the deductions, as would happen in a case like mine or in the case of people who want to mortgage their homes or increase an existing mortgage? It is reasonable to estimate that the revenue loss would be well in excess of $1 billion.
If those who rent were not permitted to deduct something on account of municipal taxes, the entire benefit of this tax reduction would go to one class of Canadians, namely, those who own their own homes. It should be remembered that our living styles vary from province to province. Traditionally, there has been a two-to-one ratio in favour of home ownership in the province of Ontario, as opposed to a two-to-one ratio in favour of renting in the province of Quebec. I think it is important to make sure that all sectors of the nation benefit equally. The proposed deductions would have the effect of decreasing not only the revenue of the federal government but that of the provincial governments whose tax revenues are calculated as a percentage of the federal tax.
The hon. member for St. Catharines also spoke of the effect on inflation and suggested that this measure would have a beneficial effect. In my opinion, quite the contrary is true. Force would be exerted on available funds, thus increasing interest rates. This, to me, would be inflationary. We would also run into difficulty in determining the practical application of this proposed legislation to those who rent, particularly to those who live in large properties, multiple dwellings, and so on. It would be difficult to determine precisely how much an individual could deduct.
Of course, there are many ways in which we can help the homeowner. One way, proposed continually by the opposition and supported by myself, involves the reduction or elimination of the 11 per cent tax on building materials for house construction. For years I have spoken in favour of that proposal, although I recognize that any government must decide where the proposal stands on its list of priorities.
At present, house building is at an all-time high. Although I have heard the argument about the cost of homes in certain parts of the country, I read just this past weekend advertisements for beautiful homes being built

less than half an hour's drive from the downtown areas of major cities such as Montreal at prices that, if you allow for inflation over the years, can be favourably compared with those charged 20 or 25 years ago. That one can in 1973 buy beautiful homes on beautiful, wooded lots of 10,000 square feet for $14,000, $16,000, $18,000 or $20,000 is an indication that we have nothing to be ashamed of; indeed, it is something we should be very proud of.
The hon. member for St. Catharines contended that when municipal governments receive additional provincial and federal moneys, they increase their spending and thus are not able to reduce municipal taxes. I do not think that is entirely correct. Many of these programs are for essential municipal works which would have to proceed in any event. To that extent there is an offsetting effect in this area and it may not be necessary to increase municipal taxes. Even if additional moneys were to be paid, it must be recognized that at some time the local councils would make their own decision whether to proceed with an additional park or some other program which is being undertaken with federal and provincial aid and, naturally, they would have to raise the necessary funds through an increase in taxes.
I began by saying that on principle I have always favoured the deduction of municipal taxes and interest on house mortgages from income tax. I have also tried to illustrate that everything must be put in some order of priority. With federal expenses running at their present level, I consider that any suggestion which would reduce our revenues by more than $1 billion is improper. That is what would happen if this measure were adopted.
I also suggest that its adoption would be beneficial to the higher income groups. Certainly it would benefit me, and from a personal, selfish standpoint I would be happy to see this proposal go through. As I said earlier, one of the first things I would do would be to get myself a good, hefty mortgage, one large enough to provide me with the $2,000 income tax deduction suggested in the motion. For these reasons I must oppose the proposal brought forward by the hon. member for St. Catharines. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything else I wish to add at this time; I think I have covered all the points raised by the hon. member for St. Catharines.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, having been the owner of farmland and a house for some time, I have a fair amount of sympathy for the objectives espoused by the mover of this motion. He wants more people to own homes. However, I do not think he is going about achieving this objective in a workable way.
If we really wanted more Canadians to own their own homes we would reduce the interest rate on mortgages to 4 per cent or 5 per cent and keep it there. We would do something about the developers who carry out so-called development around our cities. Not too long ago an hon. member described the situation around Toronto. I read at least two magazine articles on this matter. Several development companies pretty well control the land around Toronto that is going to be developed. These corporations will be in the position of charging as much as the traffic
May 14, 1973

will bear-and this is plenty-for housing to be built in that area.
With the kind of legislation proposed in this motion we would be using the taxpayers' money to help people move into such an area and sign an agreement to purchase a house. Those who would really be benefiting would be the developer and the person lending the money. That is what we would be doing with this kind of program. There would be great inequality, and advantage only to certain taxpayers. I am not only thinking of the very rich and the very poor. I use the example of a young man in his twenties who wishes to purchase a house. Under this proposal he would receive maximum tax relief of $500 plus $2,000, that is, $2,500. If he is single he is entitled to an exemption of $1,600. If he is married he is entitled to an exemption of $3,000. A single man would be entitled to a generous tax exemption-$1,600 plus $500 and $2,000. This amounts to $4,100. If he were married he would receive an even greater exemption.
A person working for a construction company may be very well paid. If he works in a northern area his accommodation may be provided at so much per month. However, he would not benefit from this kind of deduction. He would be taxed much more heavily than his counterparts in Winnipeg, Saskatoon or Edmonton. Surely, it is not our objective to keep our young people in the cities. This motion overlooks that factor. It also overlooks the situation of old age pensioners. In this avaricious and brutal society a person who is able to survive to the age of 70 may still own a house. If not, he will have to pay rent for his accommodation. I suggest we would do a great deal more good if we increased the old age pension from a maximum $170 to $200 or $250.


Mr. Alexander:: You had your chance.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That is all right. I have had many chances. That just proves that I am a human being. If we followed the policy that was recommended by the Carter commission, that a buck is a buck, we would get much closer to equality. At the same time, our taxation policy would be equalized. We would be able to make life more pleasant for people in this country no matter whether they are at the top, the middle or the bottom of the income scale.
Under this proposal we would have to contend with another type of problem. Some provinces are moving toward relieving municipalities of the education tax load which they have been carrying. In order to do this the provinces have to move into other fields, such as direct sales tax or income tax. I think the provinces are doing the right thing; this is a logical approach. Education has become expensive and sophisticated enough that it should no longer be charged only to the property owners in the community in which the school is located. Some communities are able to afford a more expensive kind of education than others. The cost of education being carried only by property owners is an obvious inequality. If we want to achieve equalization of income and the opportunity to have good accommodation we should be considering other areas of taxation.
There are inequalities in our present tax system which should be corrected. Allowances should be given to artisans who use rather expensive tools in their trade. We
Income Tax Act
should also give consideration to the evaluation of marketing quotas so that there would be a larger measure of equality on the production side. We should value quotas for taxation purposes in the same way as we do land. Quotas have now become a cost of farming in the same way as the tools of a plumber or an electrician. We could justify changes in our tax structure in areas such as these. Possibly we could justify public parking facilities for trailers. I know workmen in the construction business who live in trailers. In addition to the cost of purchasing a trailer, and the interest, there is the cost of keeping it in a trailer park. That can be very expensive. These people live in trailers so they can live in the community in which they are working.
With all due respect to the mover of this motion, I feel it has too many loopholes. There are too many areas which it does not cover. I think we would be further ahead if we were to raise the exemptions to which workers are entitled, provide additional allowances in respect of children under the family allowance plan, pay more generous allowances to old age pensioners, and so on. If we followed such a course I believe we would be further ahead than if we tried to treat homeowners as special individuals entitled to special allowances. Indeed, in today's society a person who is able to raise the money with which to purchase a home, to put down the initial payment and keep up the mortgage payments, is already a fortunate individual. As time goes on there may be far fewer of them. I am sorry I cannot give this motion the support which the hon. member obviously hoped it would receive in the House.
(Translation]


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for giving me at least five minutes to say a few words on this motion which I find very interesting since it invites the government to amend the Income Tax Act to allow the taxpayer, the owner of a single family house, to deduct from his taxes, half or two thirds of his municipal and school taxes up to $500. The limit may be a bit high.
I am in favour of the motion since I have always considered that the fact of not allowing for the deduction from income taxes of at least part of municipal and school taxes on a family house was in fact a way of taxing taxes. The owner of a single family house, for example, does not have the advantage of the builder or the owner of apartment buildings and that is why I always said that our laws favour big capitalists to the detriment of small investors.
If I had houses to rent I could deduct from my income taxes two thirds of my repair costs when people making mortgage payments on a single family house cannot benefit from such a reduction.
So, as far as municipal and school taxes are concerned, big companies settling down in a community as often happens in my riding, can benefit from a municipal tax exemption during 20, 25 or 30 years.
On the other hand, to encourage small industry, to provide employment, the small owner who merely wishes to provide shelter for his family cannot deduct anything in the form of municipal taxes. As soon as he spends $10 or
3734

May 14, 1973
Income Tax Act
$100 to become an owner he is immediately taxed and overtaxed while big capitalists are still protected.
In fact, I made a study on the protection given to big capitalists today. Half a century ago, for example, big capitalists paid roughly 70 per cent of taxes in Canada while small taxpayers paid 30 per cent. Today, it is quite the opposite. Small taxpayers pay 72 per cent of Canada's taxes and capitalists whose income has increased ten-fold in the past forty years pay only 28 per cent. That gives you an idea of the protection they have been getting over the years.
Well, I feel there could be a debate about amounts involved in the motion but, contrary to the opinion expressed by the previous speaker that it would not help housing, I believe it would indeed help housing tremendously. Personally, I am interested in building low cost housing because of my savings on interest. In fact, I gain two-thirds of maintenance and interest on mortgages, otherwise on the money I invested to pay for those rents.
It can clearly be seen how interesting that is for those who lend money on a large scale, and how well protected they are. Major money-lenders are allowed to benefit by deductions of two-thirds, which is not at all the case for small home owners since the second part of the motion calls for exemption on mortgage interest. I have always wondered why so few members were interested in the mortgage interest paid by the small owner.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that the time allowed for my speech has expired. In closing, I would like to say that the government should introduce legislation so that we could discuss it in more detail, for it is a problem of interest for the majority in this country, and I think that all small owners would be glad if the government were to present such a bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair until eight p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was just saying that in the last few years espe-

cially, our laws have been greatly relaxed. Looking back, we find that in 1967 capital punishment was abolished for five years. Now it is intended to extend this measure, but we are well aware that the government wants to abolish capital punishment completely.
It is also wished to liberalize the use of drugs, to make abortion completely free. Contraceptives have been legalized. Homosexuality has been legalized, and according to a study of the cost of prostitution in Montreal, a study that was requested by the former Solicitor General, it will probably be proposed before long to liberalize prostitution so that prostitutes may contribute to the tax revenue.
Mr. Speaker, when one considers this whole range of abolitions, one wonders where all this will lead us. One wonders whether the Liberal party does not take too seriously the name which makes it different from other political parties.
In an article published by a student of Sir George Williams University, Mr. Robert Rochon, two or three years ago in La Presse, one could read the following remarks, and I quote:
What does society exactly mean both for the layman and the intellectual, in concrete terms? Therefore, it is by this last question that I answer, I believe, to the first one, namely: "That value, what is it?"
A society is a group of people gathered in one community by nature, by laws or by a contract. It is a moral union of intelligent beings, grouped in a stable and efficient manner to achieve a purpose that is known to and desired by everyone. This moral union of intelligent beings consists of three things essential to the achievement of that purpose:
1)	Unity with regard to a purpose that is known to and desired by everyone
2)	Unity of will to achieve that purpose
3)	Co-ordination of appropriate means to achieve that purpose, WHENCE the need for an authority obeyed by everyone. Relations of the members of the social "body" as such are
relations that are determined by the purpose of society and governed by the latter. Therefore, this group of men or intelligent beings is a social fact which consists mainly of the behaviour of the subjects. Whence the necessity of conforming to principles, customs and moral or legal rules.
Mr. Speaker, this definition of society seems clear enough to me; let me repeat the three main elements that Mr. Rochon lists:
1)	Unity with regard to a purpose that is known to and desired by everyone.
2)	Unity of will to achieve that purpose.
3)	Co-ordination of appropriate means to achieve that purpose, WHENCE the need for an authority obeyed by everyone.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that we come together and make laws to protect ourselves, and we must accept those laws. But we become aware that one element of the population, certain members of our society refuse the laws which have been set up by and for it. These people disregard the essential principles for achieving the society we desire.
In the book "Law and Order in Canadian Democracy", published by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we read on page 9:
The existence and enforcement of "law" in a free country like Canada presupposes "order" as a necessary corollary. Where there
May 14, 1973

is no law, or existing law is not enforced, the "law of the jungle" obtains-there is no order, and the liberty of a majority of the citizens is assailed without restraint. And so law and order have come to be almost synonymous terms, and the expression conveys a single idea.
Mr. Speaker, those who now apply capital punishment- crooks and criminals-endanger the liberty of other citizens; when you read the newspapers, you see that scarcely a day goes by in just the city or region of Montreal without the most sordid murders' endangering the lives of citizens, to such an extent that you dare not venture into certain districts and certain streets in the evening or at night. It is the same in the larger towns, and very often even in the country. Why is that? It is precisely because a certain number of the individuals who make up society refuse to obey its laws.
Later on in the same book, there is a reflection by Charles Reith, quoted from The Police Idea.
The fundamental problem which confronts the world today is the finding of means of providing authority with force which will compel respect for its laws and without which, as all history knows, it must inevitably and repeatedly fail to function.
Now that strength no longer exists nowadays in the police force because it no longer has the authority needed to indict those people and bring them before the court. Even if capital punishment still applies whenever a police officer is murdered, some police officers risk their life every day in attempting to arrest those criminals and when they commit them for trial, those criminals are often released on bail and the following day, those same individuals thumb their nose at the police officers who arrested them the day before and who risked their life doing so. And when those individuals come back before the court, they are sentenced to a few years' imprisonment.
That is what we call a life sentence, which is absolutely false because the maximum is 20 years. And people who committed as horrible a crime as murder seldom serve their sentence. Therefore people are puzzled and rightly so.
Again in the Montreal newspaper La Presse, Guy Cormier wrote a very interesting article and I quote:
Most of the arguments for the abolition of capital punishment are acceptable . . .
That does not mean that people in favour of the abolition of the death penalty are always wrong. Our society is ill, that is a fact.
I come back to the quotation:
They have been so often analyzed under so many aspects in books, articles, letters and manifestoes that in trying to summarize them, one could not make head or tail of them. Considering the irrevocable character of a punishment determined by a naturally fallible human reason, that alone would tell in favour of reducing as much as possible the number of cases where it should apply.
In those last words, Guy Cormier recommends prudence and I believe everybody agrees with him. The article says further on:
Because, if any error can be rectified on earth, no one will ever manage to compensate for the loss of life unjustly inflicted. Now, the black book of punishments contains cases where it had been impossible to establish beyond the shadow of a doubt the guilt of the defendant.
Capital Punishment
Nevertheless, there is an aspect of this matter which should embarrass convinced abolitionists.
Indeed, since the state has relieved the executioner from his duties, one notes that criminals make up the only category of citizens who persist in preserving the former tradition.
I said so a while ago.
Again I quote:
They have not abolished the death penalty; they go on applying it with gruesome briskness. Since 1967, when Canada temporarily ceased to send convicted murderers to the gallows, the criminals have, on their own account, applied the death penalty to the rate of 376 annually. Naturally, we are refering to murders. Those abominations happen in the dark, unwitnessed and even without a semblance of justice.
And I will add without any kind of trial. Mr. Guy Cormier goes on to write:
The victims, you know them, their bodies are on the front pages of tabloids specialized in daily horror. Last week, it was a young girl of 22. She crawled 200 feet before dying. That comes under the heading "miscellaneous".
I would like the tender hearted who are quickly softened by the murderers' fate and the leagues dedicated to the defense of human rights to subdue their campaign addressed to the public, to turn at last towards the real party, that is the murderers themselves. Let them try to convince those people to abandon their barbarous and cruel methods of taking their "law" into their own hands. Because the assassins are the ones who persist in applying themselves capital punishment to the detriment of innocent people most of the time.
Does that mean that we must come back to old, rigid methods and multiply gallows? Certainly not. But we must act with discrimination.
The suspension of capital punishment decided in 1967 for a five year trial period did not apply in principle to bandits killing policemen. That exception is logical: it still is. Because if you do not punish by death the murderer of a policeman there is no reason for having a police force at all in a country. Killers of children should also be sent to the gallows. Cases of kidnapping and piracy should be dealth with the same severity.
Since the beginning of time, humanity had to drag along incurable outcasts. Such people are to be eliminated from society. It is not even worth taking the risk of confining them to a prison that they will leave one day by escaping from it or because of a stupid or complacent official.
We have seen a lot of stupid or complacent officials not too long ago.
Pardoning a man who should be put to death is condemning the widow, the orphans, the parents of the victim to pay taxes to house, feed, clothe, entertain the assassin for the rest of his life. That injustice is added to the first one.
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks before the House took recess, I will be voting against Bill C-2 precisely because I have not been convinced that the abolition of capital punishment would meet a need in our society.
The death penalty was maintained for the murder of a policeman or a prison guard.
I personally think, Mr. Speaker, that a bank manager or a drugstore manager or any businessman who are also family heads are as much in danger as any policeman or prison guard because in many cases what criminals are interested in is mainly the money in the cash boxes behind the counters and they will shrink from nothing to try to get it.
3736

May 14, 1973
Capital Punishment
One might say that an offender who is going to commit an armed robbery did not premeditate murder, he does not know who he is going to kill. But when an offender arms himself with a fully loaded machine gun, he may not know who he is going to kill, but he has made up his mind to kill anyone who will be in his way and try to stop him from getting what he wants.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, this offender must be considered as the one who has deliberately committed a murder.
One might also say that-as I have already mentioned when I spoke of the flexibility of our laws-if we cannot prevent abortion and homosexuality in some cases, we have legalized them up to a point and if we cannot prevent murder, we should abolish capital punishment. Then, why not say: If we cannot prevent theft, arson and rape, let us legalize them. And if we cannot enforce the law, let us simply abolish it.
Mr. Speaker, I think the trouble is not with those responsible for law enforcement. This uneasiness does not exist in our police forces which have many times shown their efficiency. The trouble is elsewhere. The suggestion is to abolish for 5 additional years capital punishment for murderers. And yet, in our society, we forget that we have still not abolished the life penalty for thousands of people who have to make do with crumbs from the social welfare. Those people are living in the most abject poverty and almost like animals. When they complain to civil servants, they are often treated like dogs.
Quite often those people protest because our society is sick and does nothing to enable them to lead an honourable life, as they have done until then. When they find how much we pay to maintain a prisoner, I wonder whether they are not justified in protesting.
The building only of the Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines prison cost on the average more than $32,000 per inmate, for lodging only. Some reports indicate that an inmate's maintenance costs on the average are $7,000 or $8,000 per year.
Many families must content themselves with a scanty pittance because some of its members are crippled or sick, while people who have chosen to live on the other side of the fence are often treated like kings.
Mr. Speaker, no wonder that our society is sick, something is missing somewhere. As long as it has not been proven to me that abolition of the death penalty can improve society, I will feel compelled to promote its retention in the case of premeditated murder and in that case only.
Mr. Speaker, in due time I will vote against Bill C-2. [English]


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate you have heard a great deal about individual incidents and specific cases which raise a great deal of concern about law and order in our society. From time to time some hon. members suggest, I suppose, that they are more concerned than other members of this House about law and order in our society.
The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) has just completed his remarks which seem to me to clearly suggest he has serious doubt about the views of the govern-

ment on this issue and whether members on all sides of the House who favour the abolition of capital punishment really are on the side of law and order, on the side of the good and decent. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, of a statement during the course of this debate on corporal punishment when a Conservative, whom I will not name because he is not here-but you can check Hansard- suggested, in effect, that we were probably on the side of the rapist because we were abolishing the whipping of rapists. I tried to make the point that it was the circumstances in which that kind of punishment took place that was particularly relevant to our view that it should be abolished, and I personally stated that I see a place for corporal punishment, particularly in family or similar circumstances, but not in prison circumstances.
The hon. member for Abitibi says he will not be convinced that capital punishment should be abolished until he is convinced about a lot of things, about how it will improve law and order in our society and how it will result in less murders. That is a case no one will easily try to make. I do not know that I follow the hon. member's logic, where he drew his lines, and why he does not want to go back to the fourteenth century when capital punishment extended to minor theft and where perhaps it had a deterrent effect because of the minor nature of the offences which which it was linked. That, I think, is significant and is something we should bear in mind.
I was distressed in listening to the hon. member for Abitibi-I regret referring to him so often, but I am following him in this debate-if I understood him correctly, when he said there were times when the garbage of society should be disposed of. That is a term I do not think we should apply to any human being because it suggests there is never forgiveness, never a change of opinion or never a change of attitude. I presume that if the hon. member had been with Christ on the day when the adultress was present and Christ said, "He that is without sin, let him throw the first stone," the hon. member would have in fact thrown it because he is more righteous than Christ was in that context. I do not think he would agree to any version of that situation which says that was not an offence of a serious nature. That was not the issue. It is a question of one's attitude toward the whole approach of a human being in our society.
As I approach this question I want to say that there are some, as the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie) said this afternoon, who find it straightforward and easy; they say there must, or must not be capital punishment on a doctrinaire basis. To the extent that one can be basically philosophical or doctrinaire on the question, let me state at once that I would, in a theoretical way, defend the right of the state to take the life of a person when that is necessary, reasonable and useful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I would not translate that into a duty, and I would particularly demand of the state an examination into the premise that it is in fact reasonable or useful to take a life. Some may wonder why that is a burden which should be put upon those who would argue for the taking of a life. I personally see a great deal in the whole attitude we have toward life, the dignity of the person and the
May 14, 1973

nature of the individual person charged with an offence, whatever it may be, that leads me to be and to want to be a little careful when it comes to the question of whether or not the state will take that life.
I will not argue that there have been occasions, and that there could be occasions again, when the taking of life as a punishment is necessary for the maintenance of law and order in a particular society. I will hold that as a possibility. The question which we have before us-which those who believe as I do, that this is theoretically possible, have before us-is whether it is indeed a useful, desirable or good thing to do now.
Individual members will refer to cases and they will say: In these circumstances, should capital punishment not follow if it could thereby stop the crime or avoid a future crime of similar import? They will never succeed in making the case that it would in fact have stopped the crime, and indeed in their examples-and I listened to the member for Abitibi who referred to them, and to most hon. members who spoke in favour of capital punishment in Canada-from those offences for which they argue capital punishment they move to others which they argue would not exist if capital punishment was in force. It is there that their logic falls down. They cannot make a statistical case in favour of the deterrent value of capital punishment.
I must say that I will not try to make a case in terms of statistics. I will not do so for two reasons: first, I am less than convinced that this is the basic way of determining the issue and, second, other hon. members who have spoken-notably, today, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik)-have done an admirable job of analysing the statistical situation and showing what happens in certain circumstances with or without capital punishment.
The hon. member for Hillsborough referred to the Fattah study and the fact that crime other than murder rose faster than murder in a period of time when capital punishment may have been an issue in this country. These things at least raise the question of whether or not there is, in fact, a significant deterrent element involved. But I prefer to turn instead to the conjectural argument that in many murder situations the emotions that are involved in the committing of the offence are such that the punishment is not present in the minds of the committer of the offence; that often, in those circumstances, whether or not he will get away with it may not be important. I am referring to the husband or wife murder, the family murder, the close friend murder. In these situations emotions often rise to such a pitch that the exact punishment, and even the question of detection, are not likely to be present.
There is a whole range of cases where as a result of mental imbalance the mind is not likely to be focusing very clearly on the murder. There is another range of cases where one could say that the question of the exact punishment may make a difference. There, in any analysis of the thinking of the people involved, one finds that the question of whether they will be detected is far more influential than the question of whether punishment will be 10 or 15 years in jail, or death. The magnitude of 15 years in jail,
Capital Punishment
in terms of the way those people are viewing life, is indeed a pretty significant factor, but the question of whether they will be detected is apt to be a much more important factor.
So we have on this side of it the question of whether there is indeed practical merit and a practical deterrent value in capital punishment. On the other side there are those who ask: Should we pay money to keep alive people who have committed these offences? That becomes a very interesting argument in terms of economics against human life, if you have put the deterrent argument aside. It then becomes a fairly crass argument in terms of economics against human life. But against that, what do we have? We have the fact that in order to maintain capital punishment you must maintain the whole apparatus of execution. You must have someone who is executioner.
Would you, as an honourable man who is prepared to vote for capital punishment, volunteer for the job of executioner? That is an interesting question and I shall come back to certain aspects of it later. You must maintain the apparatus of execution which allows, in a cold-blooded fashion, the termination of a human life. I say "in a cold-blooded fashion" because one of the problems with capital punishment is that it does not happen in the heat of the immediate aftermath of the crime itself. I do not hear hon. members arguing for removal of the trial process and the determination of guilt or innocence, and therefore for the removal of a significant period of time between the time of the offence and the time of execution.
With that time interval in mind, hon. members should appreciate what is involved, that after a fairly long interval a human being who has done something grievously wrong to all of us is then to be dealt with. Is he the same man he was? Is there any place in the process for considering whether he is exactly the same, in terms of the punishment that will befall him, as he was when he committed the offence? That is the kind of thing which leads to a particularly interesting vote on the issue of capital punishment.
Hon. members have been in the habit of putting to their constituents the questions: Are you in favour of capital punishment? That is the wrong kind of question if you want a really careful answer to the issue, because to answer "yes" to it, all you have to do is to be able to imagine a single case where you would be glad to have capital punishment applied-and that single case involves many elements which are not always conveniently present. It involves the absolute certainty that the man to whom you wish the punishment to be applied was in fact the man who committed the offence. It involves the kind of terrible offence where we could not imagine any change at all on the part of the offender. It involves many such things.
The real question is quite different, namely: Do you favour capital punishment in circumstances where the man who is before you probably committed the offence, however horrible it may be, regardless of his present position? I ask hon. members to take a look at a certain piece of evidence when the question is put in that way. Lawyers know that when capital punishment was the usual sentence for murder in Canada, it frequently was not applied because as long as murder led to capital pun-

May 14, 1973
Capital Punishment
ishment as the logical legal conclusion, juries, no matter how clear it was when lawyers would say that it was either murder or nothing, would reach to find a manslaughter verdict, a verdict which avoided capital punishment in the specific case before them when they were looking at the individual to whom it was applied, and perhaps when they also had in mind from time to time the issue of whether or not there was serious doubt about the guilt of the man, however probable it was that he was in fact guilty. I think this is the kind of issue which must be before hon. members as they look at this over-all issue.
Recently the supreme court in the United States was discussing the issue of capital punishment. I was surprised to hear the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggest that we, too, in this country should shift this important and fundamental question from the forum of Parliament to the courts for a decision. I, for one, have always been of the view that it is Parliament, the elected representatives, who should decide fundamental questions, and not a court of nine men, however appointed and wherever sitting. It may be that in some other systems the inflexibility of their constitutions allows for some tolerance of decisions by a small group of men rather than by the parliament of the land. That is not true here. We, as the elected representatives, have the power and the ability on behalf of the people all across the country to decide this issue, and that certainly ought not to be shifted from here to a court.
But I do think it is interesting to notice the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the United States in deciding that in fact capital punishment was no longer to be tolerated within their constitution. They noted the fact that it was not a punishment which was following automatically in cases for which it was defined; that just as here, juries would find ways around it, or appellate courts would find reasons here and there to set aside the punishment, and that in fact, as one of the nine U.S. justices said, it got to the point that whether or not capital punishment applied was like lightning striking. He noted that in fact in some cases it was applied because of the combination of a particular judge, jury and circumstance, while in much worse cases it was not applied because of the particular combination of judge and jury. That was our experience in this country as well; any lawyer knows that that was the experience, that it depended more on the particular judge, jury and circumstance, not related especially to the case which let to the application of capital punishment in a particular situation.
With that kind of random way of applying capital punishment, whether or not we have to maintain the executioner and put into the hands of some individual the termination of a life, without completely to all satisfaction at all times resolving the horrific question of whether or not that person was guilty beyond peradventure, and whether indeed the man himself deserved some further consideration, is the question that has to be decided. The issues of whether or not we should have different, moderately or greatly different systems according to our view of imprisonment, and of whether or not parole should be less easily granted, are conflicting issues; but they are issues 
which are separate from the main issue of capital punishment itself.
Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that we ought not to want to have capital punishment in our country because there is no evidence of any substantial weight that it has a real deterrent value, and that on the other hand the very dignity of our human existence inevitably is involved in the fact of execution itself, and therefore on simple pragmatic grounds in terms of the dignity of man we ought not to have capital punishment here. And I say to the hon. member for Abitibi, who will in other contexts speak in terms of the dignity of the human person, that he should remember that it exists, too, for any person who has been accused.
I will not speak of the problems of rehabilitation and the problems of parole that relate to how our penal systems will be governed. These are the kinds of questions which can be dealt with in the committee. What I do suggest to hon. members is that in this debate we are now on second reading of the bill, and the question which surely hon. members have to consider is whether or not this matter goes to the committee at all. If they think that the law as it stood before 1967, and as it stands again for a time after the five-year temporary law has lapsed, is perfect, beyond improvement, it is only then that they ought to vote against this bill on second reading.
There are, indeed, in the bill some rather minor elements which deserve the serious deliberation of the committee and deserve to be made a part of the law. I think, for instance, of the change from the expression "non-capital murder" to the phrase "murder punishable by life imprisonment." I believe that the expression "non-capital murder" has tended to grate upon people because murder, they say, is always capital, looking at the victim as they do in those circumstances. To treat it somehow as non-capital sounds as if one is treating it lightly; yet life imprisonment is not a particularly light penalty. So the change of words is suggested to improve the way in which we view these particular offences, even if they remain the way they were. I suggest to hon. members that the serious issue of whether or not we need the execution apparatus, of whether or not adequate deterrents are not available without it, is one that deserves their serious discussion in the committee and that this bill should now go to committee and have the considered judgment of members upon it.
As I have personally made clear, Mr. Speaker, I believe that without any fundamental argument about the right of society, of the state, to take a life, in practical and pragmatic terms it is not necessary from a deterrent point of view and that, therefore, the balance shifts in favour of no longer taking those lives and in favour of the argument that avoids execution, in favour of the argument that strikes all of us and that is so fundamental to our whole democratic process, that the dignity of the human being be upheld wherever possible and that that should apply in this area as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) rise for the purpose of asking a question?


John Allen Fraser: I do.
May 14, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the minister agree?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister because I did not hear all of his speech, but I wonder if he would be good enough to answer a question which I think troubles a number of us who are very sympathetic to much of what he has said. If one is advocating the abolition of capital punishment on the grounds that the minister has stated-and other hon. members have spoken along the same line-where is the logical distinction between hanging a frightened man who runs out of a bank and shoots a policeman, and not hanging a man who shoots the prime minister, or who may engage in the diabolical business of killing people for the underground? I would be interested to hear the minister's views on this particular problem.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that question. I think the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) will appreciate from my remarks that I did not attempt to distinguish in any logical way why one particular type of murder rather than another should have capital punishment attached to it. Indeed, in my remarks I said that essentially I do not believe in the deterrent usefulness of capital punishment, and I may say that applies, in my view, to the situation covering peace officers and prison guards as well.
There have been some peace officers and prison guards who have expressed extra concern about their particular situation in the capital punishment provision, and in the course of the debate in 1967, five years ago, they were heard in the form of the compromise which was adopted by parliament at that time. The argument I make is that if, indeed, it is thought to be so important to them, that they attach so much importance to this particular provision, then I so value their service in their particular role that even while I disagree with them about the real value of the deterrent, 1 could go along with them in having a special exception for them.
I would say to the hon. member that the logic of my remarks, and my further opinion is that total abolition would be the far better course and that indeed if, as I now believe, prison guards and policemen are more and more moving from the position of wanting special protection, it may well be that in committee hon. members can find a solution. It may be that an assured period of imprisonment prior to any possibility of parole will be a better solution than anything contained in the bill itself. I have spoken in the current context as a total abolitionist but I am willing to look at additional safeguards, to be perhaps under the discretion of the trial judge himself, which would predetermine the period of imprisonment before parole is permissible.
I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South that I have spoken in this debate as an abolitionist. I am prepared to support the present bill even to the extent that exceptions for police and prison guards be put into it, although that appears to be no longer necessary. I would be happier with another solution which I have mentioned,
Capital Punishment
which would deter the most serious of offences. Perhaps that discretion could be vested in the trial judge himself.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is worth debating in parliament because Bill C-2 is no longer just legislation; it has become a symbol to many Canadians; it symbolizes the permissiveness that they believe is a threat to their safety. To them it symbolizes a "soft on crime" attitude that they believe is encouraging violence. To them it shows the need for a change of direction.
Last spring the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang)-1 wish he were here and not out of the chamber-indicated he saw the need for this change. When speaking to 500 lawyers at the O'Keefe Centre, Toronto, in March of 1972 he said that rising crime figures showed we must have more vigorous enforcement of the law. He said there was need to restore the balance between freedom and authority by effective law enforcement. He said the increase in crimes of violence was particularly significant and cited the testimony of the commissioner of the RCMP to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs revealing how the crime rate in Canada has doubled in the past ten years.
He did not draw the conclusion that this warranted the restoration of capital punishment in Canada, but many people have concluded that the trend to which he referred merits the need for strong law enforcement, of which the restoration of capital punishment would be one part. I think this is evident in the trend that one sees in the United States, where 36 state legislatures are now considering in their jurisdictions the restoration of capital punishment, and where two states have already enacted that restoration. Certainly, an increasing number of people in Canada are of this mind. According to an article in Weekend magazine of October 21, 1972, there were 215 murders in 1963, and 426 in 1971. That kind of development shows the average Canadian that we need strong enforcement of the law. We need to express that conviction by restoring capital punishment.
The conviction is growing among a great number of Canadians that we need the death penalty as one way of reversing the permissive trend of the past decade. Advocates of abolition often speak as if the desire to retain the death penalty shows some kind of blood lust or perverse sadism, but that misjudges the Canadian people. Few citizens of this country find much pleasure in the sight or thought of a fellow human being hanged. But there are many who want some assurance that the law is going to be enforced and the public is going to be protected. They do not want cruelty shown to anybody, but they want the ordinary man, woman and child of this country protected and they want to say to the criminal element of this country that that element is on notice that society is prepared to defend itself. They do not find that kind of assurance in Bill C-2.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the average Canadian knows this bill is a "nothing bill" which will do nothing to meet the crisis of crime and violence in this country today. It may purport to give protection to police officers and prison guards, but in the hands of a government committed to commute even these death sentences it will not do even that. This bill is a charade. It gives appearance

May 14, 1973
Capital Punishment
without reality. It professes to provide for what is called the death penalty to be invoked for murder punishable by death. But the fact is that capital punishment will be suspended entirely for the next five years if this bill passes. The majority of Canadians today oppose that suspension. They oppose it, not because there is some atavistic barbarism in their hearts but because they see it as one more step down the road of permissiveness.
It is evident that most Canadians want capital punishment restored, because they are recoiling from what they regard as the loose administration of justice they have had under this government. They have had enough of releasing kidnappers after a few years' confinement. They have had enough of giving a wife murderer leave that he used to go on an international honeymoon. They have had enough of police officers being shot down and their murderers escaping the penalty they deserve. They have had enough of giving priority to the criminal and neglecting the victim. They have had enough of easy parole and leaves when they find that many parolees become criminals again and leaves of absence become doors of escape. They have had enough of easy bail when they find freedom given to thugs and hoods and addicts who use it to pillage, assault, molest and murder. They have had enough of all this and are saying to parliament, "Change this and give us some protection under the law, the kind of protection that Canadian citizens want and used to be confident of receiving."
In the Speech from the Throne the people were promised changes, but they have not seen any, and Bill C-2 does not offer any. Instead, it shows the same permissive mentality the Canadian people are rejecting. The people want a policy that will put the criminal element on notice that society in this country cannot be attacked with impunity. That is why public opinion polls report that a large mar-jority of citizens favour the restoration of capital punishment. In the constituency of Scarborough East, for example, of 3,510 who answered a questionnaire on this subject at least 70 per cent indicated support for capital punishment. That is why in the same constituency a petition signed by 225 people, most of them high school students, asks for the retention of the death penalty.
Abolitionists, instead of vilifying these citizens, as some do, should ask themselves why so many people are clamouring for the restoration of the death penalty. Abolitionists should ask themselves why so many good, decent, law-abiding people want the death penalty renewed. These people are not cruel, but they are concerned and they are demanding that their government and Parliament be concerned too.
That raises this question: Would the death penalty do what the public thinks it would? That is a question to which many abolitionist speakers in this House have addressed themselves. Some of us are under the impression that the abolitionists assume that they have all the good cards in their hands. They can point to statistical studies that show the abolition of capital punishment does not result in mayhem, nor does its retention or restoration result in social peace. They conclude, therefore, that capital punishment has no deterrent value whatsoever. With a kind of elitist superiority, which somehow has been evident in this debate, they deride the anxieties of the people,

which they do not think need to be taken seriously, and assure the populace that they should calm their fears. It seems that the elite few know more than the commonplace majority.
Let us take another look at this argument. Has anyone ever suggested that capital punishment would prevent all murders? Surely not. Surely we would not expect that, any more than we would expect that not having capital punishment would prevent all murders. There has never been a penalty yet devised that would restrain everyone. To dismiss the death penalty because it does not eliminate murder should logically mean we should abolish prison sentences because they do not eliminate bank robberies. The point is that the threat of capital punishment does deter some people from murder, just as the threat of imprisonment deters some from robbery.
To say that when you have capital punishment you also have some murders is really offering no more evidence than to say that when you have long jail sentences you also have some robberies. We know that. However, just as the imposition of prison sentences does deter some people from robbing, pillaging, assaulting, and so on, we have every reason to believe that the imposition of this supreme sentence, the death penalty, does deter some from the act of murder. I think that is one reason why the average man is supporting the restoration of the death penalty.
You can quote all the statistics you like and draw all the graphs you like; you will still find the common sense of the ordinary Canadian saying that the threat of the death penalty is a deterrent. He knows it is a deterrent to him, and it is a deterrent to others. Let me cite some examples of this reasoning, in a survey conducted in 1970 and 1971 by the Los Angeles police department:
Margaret Elizabeth Daly, of San Pedro, was arrested August 28th, 1961, for assaulting Pete Gibbons with a knife. She stated to investigating officers: "Yeh, I cut him and I should have done a better job. I should have killed him but I didn't want to go to the gas chamber".
Orelius Matthew Stewart, an ex-convict with a long felony record, was arrested March 3, 1960, for attempted bank robbery. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to the state prison. While discussing the matter with his probation officer he stated: "The officer who arrested me was by himself, and if I had wanted, I could have blasted him. I thought about it at the time, but I changed me mind when I thought of the gas chamber."
Salvador A. Estrada, a 19-year old youth with a four-year criminal record, was arrested February 8, 1960, just after he had stolen an automobile from a parking lot by wiring around the ignition switch. As he was being booked at the station, he stated to the arresting officers: "I want to ask you one question. Do you think they will repeal the capital punishment law? If they do, we can kill all you cops and judges without worrying about it."
George Hewlett Dixon, an ex-convict with a long felony record in the east, was arrested for robbery and kidnapping committed on November 26, 1959. Using a screwdriver in his jacket pocket, he held up and kidnapped the attendant of the service station, later releasing him unharmed. When questioned about using a screwdriver to simulate a gun, this man, a hardened criminal with many felony arrests and at least two known escapes from custody, indicated his fear and respect for the California death penalty and stated: "I did not want to get the gas."
In our country, Edwin Boyd was reported never to have carried a loaded gun because he feared he might use it during a bank robbery and then be subject to the death

penalty. The same article in Weekend magazine quotes Paul Gascon, executive secretary of the Solicitor General's component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the association which represents penitentiary guards. He is reported to have claimed that the six guards taken as hostages in the Kingston penitentiary riot in April, 1971, may owe their lives to the fact that the death penalty was at least on the statute books. He says:
The inmates were told that if a guard were killed, the responsible people would be hanged.
I suggest to Parliament it is superficial to think the threat of capital punishment has no deterrent value whatsoever. It is true it may not deter some people, but neither will a prison sentence or any other penalty enacted by law deter them. However, it can deter some people. It should be in the law to say to people it is there to be used if they transgress in this way. It is in the interests of public safety that this penalty be on our statutes, and equally that our government be ready to carry it out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Some say it is asking too much of a judge, jury or cabinet to enact this kind of penalty. One could cite the oft quoted statement of the late President of the United States, Harry S. Truman, "If you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen." If you cannot assume the responsibilities of the office to which you have been called and which you have freely undertaken, get out. This is part of the responsibility of carrying forward the administration of justice in this country.
But effective as capital punishment may be as a deterrent, it would not be right for society to exact it if it were immoral in itself. Parliament must be satisfied that it is a just penalty before it has a right to impose it. We have no right to put this penalty into our statutes and to enact it if we are in any way doing it for purely pragmatic reasons. We must be satisfied that it is upheld by moral conviction as well. For that reason I have been impressed by the arguments of abolitionists that capital punishment is an offence against the sanctity of life. On the basis of that argument, they try to argue that they must oppose having it in the law. I found those arguments deeply moving, and fully respected the sincerity and values that motivated those contributions to our debate. However, there is another side to the argument. I hope that abolitionists will listen to all speakers who express it.
Capital punishment has been upheld through the centuries because of the very commitment of our society and civilization to the sanctity of life. It is a principle of law that the penalty must fit the crime and in some way make up the deprivation that the crime has caused. Surely that is the basis for having a penal code. It is the conviction that a crime has in some way deprived an individual and society of something that must be made up. The penalty in some way must equalize that which has been taken away from the individual or society.
The death penalty is, surely, based on the belief that taking a life is so great an offence that it may require the forfeit of the murderer's life to meet the demand of justice. It is because life is sacred that murder is the worst of all crimes and requires the highest of all penalties. It is not because those who favour retention of capital punish-
Capital Punishment
ment have a loose attitude toward the value of life. It is just the opposite. It is because they are convinced that the life of the ordinary person walking home at night in the darkness of a city street has something that is ultimately precious to him, his life. That must be protected by a law that says life is of such value that where it is taken, the penalty must equalize the offence.
In the course of this debate-and it has taken the government a surprising amount of time to get back to it- some hon. members have questioned the state's right to impose the death penalty. They have suggested it is a form of murder itself. However, that reasoning is consistent only if it leads to a radically pacifist conclusion. Such a conclusion would say any taking of life is unjustified. A soldier defending his country and using the arms put in his hands by society would therefore be a murderer if he took an enemy's life. A policeman defending his community and using the gun put in his hand by society would be a murderer if he took a criminal's life.
But Parliament is not ready to reach that conclusion. It is not ready to say we should disarm our armed forces and that we should disarm our police. By the same reasoning, we should not reach the conclusion that the hangman himself, or the executioner is necessarily a murderer. We cannot reach that conclusion, because we know that in this kind of world this country must have those who will bear arms in its defence, that it must have policemen armed to defend its communities and, I put it to you, must equally be prepared to have the executioner ready to carry out the death penalty.
This does not, I submit, contradict the biblical ethic on which must of our civilization is based. That ethic rightly recognizes that there must be authority to maintain order in this kind of world and that this authority must have power to impose its will. The same justice that justifies the soldier or the police officer justifies the executioner. Some hon. members have argued that this ethic requires us to forgive and forbear. Indeed, a reference to that point of view was made by the Minister of Justice, and we have to take very seriously the kind of opinion he expressed.
I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, two points. One is that one must always distinguish between an ethic which is applied to individual and personal relationships and the ethic that orders the affairs of state and the conduct of society. It is for this reason that throughout history societies have distinguished between the right of the individual to bear arms and the right of the society to call upon soldiers, policemen or others to bear arms in its defence. Certainly, from the time of Augustine onward this has been part of the Christian tradition and it is part of the tradition of this country itself. Laws are enacted restricting the right of the individual to carry arms or use arms in his own interest. Laws also affirm the right, and often the duty, of the individual to serve the state in defending it by the use of arms.
As well we ought to recognize, when considering this point, that if we were to say society has no right to impose the death penalty because society must be prepared to forgive the murderer, surely society would not have the right to impose any kind of penalty on any offender
3742

May 14, 1973
Capital Punishment
against the law. Does not every sentence which society imposes involve a certain judgment, a judgment by which society says to the offender: You have disobeyed the law; you have offended against society; you have taken from society that which you had no right to take, and you must now make up for it? By that same reasoning, society has the right to impose the death penalty where it is deemed merited. What gives the state the moral right to incarcerate an offender in prison for years is the same right by which society can say to a murderer that his life may be taken as forfeit for the one that he has taken.
Finally, I would say it is absolutely imperative that parliament recognize the way in which the laws of the country must stress personal responsibility. Indeed, I would say it is part of the biblical ethic upon which so much of our civilization can be, has been and should be based. For that ethic requires us to emphasize the responsibility of each person for his behaviour and to conclude that each offender must be ready to pay the price of his deeds. I have often been very impressed, but more often depressed, by the way in which some hon. members throughout this debate have implied that the murderer represents a failure of society and that society must acknowledge its guilt. They have almost concluded that if a murder takes place, society should be punished and the murderer should somehow receive a large measure of sympathy.


Erik Nielsen: A Liberal suggestion.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: I appreciate the importance of social influence and environmental influence for good or for ill. But surely we are not ready to be sucked into accepting the kind of extremist extortion by which we forgo any individual and personal responsibility whatsoever. Altogether, I would hope we would stress the opposite and see that the individual is fundamentally responsible for what he does. I would like to see a restoration of that principle in our ordering of the economy as well as in our ordering of social programs. But equally, indeed more, we must see it in the way we draft the law and in the way we administer it. Otherwise we can have no law and we can have no moral order.
I think one of the most important legal events of our time has been the Nuremburg trials. One of the values of the Nuremburg trials was the way in which they showed to the world that no individual can shrug off on society the responsibility for his behaviour. He may be able to say he was ordered to do something, that he was commanded to do it, that everyone was doing the same thing; but the Nuremburg trials said to him, in effect: You did it; you must accept the responsibility, and you must pay the penalty.
Now we are pleading for an emphasis of that kind in the ordering of Canadian law. We are pleading that Canada will be a country in which each person has freedom but each person has, equally, responsibility under the law.
Recently I read a very interesting and at times revealing story called "The Valacchi Papers." Describing the experiences of a Mafia killer, Joe Valacchi, the story tells how Joe felt everyone was to blame for everything in his life, except Joe himself. That kind of reasoning may be understandable when it takes place in the twisted mind of a

hired gun, but it has no place in the reasoning of Members of Parliament and ministers of the crown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: What we must see is the truth to which the contemporary French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, has borne such articulate and profound testimony. This is that when you have explained all the environmental influences you wish to explain, that when you have accounted for all the effects of society, the individual himself is still left with the final decision as to the kind of life he will lead, and that human behaviour is ultimately and profoundly the result of individual choices. That is why I would wish we might have, always, a system of law which would say to the individual: Yes, we will take account of all the factors which have contributed to what you are, but above all you must recognize that you have made yourself what you are.
We would say to one person who kills another: You judge yourself; you condemn yourself. Someone else may perform the mechanics of the execution, but you yourself have put yourself on the path that has led you to this. If a man dies by execution, he dies a death he has fundamentally chosen and which, fundamentally, he could have avoided.
For these three reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope that parliament will reject this bill and will reject it soundly: first, because the people of this country want parliament to say that this is a country where the law is enforced; second, because the provision of this law in our statute books is a deterrent to many who might take life; third, because it is an expression of personal, individual responsibility. Let us defeat this bill and return Canada to the legislation of the former Criminal Code. If we do, we shall express the will of the people, who want not permissiveness but order. They are tired of indulgence and they want responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I was first elected to Parliament in 1968 and was therefore unable to take part in previous debates on the important matter now before us. And so it is with some anxiety, but also with some satisfaction, that I rise for a few minutes to express my personal opinions on this highly controversial subject, which is nevertheless one of the most important that we have had to debate for a very long time.
Perhaps the first question that arises for me is that of the role of the member of Parliament in a debate as far-reaching as this. Does a member's mandate necessarily require him to act as his constituents seem to wish, or should he be a man who can inform them and lead them to the course he thinks best, should he, in a word, be a leader who is not content to sway with the opinions of his constituents, but assumes the responsibility of trying to help them and applying for them the laws which he believes to be the most appropriate.
I have had the opportunity of myself carrying out an opinion poll among my constituents, since when I have to admit that, to conform to their strong majority opinion, I
May 14, 1973

would have to vote on unequivocally for the retention of the death penalty. But the poll included also, in addition to the question of whether or not they were in favour of the death penalty, other related questions such as whether they were in favour of the parole system which is at present in effect in this country. Their reply was just as conclusive as to the previous question on the death penalty. My constituents' dissatisfaction about this is perhaps even greater than the dissatisfaction of those who have expressed their desire to keep the death penalty.
I therefore come to the conclusion that the first responsibility of he who represents an electoral riding is to inform his constituents and state clearly that the legislation the government tries to implement meets the needs of a society that we all want to improve, a society in which, on the one hand, individuals will have the right to live, in which they will feel protected and, on the other hand, in which they will feel that all the mistakes they might make, however serious they may be, will not be considered by the state as unforgivable, and deserving to be treated with violence and in a spirit of revenge, but which deserve to be judged fairly, with understanding and with a view to rehabilitating the individual, enabling him to play again his part for the establishment of a better society in which he may have played a part for which he was not necessarily the first responsible.
It is therefore in this frame of mind, Mr. Speaker, that I take part in this debate, after explaining on several occasions to my constituents, in my riding, that in my opinion, it was sad and unfortunate that we have to live in a society where we have to consider reinstating the death penalty taking away the most valuable asset: life-in an attempt to protect society from a minority which tries to destroy it and to deprive it from its most valuable aspect, that unique asset which is life.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite difficult to say to our constituents who may read in newspapers every week and sometimes even more often, the report of horrible things which publicity takes pleasure in making known to the public often without giving explanations, attenuations which would make those acts, at first sight horrible, not justifiable but sometimes explainable.
If I could be convinced, Mr. Speaker, that it is the real criminals we are punishing by death, if I could be given that concrete proof that it is really those responsible for the corruption who are given the penalty they deserve, I might have a different view from the one I express today. But since I have had personally the chance to practise law for about 14 years before entering politics I am in a position to say with profound conviction that I have proof-and that proof is not isolated-of cases where people were condemned because of the incompetence of their counsel, perjury of witnesses and that guilty people were able to avoid punishment because of the ability of their counsel, the money they handed out and which allowed them to avoid punishment under the law.
In a society seeking harmony, people want to be able to walk down the street or stay at home without fear at being bothered, molested or attacked, and we must recognize
Capital Punishment
that injustices allow the real authors of reprehensible acts to avoid punishment.
Mr. Speaker, it is truly a difficult situation for a legislator, for a private member like myself, to try and strike a balance between a society where laws must be enforced and where we must also respect the individual's basic right, namely his right to live, his right to make mistakes, even very serious mystakes. Those two rights, society's right and the individual's right, are putting us in a dilemma which makes it hard for us to take a firm stand.
If I took the position of someone who thinks that society, the protection of structures and law enforcement come first, I would then be in favour of death penalty. I would advocate strict laws which would protect the individual against himself and against those who try to break, deliberately or not, the existing laws.
But if I remember that I am also a human being who has made mistakes, who will make mistakes in the future, then I become again someone who looks at his fellow man: An individual who was placed in circumstances different from mine, who has made mistakes for which he was not always responsible. Then I want to rehabilitate this individual, to understand him, to help him and to find ways for him to become again an individual who will contribute to improve our society. I will try to enable him to become again this essential tool which will help us to prove that we were able to understand the often reprehensible actions of individuals, to accept them and to take steps according to our responsibilities.
It is true that it is a society's duty to have laws strict enough to protect the individual. But I think that we should never forget that when a society has come to the point of considering capital punishment as a solution to its problems, this society, in my opinion-and I say that with a deep conviction and without passing judgment on opinions contrary to mine-does not accept its true responsibilities which are to tackle the root of the problems, to find human solutions where the individual must be punished for his faults but not at the cost of his life.
Everyone will agree, I think, that to take someone's life is the law of the underworld. It is this absolutely irrational and absurd law which says that when a criminal, to use this word, has committed a fault, he must lose his life for the problem to be solved.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this debate is not and should not be political. It was a pleasure to meet some hon. members from other parties and to see the interest they have for the question and that they do not intend to have a political debate. When we talk about a man's life, when we say that our society must be better, this meets the general willingness and this is the majority if not all members.
Tonight, as during the recent days when we had the opportunity to discuss that question, all of us know that what we are going to do is very important and that it will steer the course of our society.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that we must all agree that if capital punishment is an extreme, our parole system is inadequate; several of my colleagues have agreed on that and I would like to say just a few words to support hon. mem-
3744

May 14, 1973
Capital Punishment
bers who deplored the way the parole Board allowed the release of those who had seriously broken the law.
If we want to be generous, human, understanding, I think that we must accept as a basic law that a person who has deliberately and seriously broken the law must have a penalty equal to his crime.
Maybe this is the conclusion I draw from the pole I made in my riding where I ask many times the following question: if we had a better parole system, if the people who seriously break the law had to suffer longer imprisonment, would you change your view on capital punishment? I obtained a very positive answer.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would not be in favour of a 25-year imprisonment penalty for instance. I think that we must draw the line somewhere. The offender must have the impression that in time he would be in a position to change that society where maybe he wishes to come back because he has understood that the way he followed was not the one he should have followed.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that imprisonment for as long as 25 years could perhaps satisfy some individuals and bring political support to others. It could perhaps hide behind a smoke-screen the real issue which is primarily to put an end to murders and violence.
Some, Mr. Speaker, refer to statistics in order to attempt to justify retention or abolition of capital punishment. It is true and I think that statistics prove it-that murders have increased since 1967 and this, at first sight, seems to support those in favour of the maintenance of capital punishment.
However, before taking a decision based on statistics, we should ask ourselves how many murders, since the passage of the legislation in 1967, were committed to settle a score. How many of those crimes were committed by people who lived in a social environment where they were contaminated, where they experienced an unhappy childhood, where their parents neglected their education and found themselves in such circumstances that they are not entirely responsible for the murder they did commit.
It follows that statistics can be used to justify either the maintenance or the abolishment of the death penalty. I think that it would be unfortunate to quote a whole series of statistics which can be used in one way or another without setting the basic problem, that is to determine if fear prevails. Indeed I think that all our friends in favour of retaining the death penalty are under the impression that fear of being one day put to death prevents people from committing some reprehensible action.


Mr. Bechard:: Fear is the beginning of wisdom!


Gilles Marceau: My hon. friend from Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine says that fear is the beginning of wisdom. I hope that this fear will be the beginning of his own wisdom and that he will understand that as a member, a capable notary public and an extremely humane fellow, it would be absolutely absurd for him to preach at home that the law of vengeance and of the underworld would be the one that we ought to comply with. I say that in all friendship for this hon. friend who has never given me the impression that he would go that far in his reasoning.

Mr. Speaker, I would not like to stretch this debate, because I think that others have some extremely valuable opinions to express. In concluding I would like to express a view on the cabinet prerogative to commute death penalties to life imprisonment.
I find it rather stange that, on the one hand, the death penalty is advocated in cases where prison guards or policemen are murdered, that the right to protection is recognized where they are concerned and that their murderers deserve to be put to death, while on the other hand the course of the law can be altered by a political commutation.
Personally, I feel that if we favour some exceptions, as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) mentioned in his question a while ago, we should be logical enough to pursue the reasoning to its ultimate limit. In fact, I believe that if this bill, as it stands, is accepted, we should seriously consider qualifying the political intervention for commutation in such a way as to allow the judiciary to really play its role; when society, acting through a jury and judge, has decided to take extreme measures in some cases, the law should take its course or those exceptions should be removed which, to my mind, are no longer exceptions if they are finally cancelled through political interventions.
Mr. Speaker, I should therefore like to close my remarks by saying simply this, as honestly and seriously as possible: The bill under study and on which we shall have to vote seems to me to be a compromise-and this is unfortunate-that we regretfully have to accept in the circumstances because in my very limited personal experience- although I still represent a significant number of voters-I have to come to the conclusion that outright abolition of the death penalty would be an inappropriate step that should not be taken.
However, full retention of the death penalty would, in my opinion, be a solution that would not meet the needs of our present society because first and foremost-and I say it again-I hope that the Canadian society in which we have confidence will understand how urgent it is that we consider total abolition of the death penalty within a few years. Regretfully, the present situation does not allow it; I think that, rightfully because violence still exists to various degrees-a violence we want to prevent and whose progress we want to curb-people criticize us for passing compromise legislation. However, I hope and I am convinced that soon the Canadian society, which is the best and which we all cherish, will be mature enough to abolish definitively the death penalty that places Canadians under the rule of violence and fear. We would like to eliminate forever the haunting idea of the death penalty and get back to a Canadian society in which it will be pleasant to live. I am convinced that this will be done very soon.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express great thankfulness for being able to take part in this debate tonight because I think it is one of the most important debates we have had during the session. This matter has been under discussion since the beginning of this session and, indeed, during almost the whole length of time I have been in parliament. I cannot
May 14, 1973

forget that prior to the 1967 legislation there were private members' bills introduced. There was a private member's bill introduced on one occasion at least when we went over the whole matter of capital punishment and decided in our own way where we stood and expressed our position. I feel that it is very important that we should do so once again at this time, because this is a debate which is not confined to this House but which is profoundly shaking Canadians and the Canadian conscience from one coast to the other.
I want to say at the outset that I believe the people on both sides of this debate are very sincere and earnest as to where they believe the truth to lie. But I want to say, also, that I was exceedingly grateful for the speech which was made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) this evening, because I felt that in that speech he did what should be done in a debate of this kind. He gave a very dispassionate, quiet outline of the situation as he saw it and he endeavoured to keep the temperature down. That is what we should try to do in this debate.
I feel that one of the things that has made it very difficult, both outside and inside the House, is the way in which emotions have been whipped up to the point where it has been practically impossible for many people to regard this matter in a logical way. It has been practically impossible for them even to consider facts, because we were unfortunate in that a few very horrible crimes occurred in this country at the time when this legislation was brought forward for consideration. With our usual Canadian way of doing things, although we got off to a slow start in considering the matter it did not take long before the hot-liners, the press and the media in general whipped up excitement about the matter until people were no longer able to look at it in the right context and perspective.
Certainly, I feel that as a result, in many parts of this country people got the idea that any time their little girl went up to the mailbox to post a letter, a rapist might be lurking behind any one of the trees between their home and the corner. Women got the idea that there was not a street in Canadian cities where it was safe for them to venture forth once darkness fell, and strong men got the idea that everyone was running round with weapons and lying in ambush for them.
I know that we have had an excess of crime in recent years. Canada is not the only place where crime has increased, crimes of all kinds and particularly crimes of violence; but I know also that it has not been proven anywhere by figures that the rate of murder has increased in this country or in any other country. I know that what the Minister of Justice said tonight was accurate according to the best research that has been done, that there is no proof that capital punishment acts as a deterrent.
I know that these things are true from the facts and figures that have been worked out painfully and slowly by the researchers. Consequently, I was grateful tonight when the Minister of Justice brought this debate to a quiet consideration of facts, figures and alternatives before us as we think about how best to protect society from people
Adjournment Debate
who have committed murder. After all, that is the question at which we are looking.
I do not think it helps one little bit to quote the words of Jesus Christ who was, above all, a man of peace, good will and forgiveness, in such a way as to shut out any hope of mercy on this earth for a person who has committed murder or any hope of just or civilized treatment on the part of his fellow humans. I do not think that is helpful in this debate, nor does it help to pick out some of the particularly spectacular crimes and act as though these were the general rule and imply that there were many more of them than we hear about. As I say, a climate of quiet reasonableness is the one in which we should be discussing this matter.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am going to discuss tonight an accommodation crisis in two towrsites which are virtually completely controlled by the federal government, a contempt for democratic rights which is a continuing affront to this Parliament, and a warning of the way in which power can be abused.
On March 26 I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) for an outline of the government's housing policy in the townsites of Banff and Jasper. You must understand that because they are located within national parks, Banff and Jasper have virtually no power to govern themselves. If the people who live there want a pothole repaired, they have to go to Ottawa for authority. One of the critical matters which Ottawa controls is the disposition of building lots and building permits.
While the state may have no business in the bedrooms of the nation, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development personally controls and decides on the number of bedrooms there will be in Banff and Jasper. For several years there have been too few beds and too little accommodation to meet the needs of the people who have to live there because they work there. In summer, that shortage becomes more acute because of the summer help needed to meet the growing flow of tourists, drawn in part by the deliberate tourist advertising of the federal government.
When I asked what the minister was doing, he replied that he was reviewing the matter. Some days later he tabled in committee a statement with two major proposals: first, the response to the summer crisis would be to let local businessmen provide temporary accommodation with

May 14, 1973
Adjournment Debate
trailer dormitories; second, the minister expressed his view that one answer to the housing demand in Jasper would be to move the people, instead of building houses. Twelve hundred people, one third of Jasper's population, are associated with the CNR division point in Jasper, and the minister has stated his clear preference that the answer to that crisis should be to find the division point, in his words, a new home.
Later still, a press release was issued proposing to make sites available for permanent mobile homes in Jasper, although not in Banff. The preference was repeated, to move the people of the CNR. Those announcements leave at least three gaping problems: first, there is no assurance that this announcement-under duress and late in the day-of permission to build temporary mobile homes can be taken advantage of by enough local employers; second, there is no announced intention to meet the permanent accommodation crisis in Banff, except the veiled suggestion that the solution there might be to move people, too, to the neighbouring town of Canmore; third, there is the clear fact that many Jasper residents would not choose a mobile home if they lived in a community where choice was a reality.
Despite the minister's concessions, there is still an acute accommodation shortage in the townsites of Banff and Jasper national parks. But, Sir, I suggest to you and to this House that the issue goes well beyond housing. The basic problem is that the relationship between the parks department and the people of the townsites is a colonial relationship, marked by people who are powerless and a government that is arbitrary, secretive and arrogant.
Virtually everyone accepts that townsites in the national parks cannot be exactly like communities elsewhere. They are in a region dedicated to preservation and so there must be some controls. The people who live there accept that. They are perhaps more concerned about conservation than any other community of Canadians. Indeed, they prove their commitment by going to live with nature and not just talking about it. The people in the townsites are not opponents of control. They are opponents of abuse; and abuse is what has happened-an abuse of power so consistent that it should alarm every Canadian concerned about arbitrary government.
Let me cite a few examples. In the past ten years Ottawa has commissioned a number of reports about the town-sites. Few have been published. All have been expensive. More are still secret. If the people concerned were consulted, it occurred only after the decisions were taken. They were not asked, they were told, about the community where they live and raise children. Again, there is no local government. Virtually every local decision, except for schools and related matters, goes to some distant deputy in Ottawa for final decision.
Now the minister announces his conclusion, without the slightest consultation, that the best thing to do with the 1,200 railroaders who live in Jasper is to move them out. When he said that, I asked if he would hold a public hearing to find out what problems or opinions the people might have. He declined to hold a public hearing. So I called such a meeting and invited the minister to come, or

the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) or his parliamentary secretary from whom we hear so much. The minister declined to come. He declined to send his officials. He refused to send people there who might answer the questions of the residents. The minister says that he believes the meeting was premature. He thinks that consultation of that kind is premature. The reason he thinks so is that he prefers to consult only after decision is taken.
What is alarming to Canada about this situation is that this attitude is not restricted to the townsites in the mountain national parks. It is the attitude which led the minister at Ship Harbour, the new national park, to propose to move the people there, some of whom had been living in those sites for eight to ten generations. It is the attitude we find in Kouchibouguac park in New Brunswick. It is the attitude we find in Waterton and Riding Mountain. The parks' problems are serious problems. They are going to grow more acute. If we are to solve them in a reasonable way we must dispense with this arrogant, arbitrary and secretive attitude of the parks department and begin to recognize the rights of people who live in areas that are, or will become, national parks.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it will be rather difficult to answer all the questions raised by the hon. member in three minutes, but I would point out that the minister tabled a document in the committee which indicated a number of things that have been done. I recognize the sincerity of the hon. member, and all hon. members know the efforts made by the previous member for Rocky Mountain who was continually bringing problems to the attention of parliament and the government with respect to the national parks.
I believe we have done a lot in the past four or five years in trying to increase communication between people who are concerned about conservation, about parks and about many of the matters connected with them. In particular, in connection with the national parks several public hearings have been held related to the establishment of new national parks. This was the first time in our history that such public hearings were held, and they were very fruitful. The government received some good advice from these meetings and by and large it has been reflected in a number of changed decisions. The hon. member mentioned Kouchibouguac. I think we have arrived at a very positive solution with respect to it. We had some difficult times there with the fishermen who were displaced, but we found some positive solutions to compensate fishermen for the rights they lost.
In the time remaining to me I wish to turn to the specific problem raised by the hon. member and to mention some of the short-term and long-term solutions. In Jasper, discussions are going on with the CNR with a view to relocating the railway division's activities outside the park. During the transitional period, fluctuations in permanent and seasonal housing demands will be met by making serviced lots available for mobile homes or dormitory-type trailers. Sites for seasonal staff requirements will be ready for use in time for this summer season. In addition, a number of mobile home sites will be available almost immediately, and the remainder necessary to meet all current demand will be ready by the end of November,
May 14, 1973

1973. Temporary sites will be available in the meantime. The minister issued a press release a few days ago which I think was well received by many people out there. I notice that an editorial in one of the local papers spoke favourably of the positive statements that the minister had made in this regard.
In Banff, the opportunity to provide visitor support industries and their employees with accommodation in the Canmore area is being pursued. Our regional planning officers have entered into discussions with Alberta provincial planners with respect to land use adjacent to national parks, including the possible development of the Canmore area to accommodate persons servicing park visitors. Development of Canmore will provide an economic stimulus to the area, as well as local employment. I know that some aspects of this matter in the Canmore area, have been looked at very critically. One of the criticisms of some of the people-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but the time allotted to him has expired. I had given him some extra time because of the difficulty of saying "Kouchibouguac."


POST OFFICE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF SAMSON-BELAIR REPORT
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I asked the government to produce the Samson-Belair, Riddell and Stead Post Office transportation study which was compiled in 1969 with the co-operation of five postal employees. It was important that this document be produced and that the government inform the House and the people of Canada whether any of the apparently worth-while recommendations were implemented. The document highlighted areas where millions of dollars could be saved.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) informed me that the document is confidential. There is nothing confidential in the document. It contains worth-while public information and should have been publicized. The House and the Canadian people are now entitled to know if any of the recommendations were implemented and, if not, why not. It is impossible for the minister or his representative to give a complete answer in three minutes and I would suggest that the minister or his departmental officials compile a complete and detailed explanation on all aspects of this study. After all, it cost Canadian taxpayers $240,000 and they are entitled to some answers.
There is, however, one clearcut recommendation in the study. It is that the Post Office should continue to use private contractors in the delivering of mail, because they are able to carry out the service at less cost than the government. The study backed this up with explicit and detailed information.
In answer to my question as to the increased number of trucks and employees now needed since the government dropped the private contractor, the Postmaster General has informed me that 50 more trucks and 447 more employees are required. This increase, plus all the additional maintenance costs of the vehicles, will run into millions of dollars. Further to this, mail delivery service
Adjournment Debate
has deteriorated since the changeover which took place on April 19, 1972.
There is some dispute as to the figures for Winnipeg. The Postmaster General states that the number of trucks has increased by only one. The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, which has undertaken considerable study on this matter, has publicly stated that the number of trucks in Winnipeg has increased by 36. If these figures were incorrect, the Post Office should have made a public statement to put the record straight. I will be investigating this matter further. Also, Mr. Speaker, it would be of value to know why in some cities it takes fewer vehicles now, and in other centres more. On November 23, 1971, the then postmaster general stated:
The intent of the Post Office is to integrate urban mail transportation services in major areas of Canada in order to help stabilize mail transportation in these centres whose continued operation is essential to the maintenance of a national postal network.
The proposed integration means that the Post Office will undertake the intra-urban mail transportation previously carried out by private contractors . . .
The decision to implement an integration of urban mail transportation services comes after a series of studies by the Post Office Department.
It is unfortunate this study was not presented at that time.
As a result of these studies, integration was successfully undertaken in sections of Montreal and Vancouver as early as 1967.
The then postmaster general further stated:
Application of the national and regional criteria result in the inclusion of the following metropolitan cities in the program-
He listed 19 cities. I have only asked for information on eight; I will have to ask for information on the remaining 11. The then postmaster general completed his speech by saying:
I believe that this move will help to bring a greater degree of stability to a most important element of Canada's mail system and as such constitutes a major step forward in the development of an increasingly reliable mail service.
That is all contrary to information in the study to which I have referred. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), speaking on this subject at that time, stated:
I have followed the changes made by the Post Office Department in recent years, and the difficulty has been that with every change costs have gone up and services have gone down.
How true that is. At no time did the then postmaster general make any mention of the Samson-Belair study. He had documented evidence that it would be a major mistake for the Post Office to take over the mail delivery, but he completely misled this House and the people of Canada by saying it was a major step forward. He had in his possession a $240,000 study which clearly stated that the four existing government-operated urban services were more costly than an equivalent contracted operation. Detailed reasons were given for reaching this decision. The government and the former postmaster general owe this House and the people of Canada an immediate explanation for their actions. This report reads:
The principal criteria for evaluating the desirability of department operating or contracting its combined urban services

May 14, 1973
Adjournment Debate
requirements is cost; and more specifically the cost per item to provide the service . ..
The major factor in the cost gap between government and contracted services is labour productivity, and to a lesser extent administrative and supervisory costs .. .
The performance of the service by the department withholds from the private sector a volume of business which could stimulate growth and development. Furthermore, government stands to lose the tax revenues which would normally be derived from contractor's profits and their purchase of gasoline and other materials . ..
In future the department should contract for city services unless there is conclusive evidence as to the unavailability of this service on reasonable terms from outside the department.


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him by the Standing Order has expired.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I regret infinitely that the hon. member is trying to do indirectly what he was prevented from doing directly. He already tried-and he is at it again this evening-to table in this House the confidential report prepared by Samson, Belair, Riddell, Stead, Inc., or to have it tabled and he was told at that time that he had not the privilege to do so.
I would rather refer him to Appendix "B" of Hansard of March 15, 1973, at page 2288, which describes the general principle applying for notices of motion for the production of papers.
I think that this consultant study on transport clearly falls under paragraph (1) of the clause on consultant studies in Appendix "B". The nature of the consultant study is identifiable and comparable to work that would be done within the Public Service and it should be treated as such.
I would also like to mention to the hon. member that his remarks are of course very incomplete and probably biased too, because he knows very well that the Department already implemented 36 of the 44 recommendations of this report.
Secondly, he knows very well that following this report, there was another, introduced by Mr. Goldenberg and that following the recommendations included in the Goldenberg report, issued one year after the Samson, Belair, Riddell, Stead Inc., report the main urban transport services were integrated in order to reinforce the postal transport system and to ensure about 1,100 Canadians a permanent job.
Finally, the hon. member also knows very well that I cannot discuss this matter fully because of the proceedings initiated by companies which are affected by the integration.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES-CF-5 AIRCRAFT-REASON FOR ADDITIONAL PURCHASES
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, on April 18 the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) replied jointly to my written question No. 1277 in which I had asked how many CF-5 aircraft had been purchased by the

government, how many were currently in service, how many were in storage and how many had been sold to other nations. The answers, respectively, were: 135, 46, 45 and 20. The initial purchase order was 115 CF-5 aircraft. We have now purchased 135. Those 115 cost Canada $225 million, about $2 million per plane.
I should add that I followed-up my original written question with an oral question in which I asked the Minister of Supply and Services, as reported on page 3433 of Hansard, why, if more than half the aircraft initially purchased where not in use by the armed forces, we were arranging to buy another 20. The answer I received was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I shall first study the question and then give an answer to the hon. member.
The point I wish to make is this. Before a written question is replied to, an answer is prepared by public servants and submitted to the minister concerned for examination. If we add the figures given in answer to my question, the number of aircraft in service, in storage and sold to other countries is 111. The number purchased is 135. If I were the minister I would want to know what had happened to the other 24 aircraft before I authorized that answer. The minister obviously failed to ask such a question, to judge from the nature of his answer in which he said he would have to find out.
I am appalled that the minister should have given a reply like that. I knew what had happened to the other 24 aircraft before I asked him the question. Six had crashed, and 18 were awaiting delivery from Canadair. The reason for our purchase of an additional 20 aircraft is that we are converting from CF-5s in single configuration to CF-5s in dual configuration because the aircraft is now to be used as a trainer for pilots designated for service in high performance jet aircraft.
On the surface, this decision by the Department of Supply and the Department of National Defence appears to be reasonable. However, the CF-5, which the people of Canada purchased at approximately $2 million a copy, is a development of a training aircraft, the Northrup T-38 Talon which can be purchased off the shelf at about two-thirds the price of a CF-5. What we are doing is converting these expensive CF-5s to trainers when the CF-5 was itself developed from a trainer. If we want trainers, why not buy T-38s or have them built under licence? If we want a general purpose fighter aircraft-the original justification for the CF-5 when ordered in 1965- why not buy one that will serve that role adequately?
The CF-5 has beautiful flying characteristics, I am told, but little else can be said about it which is in its favour. As an interceptor it is too slow. Little good can be said about it in terms of air-to-air combat, in terms of photo reconnaissance or as a tactical ground support fighter. It is too slow for some roles, too delicate for others, too poorly armed for still others.
Its purchase, which I believe was decided upon when the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) was minister of national defence, has to be classed among the monumental blunders in an area where blunders have outnumbered wise decisions in recent years. I am speaking of equipment

purchased for the Canadian Armed Forces. What we needed at the time the CF-5 was purchased were about 70 high-performance aircraft. We ordered 115 CF-5s because that was the minimum number that Canadair could produce in any sort of economic manner. Thus, we purchased upward of one-third more aircraft than we needed; one-third more of an aircraft that was chosen principally because it was cheap, not because it fitted the role for which it was purchased.
In effect, we are thus paying one-third more for each aircraft than the purchase price of $2 million, and indeed since less than one-half of the initial purchase order is now in service we have in fact paid double for each aircraft. For double the price per copy of a CF-5 in 1965, when the order was placed, we could have purchased, for example, the F-4 Phantom and would have had the number of multipurpose, high-performance aircraft we required, and no more; aircraft that are capable of fulfilling the role assigned to them, which the CF-5 is not.
Beyond that, we now have in service 66 CF-101 Voodoo aircraft and are replacing them with newer models. An aircraft like the F-4, with slight modifications, could have fulfilled an air defence role as well as a tactical support role and other roles assigned to the CF-5. Thus, had we purchased such an aircraft to fulfil all fighter aircraft roles, we probably would have been able to place an order sufficiently large to warrant production of that kind of aircraft in Canada. Such a decision would have had the additional advantage of lowering supply and maintenance costs because we would have only one aircraft instead of two aircraft types in service.
It is about time we stopped making major equipment purchases for the Canadian armed services on an ad hoc basis. We will shortly need to decide upon a replacement aircraft for the CF-104s and CF-lOls which are in service. The answer that I received to question No. 1210 on the order paper informed me that these aircraft will need to be replaced "about 1980." Unhappily, the same answer informed me that "no specific evaluation study of possible
Adjournment Debate
replacement aircraft for the CF-101 and CF-104 is currently under way". Well, let us get one under way and avoid the purchase of another disaster like the CF-5 or the Bonaventure refit. When we talk about equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces, we are talking about millions of dollars. For heaven's sake, let us quit fooling around.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the original question we are debating tonight, dealing with an additional 20 CF-5s being purchased, appears in Hansard at page 3433 of April 18, 1973. As the hon. members knows, the Canadian forces' inventory of CF-5 aircraft, now standing at 68 single-seaters and 23 duals and due to be increased by 18 more duals, is calculated to be just right for the programmed 15-year life of the aircraft. With an advanced training role soon to be added to the CF-5s close support tactical air assignment in mobile command, it is expected that aircraft held in unit establishments and in reserve will be adequate for the total program.
Beginning in December, 19 dual and 12 single CF-5s will begin to replace the T-33 aircraft currently used by 1 Canadian forces flying training school at CFB Cold Lake, Alberta. The change will give the forces the capability of training student jet pilots on a modern aircraft at the advanced level. It is estimated that the CF-5 phasing-in will be completed at 1 CFFTS by November, 1974.
Twenty aircraft were sold to Venezuela in 1972. Of these, 18 are being replaced as dual-seaters for the expanded training role. Six aircraft have been written off due to accidents since the CF-5 came into service in 1968. While some CF-5s are currently on inactive reserve, all the aircraft are programmed for various roles during the aircraft's service life. These aircraft will be brought back into service as required to fill commitments. Mr. Speaker, this situation has no relationship whatsoever to the refitting of the Bonaventure, as this is a constructive program.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, May 15, 1973