1973-01-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding expropriation proceedings to acquire a site for a new Toronto airport at Pickering, Ontario. Hon. members will recall that public hearings of objections were held during December in Toronto, as provided for in the Expropriation Act, and the hearing officer's report was tabled in the House on January 18. The government has given careful and detailed consideration to the objections documented in the report, and in particular the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has reviewed the technical aspects. These issues, as well as the vitally important social implications, have been extensively reviewed by cabinet.
My colleague the Minister of Transport is today tabling two documents most pertinent to this issue: first, a technical response to the objections made at the public hearing, which was prepared by the Ministry of Transport; second, a statement by the Minister of Transport regarding the need for a new Toronto airport. This in turn clearly establishes the need for the land being expropriated.
The government is convinced of the need for a new Toronto airport and I am of the opinion the Pickering site is required for this purpose. Accordingly, I have signed the notices of confirmation of expropriation and requested the Attorney General of Canada to take the necessary steps immediately to effect registration of the notices in the local land registry and title offices.

These Notices include the majority of lands described in the notices of intention. However, certain portions of the lands described in the notices of intention are not being confirmed. The lands that are not therefore being expropriated are generally located on the original boundary and I am advised by the Minister of Transport it is not essential they be acquired for the airport. This advice is based upon investigations completed since the first announcement in March 1972. I might add that the owners of these lands will be offered the option of selling their land to the government.
In accordance with the procedures laid down in the Expropriation Act, written offers of compensation, accompanied by an appraisal report, will be made to every owner of an interest in the lands to which the
notices of confirmation apply. The more than 2,000 offers required will be made within the statutory ninety day period following the date of confirmation.
In addition to the market value of the property, which is to be calculated as of the date the notice of confirmation is registered and not the earlier notice of intention, an owner in occupation will also be paid for any costs or losses incidental to disturbance including moving to other premises. There is provision for compensating tenants and holders of security or mortgage interests, plus rules for other items and types of compensation. Of particular note is the right of an expropriated homeowner to claim additional compensation for the cost of relocating his residence in reasonably equivalent premises, if the compensation otherwise payable is not sufficient to permit this.
Many hon. members will also recall the strong support in the House of the provision in the new act whereby an owner may accept the government's offer of compensation and receive payment immediately, without prejudicing his right to claim additional compensation. An owner then has up to one year to negotiate settlement of such claims or to proceed in the Federal Court.
I should also point out that no resident will be required to move immediately. Obviously, the public examination of airport facilities announced last year and since reaffirmed, will help determine the timing and development of this airport.
In any event, it takes several years to develop an airport and thus many residents will not be required to move for a considerable period of time.
Clearly, it will be in the public interest to facilitate the continued residence of owners who wish to remain and this has also been the attitude of the Ontario government who are acquiring land in the adjoining area. Accordingly, such owners will be required to pay only the taxes and the usual costs of operation including maintenance and insurance, through to December 31, 1974.
In conclusion then, the decision to proceed has been made and I can assure the House that each owner will be dealt with compassionately and to the full extent of the new Expropriation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Paul's.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). I received in my office a copy of the statement by the Minister of Transport and, as you

January 30, 1973
Pickering Airport Site
will recall, Sir, the Minister of Public Works said that the Minister of Transport would table two documents, one being the statement. I wonder whether the hon. member for St. Paul's and Your Honour might not agree that the Minister of Transport be given an opportunity now to table these two documents, because my comments will be in respect of both the statement by the Minister of Public Works and the document to be filed by the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I am tabling the response of the Department of Transport to the synopsis report of the hearing officer with regard to the new Toronto airport, as well as my own statement on the choice of the site.


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank both the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) for providing copies of their statements in advance of the presentation and tabling of the respective statements in the House.
It is distressing that the government finds it necessary to confirm expropriations of some 18,000 acres of land involving over 2,000 property owners when the question of need for a second airport has not yet been determined.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: This is clearly locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen. Even if a second airport is needed, which many people seriously doubt, the decision today destroys any flexibility left in siting an airport which may not be put into use for a decade. Surely this is one of the worst examples of backward planning this country has ever seen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: The government says it is convinced of the need for a new Toronto airport. While it may have reports from its technical consultants, and even these have been conflicting from time to time, who has it consulted in the Toronto-centred region? At least 14 of the 22 successful metro Toronto candidates in the October 30 election went on record during the campaign as saying there was no proven need for a second airport. The Toronto city council executive committee, representing over 700,000 people, last Wednesday requested the abandonment of the expropriations prior to a public determination of need. The regional municipality of York, representing 166,000 people, and the township of Pickering, representing over 30,000 people, have made similar requests, as has the mayor of Scarborough. Most of the formal objectors at the expropriation hearings in November and December gave primary emphasis to the unanswered question of need.
Yet the government pushes blindly on with virtually no public consultation and confirms the Pickering expropriations.
The lengthy statement of the Minister of Transport or, at least, the first nine pages of that statement, can be boiled down to this. He is saying to the people of the Toronto-centred region: You need a second airport; we have decided. Yet in the last four pages it appears to have suddenly dawned upon the minister that he should be concerned about public participation. He is at long last prepared to honour the commitment of his predecessor and arrange for an independent group to hear representations from the public as well as from the provincial and municipal governments. This independent group is to determine the type and timing of the facilities required, and the people will be able to make inputs not only on the question of the airport but also as to the kind of urban region they want, and how this would affect air service and airports.
We welcome this opportunity for public participation. It is long overdue. But we find it impossible to believe that this government can in any way maintain an open mind on the question when it appears to have already made its decision. The expropriations which have been confirmed today are for an airport. They cannot be for any other purpose if they are to remain legally valid. The government knows this. How can the public participation proposed in these circumstances be anything but a charade? At best, this is political waffling to avoid the political impact of a decision already taken. The Minister of Transport says in his statement that this process will be the first of its kind and could be a model for the future. Expropriate now-determine need later. Heaven help us!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wanted the Minister of Transport to have the opportunity to table his statement before we commented on the situation because his statement is a great deal more important, if I may say so, than the statement made by the Minister of Public Works. As to that statement, I can only say the minister is following the procedures under the new Expropriation Act. I would simply ask him, very seriously and very strongly, to consider making available to the proprietors of the property in that area the opportunity and the financial assistance necessary for them to obtain their own appraisers instead of having to depend merely upon the appraisers that the department will appoint. This invariably places the person who owns the home or land at a considerable disadvantage.
As to the decision itself, I cannot but agree with the very eloquent, very succinct and very excellent statement made by the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Perhaps, as he is a new member, he will not think me paternalistic for using those adjectives. I am really disturbed by the politics in the statement of the Minister of Transport. I am disturbed for a very fundamental reason. The Minister of Transport says very distinctly, as does the Minister of Public Works in his statement, that the government has decided (a) that a second

January 30, 1973

Toronto airport is needed, and (b) that Pickering shall be the location. Then he talks about public hearings after the expropriations are confirmed and he hints, but does not say, in referring to a public hearing that it is still possible for the government to change its mind. Mr. Speaker, I say earnestly to the minister that this is precisely the kind of cynical approach to participation by the people that degrades the value of government and the value of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: If the government has made up its mind that there is need for a second airport and that Pickering should be the site, it ought to have the courage to say so and stand behind that decision, and not try to fool all the people in the Pickering area into thinking that the government can still change its mind.
I am not an expert in this field, Mr. Speaker, and do not claim to be. Personally, I am simply not convinced of the need for a second airport in the Toronto area. Indeed, I may be considered as not being willing to keep up with the times but I say without hesitation that I cannot convince myself of the value of ever bigger, ever faster, ever noisier aircraft in this country or in the world. I am not at all convinced that humanity will be better and happier if we can fly across the Atlantic or across Canada in one hour or two hours less time than we now can. It has seemed to me for a long time that human progress and the quality of human life are being sacrificed on the altar of bigness and speed in our present society. I am not at all persuaded that this is the way humanity ought to go or the direction in which the Canadian people ought to go.
If, however, a second airport is indeed needed, then I appreciate that no matter where you try to locate it there will be difficulties. My only difficulty with the statement made by the hon. member for St. Paul's is that he entirely avoided informing the House and the people of Canada that the Pickering site for the airport was chosen by the Ontario Conservative government, as well as by the federal Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I think it is important to underline that, because it is part of the difficulty which faces us in discussing this problem.
Finally, if the minister and the government were convinced of the need for a second airport and of the need for Pickering as the site of that airport, these public hearings ought to have been held in 1970, 1971 and 1972 so that the people in the area might have had available all of the information and become educated about the need for the airport in that area since, obviously, no matter where you tried to put the airport, there would be objections in that locality as, indeed, there have been objections by the people around Malton to any suggestion of enlarging that airport. I say that the decision to establish a second airport was made in 1968 by the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), before his reincarnation. We should have had these public hearings and these public discussions long before this, and the
25714-49J
Pickering Airport Site
people in the area ought not to be put to the trouble of expropriation proceedings on a false and misleading basis as the statement of the minister suggests.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, in his statement to the effect that the government intends to give notices of confirmations of expropriation, the Minister of Public Works points out that the decision involves Canadian communications and business.
He also mentions the effects on the quality of the environment in which people will have to live in that part of the country.
Obviously, the decision to confirm the expropriations is as important as the project itself. The government seems deeply concerned about all aspects of the program, and it expresses its intention to create an independant group to study those questions and hear the representations of the interested parties. We should rejoice in that initiative. Although this is an outstanding project which must be carried out, to my mind it is imperative that the persons chiefly concerned, namely those who will be expropriated, should have the opportunity to be heard.
We already know that many problems have arisen in connection with the expropriation in Saint-Eustache, precisely because the owners concerned have not always been treated as they had been promised they would be in regard to some very justified requests.
I have in mind certain complaints by many owners of land located at the end of runways of the Ancienne-Lorette airport, near land owned by the Department of Transport. People who would normally have sold land for home construction in the towns of L'Ancienne-Lorette and Sainte-Foy cannot do so because the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not finance the building of housing units in this area.
On page 10 in his statement on expropriation, the minister implies that everything is being looked after and that expropriated owners have nothing to fear because this expropriation will be carried out on the basis of a particular aspect in the act that says you must provide "a home for a home".
I also have in mind the expropriation, which goes back to 1967, of Valcartier Camp. It was carried out by the Liberal government. It was based on legislation very similar to the one mentioned earlier. People were forced to vacate the site. In certain case, threats were proffered, insinuating that they either had to accept the price offered or make a deposit of $5,000 before appealing to the court, which was quite false.
In other cases, Mr. Speaker, the people expropriated were promised jobs, which they never obtained since most of them are still standing in line at manpower centers just like all the other unemployed of this country.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. minister states that all those expropriated will be paid at market value; however, we cannot forget that inflation has not yet been curbed and that it is quite possible that some of those appropriated are farmers who own a small farm worth $40,000 where they manage to make a living, whereas in

January 30, 1973
Railway Passenger Service
five to six years such farmers, having given up their farm, will find themselves without jobs, owning only a house.
The hon. minister asserts that an effort will be made to preserve historical monuments and protect the natural beauties of the site.
Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon. minister on all his good intentions. However, I hope the government will recognize that the major effort to be made is in the interest of preserving the dignity of citizens caught in this mesh.


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL-PROPOSED NEW RUNWAY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the failure as yet of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to fulfil the commitment made to the House on January 16, 1973, through his parliamentary secretary, to give answers to questions raised concerning the environmental impact of the proposed new runway at Vancouver airport. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That in view of the commitment given this House on January 16, 1973, by the hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, that if questions are raised regarding the environmental impact of the proposed new runway at Vancouver International Airport answers will be given;
And because this exact question was raised yesterday at the expropriation hearings presently being conducted at Vancouver;
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to immediately answer the question raised yesterday asking what the environmental impact of the proposed new runway will be, and to make such answer or answers available to the objectors and the public at the present hearings.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has reservations about the form of the proposed motion, but unanimous consent is required under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


TRANSPORT
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, in view of inadequacy of passenger service in southwestern Ontario and the delay of the government in moving to remedy this situation, I ask leave of the House to propose a motion

under Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis);
That this House urge the government to take immediate action to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the transport committee of the 28th parliament concerning passenger service in southwestern Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FISHERIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I seek leave of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the herring fishery in British Columbia, which will commence at the beginning of next month, and the confusion that exists therein as a result of the arbitrary, dictatorial and personal decision of the Minister of the Environment with respect to licences for the herring fishery. Accordingly, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Olaussen):
That the matter of the herring fishery in British Columbia be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and that the said committee make an interim report regarding licensing and licence fees in the said fishery before February 10.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


Frank Howard: Did the Minister of the Environment say no to that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to propose a motion under Standing Order 43. At the present time there are many long-time residents of Canada eligible for old age or other pensions who are not Canadian citizens. Before obtaining the right to vote they must first take out Canadian citizen-
January 30, 1973

ship and the $10 fee could impose a financial hardship. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That the question whether persons reaching age 65 years or over, or who are disabled or war veterans, and who are not Canadian citizens but are otherwise qualified for old age security or other social assistance be exempt from the $10 citizenship fee, be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Paproski:: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Barnett:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are we to wait for the statement by the Minister of the Environment-


Steve Eugene Paproski: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Comox-Alberni resume his seat? I believe the hon. member for Edmonton Centre seeks the floor on a question of privilege. He should be given priority.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call to the attention of the Prime Minister the fact that no western members have been invited to the Bishop Laval commemorative stamp issuing ceremonies tomorrow in Quebec City. Is he still mad at us?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot raise a question of privilege in this way. It is a pure abuse of the rules. The hon. member knows that he has to give the required notice, which of course he did not give. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a question of privilege and it cannot be raised at this time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the statement made by the Minister of Transport yesterday to the effect that we would get a report today on the oil spill off the British Columbia coast from the Minister of the Environment. I raise this point at this time because so far I have not seen the Minister of the Environment rising in his place.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few minutes ago the Minister of Transport tabled a statement which became the subject of comment by those who responded to the statement on motions made by the Minister of Public Works. In order that those who read the record might have everything before them, would it not be a good idea for that statement to be appended to today's Hansard? I refer to the statement tabled by the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made a suggestion. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is agreement on the part of the House to have the document appended to Hansard. I might say that the Chair had reservations about the propriety of the procedure we followed this afternoon of discussing under the Standing Order a statement which had been tabled rather than made to the House, but again it was perhaps an easier thing to do in view of the fact the two statements were before the House, one made by the Minister of Public Works verbally and the other one tabled by the Minister of Transport. I took no exception to the fact that members commented on the document that had been tabled, but that was to some extent irregular.
[Editor's Note: For text of statement referred to above, see appendix.]


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-133, to amend the National Housing Act.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of this statement in the document he tabled this afternoon: "It is the government's intention to meet with the leaders of the other levels of government immediately to commence the study at the earliest possible date and report within 12 months". For purposes of clarification, will the minister tell the House whether this means that the government is now committed to reporting an absolutely final decision on the airport within 12 months?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the government decided to build an airport at Pickering and we think that all the evidence we have now justifies the government doing so. Now, if there are new facts, if there are new circumstances which were not considered in the past, then I think this is the point where the government can be influenced. It is not with the idea of changing our minds. We took our responsibility. That

January 30, 1973
Oral Questions
means that the need for the airport was decided upon by the government after consultation with many, many people in the region and several organizations. So the purpose of the board of examination is to study the role of the new airport in relation to Malton, to establish the rate of development of the new airport and to listen to people who may have different ideas and who have new facts to bring forward, not old facts which have been considered and discarded by the department.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, referring to a related assertion in the minister's statement where he said "should we be moved to reconsider our present conclusion", which is the conclusion the minister just reaffirmed, "that the people of Toronto and Canada need this facility the land will still be there and the option will still be open". With regard to that option, Mr. Speaker, has the government a contingency plan for the disposition of the land?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is something we are going to study with all the interested parties, particularly the government of Ontario and the municipalities concerned. If some new technology is developed during that period, because there will be at least a period of 12 months when nothing will be done on this land, and if new and important facts are brought forward, we will have discussions with the interested parties and see what we are going to do with the land.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, because I am not getting the information I would like. I should like to ask the minister with regard to the statement that "the land will still be there" whether we are seeing a preview of the next Liberal campaign slogan.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INTENTION RESPECTING EXTENSION OF RUNWAYS AT MALTON
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the minister has now decided to build an airport at Pickering, can he assure the people of Mississauga that there will be no further runway extension at Malton?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are now convinced that it would be impossible to meet the needs of the metropolitan area of Toronto with Malton airport alone. As for improvements, some will be made at Malton airport, but they will have no effect on the people in the vicinity.
[English\


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister understood me. Will the minister advise the House whether there will be an extension of runway facilities? I am

quite sure there may be other matters, but can the minister give us an answer with regard to runway facilities?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the government to do so.


PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE-ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT BOARD AND NAMING OF MEMBERS- TERMS OF REFERENCE
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister indicate when the decision on the independent inquiry will be made and the parties involved named and announced in the House?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope that in a couple of weeks, in co-operation with the government of Ontario, we will be in a position to set up this impartial board and start hearings right away.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Will the terms of reference for this independent inquiry board be sufficiently broad to allow a full-scale consideration of the questions of airport need and location by that inquiry?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference were defined in the statement I made. However, we intend to discuss that with the Ontario government to make sure they are in agreement. We want the terms of reference to be broad enough to cover what the hon. member has mentioned.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister given thought and, if so, what is the result, as to where he will draw the personnel who will be on the inquiry?


Jean Marchand: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. member mean the members on the board? The members of the board will be chosen jointly with the government of Ontario.


Mr. Hees:: Half NDP, half Liberal.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Transport expand on the statement he tabled with regard to the 70,000 acres that have been frozen in the noise lands surrounding the proposed airport? Also, what does the government plan to do to compensate those whose lands are frozen?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless the minister can reply to the question briefly, this information ought to be conveyed to the House by way of a statement on motions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question. Can the minister inform the House what infrastructure plans he has, especially by way of assistance to surrounding municipalities, with regard to the proposed airport?


Mr. Speaker:: I again suggest that this might be part of a statement which might be made by the minister on motions.
January 30, 1973


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. lohn Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the request of the hon. member for York South on January 19 that all rules, regulations, memoranda and directives, especially with respect to regulation 145(9), sent to Unemployment Insurance Commission field officers be tabled in the House and in view of the minister's answer, is he now prepared to do so?


An hon. Member:: He is not in the House.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


ALLEGED REQUIREMENT THAT CLAIMANTS OBTAIN SIGNED STATEMENTS FROM EMPLOYERS VISITED IN SEARCH FOR WORK
[Stage Direction]
Mr. )ohn Rodriguez (Nickel Belt): I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration of his parliamentary secretary. Is it the policy of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to require benefit claimants to obtain signed statements from employers whom they have visited in their search for work?
Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice as well.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker,


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for one last supplementary and then the hon. member for Compton.


John R. Rodriguez: If it is not the policy of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, is the minister going to investigate this practice being used in several parts of the country and is he going to issue a directive to have this harassment stopped?


MANPOWER
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
I would ask him to intervene in order to enable hon. members to be better acquainted with local initiatives projects carried out in their constituencies, which is apparently extremely difficult at the present time. I for one get my information through newspaper reports. When I ask for information on various projects, I am always told that I will get some but I never do. As Members of
Oral Questions
Parliament, we should know what is going on in our constituencies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member ask his question?


Henry P. Latulippe: Could the minister take some steps in order that we may learn what is going on in this connection?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, as of today the amount granted under the LIP program is $150,400,000. At this point, the funds are now almost exhausted. It is understandable that at the end considerable time will be taken to decide which of the remaining applications will receive grants.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration what machinery he proposes to set in motion to inform precisely each member regarding the standards of acceptance for projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the hon. member a supplementary.

The hon. member may put a supplementary question, after which I shall recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify my question, I shall ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can indicate to this House the process provided by his department to inform each member concerning what happens to the projects submitted in their ridings?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it has been the practice to inform each and every member when applications are granted. However, if the hon. member wants to know more about particular projects, I shall be glad to receive details.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.

January 30, 1973
Oral Questions
Did he receive, either from the Belgian group SYBE-TRA or from the Quebec government, any document informing him about the serious reservations of SYBE-TRA as to the conditions and responsibilities which it would assume in the building of the cardboard factory of Cabano?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There have been representations both pro and con on this matter. I ask the hon. member's indulgence so that I can take this question as notice and try to get a more complete answer for him.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State responsible for multicul-turalism. In view of the continuing demand from ethnic organizations and in view of the failure of the government to do anything meaningful about it, is the government considering amendments to the Official Languages Act which will offer a more positive guarantee of preservation of cultures and languages other than the official languages?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter of government policy which will be announced as a matter of course.


Paul Yewchuk: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, relating to the research program which the government is conducting. Does a decision to give grants to provinces for the purpose of a third language training depend on the results of the cultural development research program?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, special research is being done with regard to the retention of mother tongues. I expect the report will be ready in about six months, at which time a decision will be made as to whether it should be made public and when.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Can the
minister tell the House when the multicultural advisory board will be announced? Can he tell us the composition of the board? When does he plan to consult with the opposition on its composition? Is the minister considering appointing Lubor J. Zink as chairman of the advisory board?


Mr. Sharp:: Would that be your recommendation?


MULTICULTURALISM-STATUS OF RESEARCH PROGRAM
Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the minister

responsible for multiculturalism. In view of the fact that more than a year has passed since the government announced its proposed cultural research program, can the minister tell us why the research has not yet begun and the reason for the delay in circulating the questionnaire to the various cultural groups?


Stanley Haidasz: I will try to get
an answer to that question as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members seeking supplementaries on this subject. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I will recognize him for a supplementary, perhaps one or two others, and then return to this subject later.


Charles E. Haliburton: Would the minister make a particular effort to investigate whether the reason might be that the staff responsible to him are too few in number to make it possible for him to undertake this information gathering process?


MULTICULTURALISM-BASIS ON WHICH CHOICE OF CITIES MADE FOR RESEARCH PROGRAM
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: I should like to ask the
minister responsible for multiculturalism whether he could tell us the basis on which the choice was made of five Canadian cities for purposes of research, whether there is a possibility of this number being increased and, specifically, whether the research program will also include rural areas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has serious doubts as to the admissibility of this question. It seems to be more a matter of debate between the hon. member and the minister, and normally the hon. member should be invited to put such questions on the order paper. However, since the question has been asked the minister might be permitted to reply, if he wishes, after which we shall move on to the next subject.


FINANCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the federal government considering accepting direct applications from municipalities with respect to the winter capital projects fund announced in December?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: The arrangement we have with the provinces is that the municipalities apply to the provinces for their allocations from the fund.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the previous question concerning the winter capital projects fund. In view of the limitations placed upon the municipal capital works program, would the minister consider putting extra funds into the local
January 30, 1973

initiatives program, particularly so as to benefit communities where the unemployment rate is greater than 20 per cent and the need is considerable?


John Napier Turner: Perhaps the hon.
member would allow me to take that matter under consideration.


HOUSING
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs a question connected with the recent housing conference and having to do with the high cost of housing. Did the minister approve the permission given by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in consequence of which owners of low-cost housing apartments were able to substantially increase rents-I have in mind, for example, Bellabo Investments Limited-at a time when low and medium income group tenants are seriously struggling to make their budgets stretch to pay for necessities? Is the minister aware that as a result of this action the cost of housing for tenants was increased between 15 and 20 per cent?


Stanley Ronald Basford: believe the buildings to which the hon. member refers are not regarded as low-cost housing. They are certainly not public housing, the rent for which is determined on a rent-to-income scale. As a result of representations made to me by the Solicitor General some weeks ago, I have asked the corporation for a complete review of its rental policy for 1973 and this is under way at the present time. I have told the corporation not to announce or make any rent increases in the meantime.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister has just returned from a housing conference and there are many questions we should like to ask; I know that many other members want to ask many questions on other subjects. May I ask whether the hon. gentleman is prepared to make a statement at this time on the subject of housing, with particular reference to the housing conference, in light of the fact that Keith Morley, the new president of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, has been very critical of the housing program? Would the minister make a statement soon in the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: First reading was given today to amendments to the National Housing Act which I would hope would be proceeded with on an urgent basis. This would allow full opportunity for a debate on the floor of the House and full opportunity for questioning on the whole range of housing policy when the bill is referred to committee. I would welcome such a debate and such questions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I asked the minister whether he was prepared to make a statement. If he is, will he advise us why Mr. Fullerton, the chairman of the National Capital
Oral Questions
Commission, is now anticipating resigning, if he has not already resigned, because has clashed with the minister?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am informed by the chairman of the National Capital Commission that he is not resigning and does not intend to do so.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs let the House and the country know how many Canadian missionaries are held as prisoners of war in North Viet Nam? I mention one, Mr. Lloyd Oppel of Courtenay, British Columbia. Representations have already been made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. This missionary was taken prisoner on October 28. He was engaged solely in missionary efforts. What representations has the government made for the immediate release of these noncombatant prisoners of war?


Mitchell William Sharp: My recollection is that I replied to a question on this subject from the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister tell us what the situation is? Has the government made representations and asked that these particular prisoners be released? There is no justification for holding them.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately we have not been successful.


VIET NAM-CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT-POSSIBLE DISPATCH OF SECOND CANADIAN WARSHIP
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the role of the Canadian government in the Viet Nam affair I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the Canadian government is preparing to dispatch another vessel from the west coast to Viet Nam?


Hon. lames A. Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.


POLLUTION
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Bearing in mind the conclusions embodied in the Qu'Appelle basin study report, will the minister advise the House what steps have been taken by the government of Canada to assist in the
774

January 30, 1973
Oral Questions
implementation of the more urgent recommendations pertaining to the polluted condition of the Qu'Appelle lakes?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: The
report to which the hon. member refers was prepared jointly with the government of Saskatchewan, and remedial steps will also be a matter for discussion with the provincial administration.


James Balfour: Will the minister advise the House whether the government, jointly with the government of Saskatchewan, intends to begin construction this spring of tertiary sewage treatment plants in Regina and Moose Jaw, which cities were blamed for at least 70 per cent of the nutrients which pour into the Qu'Appelle water system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member will place this question on the order paper. If there is urgency, the subject can be debated at the time of the adjournment.


OIL SPILL, ALERT BAY, B.C.-DEPOSITING OF FUNDS BY OWNERS OF &quot;IRISH STARDUST&quot; TO COVER CLEAN-UP COST
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the following question to the Minister of Transport, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister of the Environment did not make a statement on motions this afternoon concerning the west coast oil spill. Have the owners of the Irish Stardust deposited sufficient funds to cover the estimated cost of the clean-up? If they have not, has the minister commenced proceedings to seize the vessel presently in Victoria?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I said yesterday that the master of the ship was brought into court and requested to deposit a bond of $20,000.
Now what happens is this: due to the ship's category, even if its master is responsible for the accident the latter does not, nevertheless, fall under the Canada Shipping Act. A ship commonly known as a "tanker" carrying at least 1,000 gallons of oil must be involved in order to justify legal action against the master under the Canada Shipping Act.
_


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the minister's answer, would he consider amending the Canada Shipping Act to cover such a situation?


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if he knows of a request from the citizen's committee of Biencourt?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that such a request was received, but if the hon. member will allow me to check I shall be able to give him an answer.


POLLUTION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the silence of the Minister of the Environment to a somewhat similar question concerning the Irish Stardust earlier on motions, I hope it will be in order for me to ask whether the minister will tell the House when he is planning to give us a report on the inquiry he is believed to have undertaken yesterday in Vancouver in connection with this accident?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this has been a serious spill, though it is not serious as far as the environment is concerned. Three agencies of the federal government are on the spot as well as nine vessels and they are succeeding in cleaning up. The clean-up should not be too costly so far as local residents are concerned but it will cost the Canadian taxpayer several hundreds of thousands of dollars, which we hope we can recover from the vessel owners.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the hon. gentleman in a position to answer the question I posed to him on Friday regarding the possible future of the Canadian Coastguard College?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the government to move this college to Ottawa, contrary to the rumour the hon. member has heard. It is true that we are looking for some property here in Ottawa, but this is in connection with the integration of our administrative services and not for the purpose which the hon. member heard.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his reply which is rather encouraging. Previously we always had the answer, "not at this time"; it now appears that it will not be moved-period-from Cape Breton.


Jean Marchand: Well, I cannot commit all future Liberal governments in this country.


Mr. Nielsen:: That would be rather foolhardy.

January 30, 1973


Robert Muir: My supplementary is this. Now that the minister has said the college is going to remain in Cape Breton-


John Napier Turner: Remember who put it
there too, Bob.


Robert Muir: The Minister of Finance should also realize that the Liberal government removed the naval base and destroyed 700 jobs. Now that the minister has said that the college will remain where it is for all time-period-when is he going to call tenders for the rebuilding of the library and gymnasium destroyed by fire and as yet not replaced either by his predecessor or by himself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might reply briefly to the question but we are running short of time and there are 35 members waiting for a chance to ask questions.


Robert Muir: Is the minister going to reply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should try to move on.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is a very long question. I will take time enough to obtain information in order to avoid mistakes when I answer it.
* *
*



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I said to the provinces that we should attempt to use the money already committed, and if they get that active and reach that stage then we will negotiate further funds.
* *
*



NATIONAL DEFENCE


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the wearing of green berets by our peace supervisory personnel in Viet Nam creates an additional and unnecessary hazard to them because of the likelihood that they may be mistaken for United States green berets returning to the battlefield, is the minister considering ordering these personnel to change their headgear for something less inviting to aggressive action?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the dark green beret is part of our uniform. It has been worn for the last several years by the Canadian forces who were part of the former truce commission.


George Harris Hees: You mean all three of them?


James Armstrong Richardson: All of them.


George Harris Hees: Does the minister not realize that troops in the field are not very discriminating about-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact it has been revealed that, if approximately 21,000 acres of land owned by six development corporations in and around metro Toronto were expropriated now, housing costs in terms of land costs could be cut almost in two for the next five years, would the minister consider urging the use of part of the federal funds committed for land assembly purposes to enable the provincial government of Ontario to move quickly and expropriate this land?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, part of these funds will be used in co-operation with the Ontario Housing Corporation for purposes of land assembly. Second, the best thing we can do is to pass as quickly as possible the proposals laid before the House today regarding land assembly and new communities so we can push forward with these programs.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that according to the announcement of the minister the amount of funds he intends to use for land assembly would be entirely spent if this project were embarked upon by the provincial government of Ontario, would the minister reconsider the amount that he intends to allocate to the program with a view to increasing substantially such funds?



HOUSING


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in connection with a question asked earlier. In view of the shortage of funds announced by the minister for land bank purposes, and in view of the fact that there is a prematurity about land bank arrangements in the township of Gloucester, which is in the national capital area, is the minister reconsidering the decision to invest public funds in this project, which is so far into the future in terms of present need?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. This is a joint partnership arrangement with the Ontario Housing Corporation so as to identify and assemble land in accordance with the planning study prepared by the Ottawa-Carleton regional district. I think the planners would confirm that this is the kind of long-term planning that is required within the national capital area.
776

January 30, 1973
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: Is the minister aware of the fact that the reeve of the township of Gloucester, who has special knowledge of this matter, has characterized this land as a swamp and that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is argument. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General and it arises from a letter received in the mail today by all Members of Parliament, purporting to come from the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. In view of the fact that this letter is an obvious forgery and that it contains an obscene attack on the office of the Prime Minister, would the Postmaster General inform the House what action he intends to take to eliminate this abuse of the mails?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department are studying that case and I can assure the hon. member that if legal action can be taken in that case, it will be.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked of the Postmaster General. I should like to ask him whether he will at the same time examine the letter which appeared today purporting to come from Senator Ed Lawson, directed to the Prime Minister, to determine whether that is a forgery or otherwise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WINTER GAMES, 1975-POSSIBLE SITE AT LETHBRIDGE

Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it a fact that the decision has already been made that Lethbridge will be the site for the 1975 winter games?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. I suggest respectfully to all hon. members that it is not in order to preface a question with the words "is it a fact". The hon. member is inviting the minister to confirm or deny something. In addition, the hon. member is referring to something which is to happen in 1975 and I am not sure it is urgent. Having said this and taken up much time, I will allow the minister to reply.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: May I rephrase the question?


Mr. Speaker:: For the moment I will allow the minister to reply to the first question.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, in a supplementary am I allowed to change the subject a little as long as it pertains to the same matter?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. I would suggest that the hon. member has had his chance for today. Perhaps he could try a second question tomorrow.



TAXATION


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister urged his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to provide in the forthcoming budget an exemption from capital gains tax in respect of the transfer of the family farm within the family and, if so, what was the nature of that minister's reply?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are still-how do you say it-consulting or discussing this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, is this House to assume from the reply by the Minister of Agriculture that he will resist his cabinet colleague's willingness to sacrifice the Canadian family farm to the large corporate farm conglomerate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the forecast by the United States Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, that food prices in that country would be reduced by the end of the year, will the minister be issuing his own forecast relating to the situation in Canada during the same period?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, when we make statements we like to be realistic. If we can foresee a realistic cut in food costs we will make such a statement.
January 30, 1973



AIRPORTS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Are the searches which are being conducted at airports for reasons of safety only? Can we be assured that they will not become blanket searches and that people found with items other than firearms and explosives will not be subject to other prosecutions?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of justice):: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather sweeping question. I would have to know from the hon. member whether he is putting his finger on some specific problem and, if so, I will be pleased to look into it. Searches are being made now, of course, essentially for the safety of the travelling public. If the hon. member has some specific problem, as I say, I would be glad to follow it up.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister whether we can be assured that if, for example, one is carrying items that are proscribed under other statutes, such as "porno" literature and other things-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Have you seen your campaign literature?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have a lot of time but I don't know about anybody else.


An hon. Member:: The way some guys' minds work!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure that these searches are being made for the sake of the safety of the travelling public and do not represent blanket government interference with the public as people go about their business. That is a perfectly legitimate question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well the general law of the land, that if an offence is detected that offence may be pursued. I am not sure that he is suggesting a wholesale change in the general rule that officers who have obligations should pursue them. There is no change in their general obligation.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that contingency measures have been approved and set up to meet emergencies such as oil spills, I would ask the minister how long it took his department to get adequate supplies to the oil spill area at Alert Bay in an effort to contain the recent oil spill there?
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that my colleague was in British Columbia the day before yesterday, perhaps he is in a better position to answer.


Randolph Harding: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the minister to reply to the first question, following which the hon. member may ask a supplementary.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the first supplies were at the site of the oil spill the day the spill occurred. The vessels carrying most of the equipment were there the following morning.



OIL SPILL, ALERT BAY, B.C.-PERMISSION TO VESSEL TO PROCEED TO VICTORIA

Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, did officials from the Department of Transport give permission to the Irish Stardust to proceed to Victoria, a distance of some 200 miles and, if not, what action did they take to try to stop the ship?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I presume that if the ship did proceed to Victoria, that is because she was allowed to do so.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Since the Canadian Dairy Commission has announced that Ontario producers would not be penalized this year, as far as their quota is concerned, as a result of last summer's bad weather, could the hon. minister tell us if the same will apply to Quebec producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is the same, but I will certainly check into it.



COST OF DRUGS TO LOW INCOME GROUPS-POSSIBLE DISCUSSION AT CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which is perhaps related to the supplementary the hon. member for Lethbridge wanted to ask. It also relates to questions asked by myself and the hon. member for Simcoe North. Will the minister place on the agenda for his conference next Friday the urgent situation of those

January 30, 1973
Oral Questions
Canadians of all ages who are not quite eligible for any kind of social assistance, federal or provincial, but who have very small fixed incomes and are obliged to buy very expensive drugs just to remain alive?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the meeting next Friday will be a rather limited one. Obviously, we will be considering the economic condition of old age people in general and I am pretty sure this matter will be raised during those discussions.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the collapse early in 1971 of the $4 million North American market for swordfish, which has caused financial hardship for our fishermen who are quickly becoming an endangered species, has the minister taken any steps to assist swordfishermen in establishing export sales either to Europe or Japan where there are markets for this product?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have contacted the governments of those countries and we are assured that swordfish caught off the east coast would be acceptable to those countries.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's reply, what steps is he taking at the present time to re-establish this very necessary fishery in Atlantic Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, together with the government of Nova Scotia we have helped these fishermen either to convert to other fisheries or, hopefully, to continue in this fishery. But until they or the industry can develop markets there is not much point in investing more money in new vessels and new gear.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West for a last question before calling orders of the day.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister in a position to give us a status report on the progress being made in the bilateral air talks between Canada and the United States and, in particular, has there been any change in the priorities accorded by the Canadian negotiating delegation as to cities on the Prairies such as Edmonton and Calgary?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these talks are continuing. There is considerable difficulty and the negotiations are very tough, but I can reassure the hon. gentleman that there is no change in the importance we attach to improved services for both Calgary and Edmonton.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think all hon. members regretted to hear outside the House that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may be away from this place longer than anticipated. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate who will be assuming his responsibilities and answering for him in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take exception to the hon. member's point of order. Obviously it is not a point of order but a question asked after the expiry of the question period. If the House will allow the hon. member to ask his question and the Prime Minister to reply, certainly I have no objection. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister, unfortunately, will be away for some more days; I am not sure how many. His very excellent parliamentary secretary has been here every day just yearning to answer questions. The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo will be happy to answer any questions that might be put to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta rising on a point of order?



AIRPORTS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works yesterday said that he would be tabling the report on the Lancaster expropriation hearings at Vancouver. I am wondering when he is going to table that report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the House ever arrives at the position at which points of order serve as a means of asking additional questions, as a few hon. members have been doing today, I think we will reach a difficult situation. The hon. member's point clearly is not a point of order. However, I certainly do not want to be difficult. If
January 30, 1973

there is consent, the minister may reply to the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, a quick reply is, tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, January 29, 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. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in rising on the third day of the present debate, I repeat the concern of many hon. members who think that we should not take so much of the time of the House in discussing this matter, particularly when there are important pending questions involving economic, social and welfare fields with which we must be deal. The government has not seen fit to bring these matters forward at the earliest possible moment. I hope there might be some disposition, perhaps later this day, to extend the sitting time on this debate in order that we might wind up the second reading stage and get on with other important matters that we have indicated previously we should like to see dealt with as a matter of priority.
One of the difficulties in this third series of debates in recent years on the question of capital punishment stems from the fact that the basis for debate has shifted to a substantial degree. I suggest we are no longer debating so much the abolition or partial abolition of capital punishment as the question of restoring capital punishment. Perhaps the distinction seems subtle. On reading the speeches made in the past two days of debate, one will note the suggestion implicitly or explicitly, that capital punishment to all intents and purposes has been abolished in this country. Factually that may be correct, although the statute providing for the death penalty is still in existence. If this bill passes, the death penalty will be retained for certain offences. However, I submit that the practice of the government over the past ten years has made it virtually impossible, except in very unusual circumstances, for capital punishment to be restored.
Personally, I am most disappointed at being forced once more to debate the question of partial abolition. As I said last night, this position satisfies no one. I believe we would be on much stronger ground if the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) had brought forward a straightforward measure asking for the total abolition of capital punishment. I think in that way we might have brought some legislative
Capital Punishment
resolution to this problem which would be more satisfactory than the solution we are likely to arrive at after the present series of debates has finished. Presumably, this question is to be studied in committee. I do not think that in this sort of debate we can really come to the heart of the problem.
In arguing for an extension of the present situation the Solicitor General suggested that, primarily, we do not have enough information. That argument has often been made in other cases and could be made in the present case. I think it will always be made. Certainly, in the next 10 or 20 years, or in the foreseeable future, there will not be available to us that kind of factual and convincing information that will convince all members of this House and of the general public that capital punishment either should or should not be abolished. The consideration of this question involves too many subjective elements. I do not think that Statistics Canada or the occasional social scientist can provide us with the kind of factual information that will clear away those doubts. We must accept this situation when considering capital punishment and remember that, certainly according to present practice, capital punishment has been abolished in this country. What we are really trying to do is formulate a law that will agree with the present practice.
From time to time people have questioned the government's right, legally or morally, to continue the practice of commuting death sentences. Not many doubt seriously that this activity will continue, or that it should. I presume that some segment of public opinion will argue that we should bring back the death penalty and give it effect. I hope in a few minutes to deal with the underlying causes for those requests for the return of capital punishment. I do not think such requests relate to increases in the murder rate. They reflect more a sense of apprehension, a sense of fear, if you like, and the knowledge, as one hon. member said last night, that the increasing wave of crime must be dealt with.
What are we talking about when we talk about this increasing wave of crime? No one has been specific. Are people talking about the rapidly rising cost of meat available at supermarkets? Are they talking of Bell Telephone's application for an increase in telephone rates, or about landlords who gouge tenants with rapidly rising rents? Or, are they talking about corporate welfare bums, to use the slogan the NDP leader used in his campaign, and their contribution to some unspecified kind of bureaucratic crime? Nobody has been specific as to what is meant by this wave of crime and wave of permissiveness that has engulfed society.
I feel that the question of capital punishment can be studied in an enlightened manner. There are areas of crime, too, which can be studied. Those areas are not to be mentioned facetiously, in the way I mentioned other so-called areas just now. For example, we know that during the past few years each and every year 5,000 Canadians have been killed on our highways. Over half these people have been killed directly or indirectly as a result of drunken driving. Drunk drivers are those who have reached the state of intoxication in which they cannot control their vehicle. These drunken drivers have driven on the high-

January 30, 1973
Capital Punishment
way and killed themselves or other innocent drivers or passengers who happened to be on those highways.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge not one Canadian has ever been executed because he has been convicted on a murder charge arising out of drunken driving. Indeed, not only have we not executed any of these people who have killed their fellow citizens while under the influence of alcohol but many of them, after very moderate penalties, have gone on to drive and drink again. If we are concerned about the incidence of situations of this kind when thousands of our fellow citizens are being killed and maimed annually, maybe we should use the very obvious deterrent values some people argue for in connection with capital punishment to deal directly with a very real problem, that of the increase in deaths on the highways directly or indirectly caused by the abuse of alcohol.
Of course no one has seriously argued for that in this chamber, nor is anyone likely to do so.


An hon. Member:: You are the first one, David.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am the first one, as my colleague suggests, and I am not really suggesting it, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think it would be acceptable in any way, shape or form to the general public, nor would it be workable in any court of law.
There are a lot of things in terms of the wave of crime and the general permissiveness of society that have not been thoroughly looked at or analysed. If we are concerned about the increasing amount of violence in society, let us look at the roots of violence itself. Anyone who has spent any amount of time working with people who have run afoul of the law, whether in our courts or penitentiaries, has come away with the feeling that he has encountered a very sorry group of people. In most cases, these people come from homes that are almost non-existent or, to the extent that they are existent, are a very harmful influence on the individual. They come from backgrounds that would be recognized as producing these people who are emotionally, physically and socially deprived.
In our penitentiaries we are dealing with individuals who have not been able to cope with society for one reason or another, and who have often become distraught and desperate individuals. Perhaps nowhere is this more clear than in the latest preoccupation of our society with the very difficult offence of skyjacking. We are now beginning to get some clear feedback on the people involved in skyjacking activities. It is interesting to contemplate how our society is going to deal with people who hijack aircraft and take both planes and passengers on desperate journeys that indeed may end in death both for the skyjackers and some of the passengers. We are now finding that these people are the very last people in the world against whom we should consider invoking the death penalty, not because, as somebody might rush to suggest, they do not deserve it but simply because it would not be in the best interests of solving the very problem we are trying to resolve.
Here I quote a Dallas pyschiatrist, David Hubbard, who perhaps has examined, more exhaustively than any other

doctor, the individual make-up of skyjackers. In a recent interview on the CTV television network he said:
-one of the common threats of skyjackers as a group is their interest in suicide, only they don't want to shoot themselves; they want to manoeuvre society into the position where society will kill them. Then, they are not guilty of the sin of suicide, and they can go ahead and rise to heaven. So we give them a death, offer them the image, at any rate, of a death penalty.
What Dr. Hubbard is suggesting is that by instituting the suggestion of using the death penalty we, in effect, make it more difficult for us to deal with these often insane individuals. They are one example, one extreme group, of people with whom we are trying to deal in tackling the growing wave of crime.
How are we going to deal with people who are suffering internal, and often external persecution, who have become disoriented from society, filled with hostility and hate, and acting out of emotional passion that bears no relationship to their true status in society and to society's recognition of them? The escape of capital punishment, that they expect, will not in any way deter them. For them, it will almost be a release.
As I said a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, statistically speaking there is no final answer. In New Zealand, which is an interesting analogy for us in Canada, the death penalty was abolished just prior to World War II. Shortly thereafter the murder rate began to increase sharply. It peaked in the 1940's, and then decreased. A careful review of world statistics will show that the increase in the murder rate in New Zealand was commensurate with the general increase throughout the world, and that Canada's murder rate paralleled that of our sister dominion, New Zealand. It is, therefore, not by statistics that we will make any final decision on this question, but rather by trying to root out the causes for increased crime, increased lawlessness, and the growing evidence of harmful permissiveness in our society.
I detect as well the influence of the media in exposing us, not just on a daily but on an hourly basis, to crimes of base violence. I am not attributing any blame or sensationalism to the media, although perhaps that should be looked at in some more exhaustive context. But it is obvious when some bizarre act of violence occurs, such as took place recently in New Orleans, or some other sadistic act occurs, we have the facilities to see it now almost as it happens, in living colour, in our own homes. And when one is exposed to an event of this nature, although it may be happening 4,000 miles away in a city of one million, two million or 10 million people, and one sees it in one's living room, one may well think that it might be happening down the street on which we live, even though the most violent thing that happened to one on that street in the last ten years was to be hit on the back of the head with a snowball. Because we are so exposed to the mass media, we have to develop a new sense of sophistication, a new sense of detachment, particularly when we are exposed, in living colour, to the latest violent events that occur. If we do not develop that kind of tolerance and sophistication we may become almost crazed in our response.
If we are going to deal with the real roots and causes of violence, and with the real violence that exists in our society, we must be concerned with the over-all impact of violence rather than just the occasional but more limited
January 30, 1973

question of whether or not capital punishment, in terms of those who commit capital crimes, should apply. I think if we look at that question to any great degree we will have to come to the firm conclusion that we have not very effectively provided protection for society or rehabilitation for the offenders.
It is a shocking statistic that more than two-thirds of the people presently serving time in federal institutions, at great expense to the taxpayers, after their release will shortly commit further crimes and serve more time in those institutions. That is not good enough. It is not good enough in terms of society's protection, and it is not good enough in terms of the rehabilitation of the individual. Even on a very narrow basis, it is not good enough in terms of the millions of dollars spent annually to maintain those institutions. The difficulty has been that every reform and every change has occurred without sufficient understanding by or sufficient explanation to, the general public, and without those explanations and understandings it has been most difficult for society to understand and to accept possible improvements in our whole penal service.
Before us today, in addition to this partial abolition, there is the suggestion that we should think seriously about imposing a mandatory sentence of something like 25 years, and that no person convicted of the crimes suggested in Bill C-2 would be released before the end of that time. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that suggestion has any particular merit. Presumably the appeal in it is that there are people being released after such offences, and before 25 years have passed, who should not be released. To the extent that that is happening, Mr. Speaker, we must reject it. Indeed, we have to look at a situation in which no individual can be released into society without the likelihood of him being a responsible and law-abiding citizen. It is not just a question of a 25 year sentence because that may, in fact, be counterproductive. I think many officials who work with prisoners will tell you that in the life span of most men who spend time in institutions, there are times when they may be capable of being reformed and other times when they are not. To fix some kind of arbitrary figure would seem to me to destroy the very basis upon which, hopefully, our whole penal system is built.
I have on the order paper now a notice of motion, No. 27, which I would like the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and the government to consider very seriously. I should like the minister to indicate at some point whether this particular notice of motion, or one similar to it, might be acted upon in this session of parliament. My motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce a measure to establish a parliamentary committee to investigate all aspects of crime and its treatment in Canada, which should have specific terms of reference to closely examine (a) the subject of crime prevention and the work of the correctional consultation centre of the Solicitor General's department (b) the subject of punishment-its deterrent value and relevance to the rehabilitative process-with particular attention to capital punishment, by collecting factual information and holding public hearings (c) the correctional process, including the penitentiary and parole systems.
Capital Punishment
My purpose in suggesting this motion is that I think a fundamental requirement in dealing with the issue we are debating today, and the underlying questions related to it in terms of crime and punishment, is that we should have a well-educated public and a well informed House of Commons. I think the danger is that most of us tend to react to particularly violent events or perhaps news stories of one kind or another or, perhaps even more damaging, public opinion polls which really have little basis in fact.
Some people have already quoted the recent Weekend magazine poll. What value can a poll have when it sets out its case by showing a picture of a large noose with a ballot in the centre saying, "Which way will you vote?" I presume that poll was conducted everywhere except federal institutions but regardless of where it was conducted, out of subscribers numbering over two million, about 30,000 responded. I would not regard that response either as a fair sampling of public opinion or of the question being put.
I say, too, that the public has not been well informed from this point of view. There has grown a very large gulf between the leadership of known institutions, such as the various religious bodies, and those members of the general public who belong to the various churches. I have here a statement made by the Canadian Catholic Conference, the administrative body of the Roman Catholic church in Canada which reads in part:
We consider it an illegitimate use of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, to quote texts in order to argue, in our time, for the retention of the death penalty. Each biblical text supporting the death penalty must be studied in the light of its historical context, and not simply applied to present day Canada.
It goes on:
The question of the death penalty, in our opinion, ought not to focus on whether a convicted murderer, no matter how wanton, deserves to die. The focus should be on us: Should Canadians, as a community, try to break the escalating spiral of violence by refraining from violence even as a deterrent?
Mr. Speaker, I support the strong stand of the Canadian Catholic Conference and the other motions which have come from other major church bodies in this country urging that we totally abolish capital punishment. I would say that they also have a role to play in talking to their constituents, in exploring at greater length the underlying causes of this growing violence and the extent to which there may be indications of the real causes as well as the extent to which we are pursuing problems rather than solutions. It is important that we have committees similar to the ones I have outlined here. It is possible, when this bill gets into committee, that we will have the opportunity to examine other questions beyond the narrow one of the bill that the minister has introduced.
For my part, I would be strongly inclined, either at committee or report stage, to move an amendment to totally abolish capital punishment. I think we need to put that question to the test in the House now. I think it is becoming very farcical that we must come back here on a regular basis to partially abolish something that we had abolished over a decade ago.

January 30, 1973
Capital Punishment


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, the highly controversial subject of the bill has been thoroughly and strongly discussed, and those who have dealt with it expressed contradictory opinions.
When this bill and its amendments will be put to the vote, each hon. member will have to assume his responsibilities as this will be a free vote even if there are some who maintain that is not so.
First, it is important to place the debate in its general present-day setting. We must at any cost break away from old and outdated notions of capital punishment, and resolutely place ourselves in the perspectives throwing light on the problem as it appears to us now.
It is imperative first to relinquish the old principles of retaliation, of payment of evil by evil, of retributive punishment. Ideas, morals as well as the need of the criminal policy have progressed with time.
It is therefore with a spirit adapted to the circumstances of our era that we should deal with the problem.
Therefore, it is not pointless to say that Canadian criminal law has achieved a great deal of progress in this matter. Should we not point out the effects of the 1961 legislation in this field? Capital punishment has since been abolished in the case of several kinds of murder. It remains applicable for capital murder. Even then the jury may, if they deem it justifiable, recommend clemency or pity. Furthermore, the 1961 act calls for an automatic review of cases by an appeal tribunal, especially in matters of law, proper proceedings and facts, and entitles the convicted person to appeal to the Supreme Court. Whether the murderer is rich or poor, his case can be brought before the highest court in the land without prior authorization.
Finally, no one under the age of 18 can be sentenced to death since 1961. It may be said that Canadian criminal law has been humanized in this field and that in practice capital punishment is meted out only for especially despicable crimes. As a result, the number of death sentences has decreased considerably since 1961. On looking over statistics given by the Department of Justice in the booklet on capital punishment, it may be seen that from 1961 to 1965, 34 persons were sentenced to death by Canadian courts which is an average of seven annually. From 1968 to 1972, six individuals were sentenced to death as a result of a five-year suspension of death penalty, except for the murder of police officers or prison guards.
Between 1920 and 1959, the average varied between 18 and 15.5 per year, while the Canadian population was less than at present.
In addition, as it can be noted, I only mentioned the convictions and not the executions, the number of which was still lower. As evidence, from 1962 to this day, there has been no execution.
This parenthesis on statistics enables us to conclude that today the death penalty is only imposed in Canada in unusual circumstances. We must therefore discuss the matter in realistic terms.
Surely the concept and finality of the death penalty has been altered. It is no longer a matter of punishing the criminal without regard for his rehabilitation, solely to serve as a terrifying example to his fellow-citizens. No matter how much opinions may vary on capital punishment, we all agree that whenever possible the delinquent must cease to be a menace to society through reform and not through his elimination, pure and simple. Whenever circumstances allow, the criminal must be reeducated and returned to society as a sociable member capable of coping with it, of being useful to it.
This having been said, the fact remains that some criminals cannot be changed, rehabilitated nor recuperated socially; they will always be a danger to the community.
It is from this point of view of real danger, of real necessity, that we must envisage capital punishment, that is, a radical end to the threat the criminal represents.
In this day and age, capital punishment must no longer be considered as the "supreme vengeance", but as a means of defence, an extreme means of protecting society. This then becomes a problem of "social protection" through the prevention of crime and, if need be, through the elimination of beings that are essentially antisocial and a constant menace to their fellow human beings.
Those who favour the abolition of the death penalty invoke many arguments, but I shall consider only a few.
First of all, some abolitionists claim that the state does not have the right to remove a citizen's life. Of course, this debate deals not only with the political concepts one may have about the state, but also with everyone's religious concepts.
Without going into a philosophical debate, let us say that in Canada nothing deprives the federal government of that power. According to the Constitution, criminal law falls within federal jurisdiction and, according to British North America Act section 91, parliament has the required authority to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada.
Thus, the government not only has the power but also the duty to see to publish welfare and to this end it should take all necessary steps to ensure the security of all citizens and to protect the life of innocent people.
A study of the problem in the context of the protection of society and the defence of the community shows that it is hardly possible to contest the state's right to definite elimination of dangerous individuals who are beyond rehabilitation.
In the case of some particularly heinous criminal, is it not the duty of the state to take all steps-the most radical, if required-to protect the rest of society and particularly the personnel of prisons and the other inmates? It is to spare the lives of penitentiary staff, of citizens in general and perhaps of certain members of the community, for instance, in case the criminal should escape, that the state must, in certain circumstances, eliminate an individual who is a constant menace to society.
Is it not this very duty of the state to protect public welfare, the security of the country, which leads to the outbreak of some wars?
(Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).J
January 30, 1973

How can we deny the state the right to take the life of a dangerous criminal while it has the right to demand of its citizens any sacrifice required for the survival of the community and the defence of the country?
The state can force soldiers to expose their lives to save their country. But why could it not resort to capital punishment in the same interest?
The duty to inflict death in certain cases does not run counter to morals anymore than the necessity to kill in times of war or in cases of self-defence. As a matter of fact, it is the self-defence of society and the protection of its components.
Second, Mr. Speaker, some abolitionists believe that capital punishment does not deter anybody from committing crime or has a weak effect of deterrence and that life imprisonment is as efficient.
In our society, Mr. Speaker, people feel differently as to whether capital punishment deters murderers. I do not think one can resort to statistics to support one's thesis whether for or against.
Statistics are subject to various interpretations; they are dubious. It is almost impossible to set a useful comparison between countries because of the differences in the legal definitions of crimes, practices of the public department and courts, methods used to gather crime statistics, moral and behavioural standards and, finally, political, economic and social conditions.
Those are data which cannot be assessed validly. Certainly, a rigid application of the death penalty does not prevent the commission of premeditated murders. The authors rely on their cunning to avoid either the police or being condemned due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, they take so many precautions not to be uncovered. Caught in the act they kill the policemen trying to apprehend them. In the case of criminal procedures they do not hesitate to assassinate witnesses who would have them condemned. This shows that they are frightened by the idea of capital punishment. In fact, all penalties are exemplary. If we do not leave our cars along a curb where parking is prohibited it is because we are afraid of being ticketed. If the object of all penalties is to deter the delinquent-and they succeed to a large extent-by what miracle could the death penalty, which is the most rigorous of all, fail its purpose?
Perhaps it is difficult to establish the relationship between capital punishment and criminality; however, the idea of this extreme penalty remains certainly narrowly tied to certain savage and horrible crimes. This notion of the seriousness of the penalty has doubtless remained rooted in minds for generations and common sense tells us that no other risk than that of losing one's life could deter man from the criminal intent of committing murder.
Furthermore, the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Capital Punishment stated in its report of 1956, and I quote:
They considered that it was particularly effective in deterring professional criminals from carrying weapons and committing crimes of violence. In addition, it was contended that abolition would endanger police because a criminal seeking to avoid arrest would have much less fear, of the consequences of the use of firearms or violence.
Capital Punishment
No doubt you will be told that it did not prevent police assassination, it happened recently in Toronto. But, in fact, the death penalty has not existed in Canada since 1962, the year the last death sentences were carried out.
My third argument relates to the execution of an innocent resulting from a judicial error which could entail capital punishment. The probability exists but it is far-remote and questionable. One cannot speak of conclusive cases, for it does not suffice to accuse oneself of a crime for which another person has been punished to conclude that the latter is innocent.
This was seen in Quebec with the Coffin case. If Simpson had died by assassination or by accident before retracting his confession we know how the abolitionists would have used this. Nobody would have dared express the slightest doubts on Coffin's innocence. In spite of this retractation are there not people who keep on believing in his innocence?
In connection with an eventual error this is what the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on capital punishment had to day on June 27, 1956 as recorded at section 60 page 60 of the white paper on capital punishment, and I quote:
Considerable emphasis was put on the risk of irrevocable error in capital convictions. The fact that there was no known Canadian instance of the execution of an innocent person indicated the effectiveness of present procedures by way of trial and executive review and this suggests that the risk of error does not present a reasonable argument for abolition in Canada.
Even when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out in 1966 that judicial errors did happen he mentioned the United States and England but not one case in Canada.
The alleged error can only take place in the accomplishment, by society, of a duty strongly demanded by the common good. Since this duty cannot be accomplished by individuals or social groups, there is no other choice for the public authority. I think law enforcement in Canada, as far as murder is concerned, does have the necessary safeguards for preventing an innocent from being put to death.
If this bill is passed by Parliament this will mean that we would extend for five years the law which was in force from December 29, 1967 to December 29, 1972. Several reasons are raised and, among others, that a longer period would provide further statistics.
Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that many people would like to see capital punishment abolished for ever, a greater number still are ready to accept it. This, of course stands from the aversion of the public for murder, "the crime of crimes". Traditionally the public has always associated capital punishment with this particular form of crime.
The abolition of any punishment held to be fair, efficient preventive, can only be recommended where it is clearly demonstrated that in the opinion of the ordinary citizen the punishment has not been really operative. Experience has shown that the abolition of capital punishment, at the time when the public at large is firmly in

January 30, 1973
Capital Punishment
favour of it, can create confusion and doubt with ensuing harmful repercussions on the administration of justice.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when the state has so much to do in its fight against crime, the accent should be put on protecting society rather than the criminal. There are reasons to believe that capital punishment can be a deterrent factor against armed robbery, and to abolish it at this time could only be interpreted by the masses of law breakers as a signal to engage in other criminal acts.
So, Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons I have stated, on second reading I will vote against Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, with regards to capital punishment, and vote for maintaining the law as it now stands.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the fact that the debate is to be continued for some time I would not have addressed the House on this subject having done so on two previous occasions.
I do not intend to repeat the arguments I raised in the two debates of 1966 and 1971. But I intend to place before the House the views of one who has had some experience with capital cases, not only from the point of view of the defence in court but also as prime minister-one who has had the ultimate responsibility, when a sentence of death has to be carried out, for signing the death warrant. Nothing gave me greater remorse than having to do this, and take the life of a fellow human being. That experience, I can tell hon. members this afternoon, equals the awfulness of having acted for an accused who was totally innocent, who was found guilty by a jury with a recommendation to mercy, and who was denied that mercy by the governor in council.
I do not know in how many cases I appeared for the defence but in writing down a list this morning, I arrived at 17 names from my recollection. Two of my clients went to the gallows; the others were acquitted. One of those individuals had his own views as to how the case should be conducted. I made it a point never to put the accused on the stand in murder cases because jurors did not hold it against an accused if he did not give evidence. Indeed, it was not until about 1900 that an accused in a murder case could take the stand and give evidence. I found that in cross-examination one could bring out the necessary facts upon which to build a defence, and I also ascertained by personal experience that when the death penalty was known to be the one to be exacted, jurors were very slow to convict. If there were any extenuating circumstances at all, the jury invariably found the accused not guilty. When there was any doubt at all, even doubt which had been conjured up, jurors tended to acquit.
This has been the history of capital cases for 300 years. When in earlier days not only were some offenders hung, but others were drawn and quartered, and others were disembowelled while they still lived, having been hanging for five or ten minutes, and allowed to see their bowels consumed by fire. Jurors would not convict. The result was that whereas in about 1800 there were some 200 different varieties of cases in which the death penalty could be imposed, with the passing years, jurors, repre-

senting the conscience of their nation invariably refused to convict.
I do not want to be repetitious but I told this story several years ago about a great grandfather of mine in York County. In the early 19th century executions were carried out in public. A lad of 17 was to be hung. The awful offence he had committed was pickpocketing. This was only 135 years ago. On the appointed day they gathered from all over the countryside. It was a day of celebration. Whisky was 90 cents a gallon. Everyone had a happy time. The lad mounted the gallows and following the custom made a speech to the assembled multitude pointing out that the wages of sin are death. And while he was awaiting execution, and while the execution was being proceeded with, four of the onlookers had their pockets picked. This gives one some idea of the deterrent value of capital punishment!
While I have not heard all the speeches made in this debate, I have been much impressed by the quality of those which have come to my notice. I must say to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) that since he assumed office as Solicitor General I have a great deal more hope that his department will be well-administered. I think his speech was one which deserved the widest circulation. It was the clear expression of a viewpoint which deserves the fullest consideration.
What I intend to do is simply to discuss some of the aspects of capital punishment and then place before this House the unusual anomaly, as I see it, created in consequence of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Furman case. Their bill of rights having the same wording as the Canadian Bill of Rights, the judgment of that court will certainly receive serious consideration when the Canadian Bill of Rights is subject to interpretation on the question of murder, whether it be soon or later.
Last night I was thinking over this matter and decided to send a request this morning for the judgments of the United States Supreme Court. How many hon. members have actually studied those judgments? There has been a casual reference to them. I find, however, since the book containing the judgments is in the Library, that I am the first person to examine them. I will return to this in a moment because I think the judgment of that court has brought about, as a result of the arguments mobilized by the five judges, a state of mind among those in the judiciary and at the bar which may result in Canada putting an end to capital punishment.
I told the House a moment ago that there is nothing more trying for a Prime Minister than to sign the warrant of death. It worried me. It was my signature that sent the last two to the gallows in December of 1962. We in the cabinet at that time followed the course of examining in detail the evidence in the case as well as the recommendations not only of the Solicitor General but of the law officers of the Crown. Almost the first day after I became Prime Minister a capital punishment case came before the cabinet with a recommendation for mercy attached. The law officers said, as did the judge, that the sentence should be carried out. I made myself perfectly clear that I
January 30, 1973

felt that as long as I sat in the cabinet a recommendation for mercy would receive the full consideration and support of the cabinet in so far as determining whether or not there were extenuating circumstances.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, when the evidence was clear the law was carried out. If the law is wrong it must be changed by parliament, not by a cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: If you were to ask me why I felt so strongly about recommendations for mercy, I would say that, speaking from memory, I think there were 38 convictions with recommendations for mercy between 1930 and 1957 which were followed by execution.
Why was there a recommendation? In those days the jury was not allowed to know that they could make a recommendation for mercy. It meant that there was division. Finally, as the jury deliberated, the decision was arrived at in this way: "Well, I will go with you on a verdict of guilty provided you join a recommendation for mercy".
Let me go back to 1885 and the trial of Louis Riel. I have read all of the evidence in that case. Louis Riel appeared to have a perfect defence, that of being not guilty by reason of insanity. He had the best lawyers who could be procured for the defence, Lemieux and Greenshields, both of whom afterwards became chief justices in the province of Quebec. He received a recommendation for mercy.
I have often wondered how different the history of our country would have been if the decision made by the cabinet that I had the honour to be Prime Minister of had been carried out in his case. He carried an appeal forward to the Privy Council and it was based on whether or not stipendiary magistrate Richardson had properly charged the jury on the M'Naghten rules. The Privy Council held that it was a proper charge.
I mention that in passing, but I begin with the proposition: no execution where there is a recommendation for mercy. If it were otherwise, juries would say that they conclude there is no purpose in recommending mercy and, regardless of the evidence, if there were any doubt they would acquit. That is all very fine when you are appearing for the defence, but I am not saying that it always leads to justice, even though I was one who always endeavoured to defend those who were innocent.
Let me tell the House about one of the greatest lawyers for the defence that Britain ever produced, Sir Norman Birkett. My hon. friend from Toronto who spoke yesterday was present on the occasion when I introduced Sir Norman Birkett, who afterwards became Lord Chief Justice. He had a tremendous personality. In introducing him I went a little farther than I should and said that he was the greatest defender of murderers in all British history. He resented that; he said it was a frightful statement to make. He defended 49 people who had been charged with murder and none had been convicted, he was not quite right; he had forgotten the first one.
There is no equality among individuals who are charged with murder. For example, you do not hear of many wealthy men going to the gallows. The hon. member for
Capital Punishment
Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) made some mention this afternoon of social background and the like. I had my own feelings about this at the bar. Although only five per cent of my practice dealt with criminal cases, I made a rule early on that however poor a person was, in the British tradition I would defend him and go through to the Supreme Court if necessary, regardless of fee. That is the only way that justice can be assured. Because if justice has to be bought by securing outstanding counsel, then one of the most serious elements in capital punishment will have been achieved, namely that it is much easier for a wealthy man to go through an open gate than it is for a poor man.
May I mention another matter, Mr. Speaker? This is a free vote, but what does that mean? It means that each one of us according to his or her conscience will determine the course. But there is something wrong with this so-called debate, for the first principle is that the Cabinet shall say what it believes on a free vote. That is a prerequisite. Who speaks for the government over there?
Oh, no! The hon. gentleman points to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). He speaks for himself but not for the entire cabinet, unless the hon. gentleman is able to tell me that what the Solicitor General says represents the viewpoint of the Cabinet and the Cabinet will vote as the Solicitor General votes. Have I that assurance? The answer is silence from the gentleman.
I say that the constitutional principle is that the government must state its view. Let me quote from what happened in the United Kingdom in 1956 when the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, stated:
Her Majesty's Government are clearly and unequivocally of the view that capital punishment must be retained. I endorse fully today what my right hon. and gallant friend the Home Secretary has said in another place about the dangers of this bill. However, I have said that this will be a free vote and I do not withdraw from that statement in any way. The government do not expect or wish that any noble lord should speak or vote against this bill out of a sense of loyalty to the government and least of all from party feeling. At the same time no government with any sense of responsibility could abstain from expressing their view on such an important matter.
We do not have that. Where are they and where do they stand? What is their view? Whatever their stand is they should stand together. That is the principle of constitutional government. Why is that not being followed?
My next point is this. An hon. member asked me a few moments ago in private conversation whether I believed that a member should vote regardless of any consideration other than his conscience, and my answer was no. Some hon. members say they are going to vote for this bill to retain a form of selective capital punishment although they, in their hearts, believe it is wrong. Surely, mankind had an example of that with Pontius Pilate. How can you take a stand in your heart in favour of something and then vote the other way? On a free vote everyone should let his conscience be his guide. I used to say to juries: In the panoply of this place, surrounded by something entirely new to you, I do not want you to agree with the view I express because I am prejudiced in favour of the accused. I am not on the jury and my learned friend the Crown prosecutor is not on the jury either. Then, I would

January 30, 1973
Capital Punishment
always say: His Lordship is not on the jury either. There are not 13 members of the jury. Some judges did not like that.
Each one of you in this House has the conscientious responsibility of voting according to your conscience and for no other reason. Somebody will say that his constituents feel otherwise. I have never been able to find out what my constituents thought, except in a general way. I know that even the government was fooled on October 30. Whenever I have taken a stand that my constituents did not believe in, they never held it against me. Constituents have never held this against any other member that I know of, providing the stand being taken was a conscientious one.
Some members are in a quandary to know what to do because they have had petitions. I do not know whether you have had anything to do with petitions, but I suggest you can get people to sign anything. One of the finest examples of this took place in Madison, Wisconsin, about 15 years ago when members of a university decided they would find out what form of petition they could get signed. They put in the petition that they opposed everything in the Bill of Rights including "a", "b", "c", "d", and "e", and they got 3,000 signers on streets. People will sign any kind of petition.
Do you vote according to a petition? I am not going to repeat what has already been said, but the greatest lesson was ever given on parliamentary government and what members should do was given in that famous speech of 1774 by Edmund Burke. I will quote only a few lines, but it is well worth sending to the library to get the whole thing. He said:
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the more unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention.
He went on to state:
But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you-to any man, or to any set of men living.
That is the essence of being a Member of Parliament. The electors do not send Members of Parliament here to be delegates. They do not send them here for the purpose of being automatons. They send them here as Members of Parliament because they believe in general that the individual in question is of mature judgment and able to form appropriate conclusions.
One Prime Minister was once asked what his idea of leadership was, and he said that if you compare the electorate to sheep and there are two gates in the corral and you want them to go out one gate but they do not go that way but go through the other gate, you get ahead of them because you are their leader. That is not the kind of representation that makes for good parliament or the great institution of parliament. I am not going to labour that any further.
Why is there this feeling among people concerning the high degree of law breaking in this nation, in the United States and in the United Kingdom? Why is it that in 1970 the number of criminal offences in Canada amounted to 1,103,504 and with a population of 22 million in 1971 it

amounted to 1,186,252? In other words, about 5 per cent of the Canadian population has been committing offences, not against the vehicles act, federal statutes, other than the criminal code, or against provincial laws, but actual criminal offences. Why is there this permissiveness? Is there any danger today for a person committing a crime in this country?
It was my government that set up the parole board and I should be the last to criticize any of its activities. But, Sir, the parole board ought not to be a freedom board for individuals who have been convicted of serious offences.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) yesterday evening mentioned the case of a kidnapper in Calgary. He was sentenced for the offence. Within a few months he was out, according to the hon. member's information, for five days a week attending university. He spent two nights a week in custody and five days a week in university. That kind of education ought not to be continued in this country. Let me also give you the example of the five Toronto men who, on November 8, 1969, were given sentences of between 10 and 15 years for the $200,000 ransom kidnapping of Mrs. Nelles of Toronto. All pleaded guilty, except the policeman who was sentenced subsequently. The sentences were 10 years, 10 years, 12 years, 12 years, 12 years, and 15 years. How long did those men stay in prison? They were there just long enough to understand where they could hang their hats in their respective cells. They are all out. The time served by two of them was 20 months, and two years by the others.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: No wonder kidnapping has become a favourite sport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: As for the ringleader, he received 15 years. He was, given seven temporary leaves, totalling 42 days that began on January 16, 1971, after he had served 13 months. I am informed that as of January 3, 1972, he has worked at a ski resort, spending one night a week in custody.


An hon. Member:: He does not want to leave.


John George Diefenbaker: Never was crime more highly
honoured. I could give other examples, but I must get on with what I have to say.
It is said that when a person is executed his execution acts as a deterrent. Well, why not hang people in public? Let the people join in and see. The form of execution has changed over the years. In Anglo-Saxon England, the punishment was boiling in oil. They changed that because oil was too costly. Hanging was introduced. Women were drowned because if they were hanged they would indecently expose their feet. Somebody mentioned the other day that William the Conqueror was the first abolitionist, and he was. He was opposed to the death penalty; he did not believe in it. He substituted mutilation of prisoners
January 30, 1973

and the cutting off of arms, legs, and ears. He said as long as the trunk remains the individual would be alive as a witness to his crimes. Coming down to more recent times, in the reign of Henry VIII, 72,000 were hanged for theft. Elizabeth I of beloved memory said, in the name of humanity a change must be made. You should not hang people in chains unless they are strangled beforehand and she quoted scripture to support that stand. Then, they burned people at the stake for the commonest offence. This went on in some parts until the nineteenth century.
How many of you realize that Canada is one of the few countries that actually had no capital punishment for a long period of time? In Upper and Lower Canada after the revolution of 1837, because of the frightening use of capital punishment for a period of 20 years, there was no exaction of the penalty; yet there was no material increase in murder. I will not go into the other fancy forms of punishment, such as branding. Two hundred offences for which one could be executed existed up to 1815. What I am leading to is this, sir: The time has passed by when the idea of vengeance any longer has any place in our society. By all means protect society; assure that security that each of us is entitled to, but do it in a way that will not cause death.
It is my opinion that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) has merit and is worthy of consideration. Today, a man who commits murder knows that there is no danger of execution, no matter whom he kills. Even if he kills police officers, an offence for which we have retained the death penalty, he will be given a reprieve, no matter whether there is a recommendation for mercy or not. When the present legislation went before the House I opposed it on the basis that it calls for selective capital punishment. 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. I opposed the system of selective condemnation for murder as an expedient that would not work, and it has not worked.
>


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Those who bear the responsibility in large measure are ministers who, having induced parliament to accept this expedient, themselves failed to carry out the law which they asked should be enacted. When you do that there is a revolt in the hearts of the public. They ask, where are we going? There is crime on every hand, not only in this country, but in the United States and in the United Kingdom. What should we do? I think there should be safeguards. First and foremost, the individual who has committed crime should not be let out of prison until a reasonable portion of his term has been completed. Imagine letting people out after they have served 15 months for kidnapping. It is a wonder the authorities do not also give a bonus, a reward to that individual when he gets out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Capital Punishment


John George Diefenbaker: It is ridiculous, preposterous and the responsibility does not rest on this side of the House. What is being done denies respect for the law. I do not need to mention that great gentleman, Geoffroy. Now, there was a man. He killed his wife in a most brutal manner; but, not thinking she was going to die, he set her on fire. He did this in order to marry-no-in order to gain the love of a most attractive lady. Then, two years later he applied to the solicitor general, not the present minister but the former minister. He said, "You don't know how worried I am. I have two children and they need a mother. My father and mother are no longer able to look after them." Well, Mr. Speaker, the father was dead 20 years before, and the mother had also passed away earlier.
The Solicitor General's department said, "This is a touching situation." So they let Geoffroy out to get married, and he had as his witness one who was sentenced to two years for his participation in the Rivard case. Incidentally, he is practising law again. And away he went. That is the kind of thing that undermines the administration of justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: We have the recent example of Head in British Columbia. Incidentally, British Columbia has the highest murder rate, next to Alberta.


An hon. Member:: A Tory province.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) will look into that because he is an authority, a fine counsel with a distinguished record. I just mention the fact that those two provinces enjoy a particular record. This man Head committed the most abnormal offence against youngsters and was sentenced to penitentiary. He was a vicious person. But they let him out because, after all, we have got to display that heart-fullness that seems characteristic today! Reform-yes, Mr. Speaker, but do not let dangerous criminals out to wander about. Now he has been convicted again.
I don't say I have changed. I have the same view I always had that the murderer, the person who commits premeditated murder, the sex murderer, the person who commits a murder while committing another crime must not be released for 20 years. Let the criminal element of Canada know that, and you won't have to worry about deterrence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Some ask: should we ever let them out? I say yes, but there is no deterrence in knowing that you are out in a few years after a despicable murder.
The next argument you hear is that we must protect police officials and custodial officers. Well, professor Sellin has been quoted a number of times. He made a survey of a large number of states in the United States to ascertain whether the existence of the death penalty made any difference in the number of criminals prepared to use lethai weapons against the police. He took all the cities in the six abolitionist states, and the number of attacks was

January 30, 1973
Capital Punishment
1.2 fatal attacks per 100,000 of the population. In the 11 death penalty states the rate was 1.3 per 100,000. Statistics can prove anything.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He may continue with unanimous consent of the House, and this has been given.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, I come to another phase. I don't know how many of you have studied the judgment in the Furman case, given by the Supreme court of the United States. It is a long judgment, and was rendered on June 29 last. The case before the Supreme Court involved three men, one who had committed a horrible murder, and two who had committed frightful rape. They appealed, and they contended that under the Bill of Rights of the United States the death penalty could no longer be imposed.
The Supreme Court judges heard the appeal, and the basis for quashing the sentence of death in each of the cases was the interpretation given by the majority of the court to the expression in the U.S. Bill of Rights which decrees that "cruel and unusual punishment" shall not be imposed. The wording in the American Bill of Rights is almost identical with that in the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Canadian Bill of Rights provides:
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment of infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to ... impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment-
At once the argument was raised in the Supreme Court that hanging, electrocution, or death in the gas chamber was a practice that had been followed for long years. The question was asked: how could it be a cruel and unusual punishment? I cannot read the judgments of the judges at length, but I ask hon. members to read them because they have a message for Canada. Mr. Justice White used these words:
To arrive at the conclusion that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment-
That is the amendment to the U.S. constitution which states that cruel and unusual punishment shall not be imposed.
-we have had to engage in a long and tedious journey. The amount of information which we have assembled and sorted is enormous. Yet, X firmly believe that we have not deviated in the slightest from the principles with which we began.
The next words are very significant because they apply to our country as well.
At a time in our history when the streets of the nation's cities inspire fear and despair, rather than pride and hope, it is difficult to maintain objectivity and concern for our fellow citizens. But the measure of a country's greatness is its ability to maintain compassion in time of crisis. No nation in the recorded history of man has a greater tradition of revering justice and fair treatment for all its citizens in times of turmoil, confusion, and tension than ours. This
is a country which stands tallest in troubled times, a country that clings to fundamental principles, cherishes its constitutional heritage, and rejects simple solutions that compromise the values which lie at the roots of our democratic system.
Naturally, I don't say that I accept that description of the United States. It is more in keeping with a description of the United Kingdom, the giver and the fountain of common law which today is part of the history of the United States. Then, there follow these words:
In striking down capital punishment, this Court does not malign our system of government. On the contrary, it pays homage to it. Only in a free society could right triumph in difficult times, and could civilization record its magnificent advancement.
In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the highest tribute. We achieve "a major milestone in the long road up from barbarism" and join the approximately 70 other jurisdictions in the world which celebrate their regard for civilization and humanity by shunning capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there, in summary, is the position of the free world and our own nation today.
The same judge says, later:
There is but one conclusion that can be drawn from all of this- i.e., the death penalty is an excessive and unnecessary punishment which violates the eighth amendment. The statistical evidence is not convincing beyond all doubt, but it is persuasive. It is not improper at this point to take judicial notice of the fact that for more than 200 years men have laboured to demonstrate that capital punishment serves no purpose that life imprisonment could not serve equally as well. And they have done so with great success. Little if any evidence has been adduced to prove the contrary. The point has now been reached at which deference to the legislatures is tantamount to abdication of our judicial roles as factfinders, judges, and ultimate arbiters of the constitution. We know that at some point the presumption of constitutionality accorded legislative acts gives way to a realistic assessment of those acts ... We have this evidence before us now. There is no rational basis for concluding that capital punishment is not excessive. It therefore violates the eighth amendment.
When I read that some members say the deterrent value is tremendous I wonder whether they have studied the report that was produced by the United Nations committee which was representative of all the nations of the United Nations at the time. That committee studied capital punishment and found as follows:
... it is generally agreed between the retentionists and abolitionists, whatever their opinions about the validity of comparative studies of deterrence, that the data which now exist show no correlation between the existence of capital punishment and lower rates of capital crime.
Now, what does Sellin say? The following is quoted in one of the judgments in this case:
Sellin's statistics demonstrate that there is no correlation between the murder rate and the presence or absence of the capital sanction. He compares states that have similar characteristics and finds that irrespective of their position on capital punishment, they have similar murder rates. In the New England States, for example, there is no correlation between executions and homicide rates. The same is true for mid-western states and for all others studied. Both the United Nations and Great Britain have acknowledged the validity of Sellin's statistics.
This is a judge who served ten years in the criminal courts, and then as a judge particularly concerned with criminal malters. At another point in the judgment he said:

January 30, 1973

While the contrary position has been argued, it is my firm opinion that the death penalty is a more severe sanction than life imprisonment. Admittedly, there are some persons who would rather die than languish in prison for a lifetime. But, whether or not they should be able to choose death as an alternative is a far different question from that presented here-i.e., whether the state can impose death as a punishment. Death is irrevocable; life imprisonment is not. Death, of course, makes rehabilitation impossible; life imprisonment does not. In short, death has always been viewed as the ultimate sanction,
Another judge says:
... I can do no more than state a conclusion based on ten years of almost daily exposure to the facts and circumstances of hundreds and hundreds of federal and state criminal cases involving crimes for which death is the authorized penalty. That conclusion, as I have said, is that the death penalty is exacted with great infrequency even for the most atrocious crimes and that there is no meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which it is imposed from the many cases in which it is not.
Then, Mr. Justice Marshall, one of the great jurists in the United States concurs, saying:
Candor compels me to confess that I am not oblivious to the fact that this is truly a case of life and death. Hanging in the balance are not only the lives of these three petitioners, but those of the almost 600 other condemned men and women in this country currently awaiting execution. While this fact cannot affect our ultimate decicision, it necessitates that the decision be free from any possibility of error.
Mr. Speaker, I could read further from this judgment but I see that private members' hour approaches. I have tried to place this matter before the House, but not in an emotional way. Our Bill of Rights, which I brought in, was ridiculed all over this country by lower court judges and some professors. Today, as a result of the Drybones case, it is superior to every law passed in this country since 1967. I spent a lifetime getting it and I spent another nine years being ridiculed until the Supreme Court of Canada spoke.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The wording of our Bill of Rights was put through the crucible of a committee of all parties which contributed greatly to its wording. We have the same wording in our Bill of Rights that the United States has in the eighth amendment to its Bill of Rights, namely, that there cannot be cruel and unusual punishment against anyone. While the Supreme Court of Canada is not in any way bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, I should like to be the counsel who would argue the case there, having behind me the prestige, the power and the greatness of a decision by the United States Supreme Court.
I conclude, Sir, by suggesting that because of this judgment to which no reference has been made, except a passing one, that the question of whether this parliament, in view of the Bill of Rights, has the power to impose the death penalty should be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide once and for all. Then, this country would know where it stands, whether there is a right to impose capital punishment. Then we would be able to determine whether we can have a kind of qualified capital punishment that is neither fish, fowl nor anything else.
The government must tell this House where it stands. The government House leader is a man who always makes himself clear when he so desires. I should like to
The Railway Act
hear him say where the government stands on a matter in respect of which the practice of the government of Canada has been a denial of the equality of Canadians, a denial of the principle that there shall be no discrimination in the punishments that are meted out.


Mr. MacEachen:: I rise on a point of order to advise the House that it has been agreed as a result of inter-party consultation, that we will interrupt this debate for a short time at eight o'clock tonight in order to deal with the Pilotage Act which we hope can pass through the House in all its stages in a very short time. When this is done we hope to return to this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40, to advise the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Housing-Purchase of land to establish land banks; the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)-Canada Evidence Act-Suggested amendment to compel spouses to testify in child-beating cases; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Manpower-On-the-job training program- reasons for lack of applications.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton) moved: that Bill C-ll, to amend the Railway Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Westmor-land-Kent (Mr. Leblanc).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas).

January 30, 1973
The Railway Act


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent looked surprised when you called him.
In introducing this bill, I am well aware of the usual fate of private members' public bills, especially those introduced by opposition members. They are usually discussed at length for the full hour. More often than not, speakers from the government benches express their approval of the principles of the bill, but then proceed to talk it out and refuse to allow a vote to be taken. I realize that this is probably an integral part of our procedure. It is the government's responsibility to initiate legislation in the first instance. I suppose the corollary of this is that it is also the government's position that they should not accept suggestions from the opposition. However, how many times do we hear government members chide us for being critical, but not constructive? Yet, when we do propose, they invariably oppose.
Surely, there are certain areas which should be nonpolitical. Surely, there are areas involving the public interest which can be discussed on a non-partisan basis and surely the whole question of the safety of public transportation, whether it be by land, sea or air, is so vital that it should be open to complete and frank scrutiny. This bill, through minor amendments to the Railway Act, would go a long way toward lifting much of the secrecy which surrounds the increasing number of accidents on our Canadian railways. The bill proposes to make an amendment which would alter only one word in section 226(1) of the Railway Act. The present section reads "The Commission may appoint". This bill would change the word "may" to "shall". In other words, it would make the commission's responsibility in this regard mandatory instead of permissive, as at present.
The section of the Railway Act which would be amended by this bill implies a duty upon the Canadian Transport Commission, not only to investigate accidents after they have happened, but to investigate railway running conditions and operating conditions with the object of preventing accidents. This section of the act places this duty on the commission. The commission should not wait for an accident to happen. If there is a deterioration of running equipment, of a road bed, or if the railways are not carrying out proper inspections and safety procedures, the CTC should step in and see that these conditions are corrected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Humbert Thomas: In my dealings with the CTC, I found that there was a continual contest between the CTC, the public and the railways. The CTC absolved itself of any responsibility by saying that under the act they do not have to investigate these cases. My bill attempts to correct this situation which exists today. It is very detrimental to the public interest, to those who use the railways and must be very disturbing to those who operate them.
After an inquiry has been made by the commission, under the present act, there is no compulsion to make the result public. Bill C-ll would amend section 226(2) by adding a clause which would force the commission to make available to the public the results of all inquiries

they have made into running conditions, safety conditions, road conditions as well as inquiries into accidents that have occurred. This, briefly, is the gist of what my bill proposes to do.
In case there is any question as to why I consider the whole matter of railway safety important, I wish to quote from some authorities. I quote from page 8 of The Third Annual Report of the Canadian Transport Commission 1969:
There have been many technological advances in the railway industry during the last decade, leading to greater operational efficiency, but these have created new safety problems. The increase in efficiency has not been matched by any significant decline in accident rates.
You can project that statement and say that if there has been no decline, then there obviously must have been an increase. I now wish to quote from the Fourth Annual Report of the Canadian Transport Commission 1970, page 9:
In its 1969 report the commission referred to the safety problems being created by technological advances in the railway industry. It indicated a special program had been started to identify such problems and determine methods of solving them.
During the first half of 1970 the commission became concerned by the increase in the number of accidents on the railways.
The report goes on to state that, as a result, a special inquiry was conducted into certain accidents in Quebec and was later expanded to deal generally with railway maintenance and operation practices:
"and all matters and things likely to cause or prevent railway derailments and collisions between trains."
The report was completed and made public. A service to Canadians was performed by making the details of the report public.
The second investigation referred to is the Jones Report, the report which Mr. D. H. Jones, the Chairman of the Railway Transport Committee, was commissioned to undertake. This report was presented last year. While it was quite thorough, frankly, along with many other members of parliament I was disappointed with many of its conclusions. I do not think it solved anything. In fact, it simply delayed a final solution by suggesting that a tripartite committee be set up to carry out further investigation. So, the report did not solve anything. Nevertheless, that is not the crux of my position. My position is that, regardless of the recommendations in this report, there has been no change in the situation. The public is still not being made aware of what is going on in railway operations. No attempt has been made to open up this area to the public or to explain what is causing these accidents.
I do not pretend that this bill of mine is original. In the last parliament, the then member for Moose Jaw introduced a somewhat similar measure. His went further than mine does; he would have placed more onus on the railway operating people to make reports. But the purpose of the bill was the same-to lift some of the secrecy attaching to railway operating conditions and railway accidents. That bill received a sympathetic hearing. All the members who spoke on it said they were strongly in favour of the principle and that we would be doing a public service by allowing the public access to reports on running condi-
January 30,1973

tions and causes of accidents. But like all private bills this one, too, was talked out and nothing happened.
One would have hoped that following the initiative taken by the hon. member, somewhere along the line the government itself would have introduced legislation to have improved the situation, especially in view of the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission has openly admitted that the present situation is unsatisfactory. But instead of the situation being any clearer than it was previously, the public, today, is completely at sea. We hear stories about accidents being caused as a result of defective maintenance of the running bed, because the size of inspection crews has been cut down in the interest of economy, and so on. We hear stories of accidents being caused by faulty equipment, machinery which has not been properly inspected. All these things are disturbing to the public. The situation must be a frustrating one for the railways, too, because much of the blame for these accidents is being placed at the door of the companies. I believe it is in the interests of both the public and of the railways that investigations should be made and that the results of the investigations should be made public.
In the debate on the bill introduced by the former member for Moose Jaw, mention was made of privileged communications between the companies, their employees and others. I admit that some of this correspondence may be privileged, but I do not think we ought to sweep everything under the rug, saying it is not in the interests of the public that this information should be divulged. This is not the attitude taken toward other modes of transportation. In the case of air transport, for instance, accidents are inquired into and details are made public. The public is informed, for example, whether an accident has been caused by pilot error or by equipment failure. Everything is divulged. The same thing happens if there is a tragedy at sea. I cannot see why a distinction should be made in this area between rail travel and other forms of travel.
The United States has adopted a policy which is much more in the public interest. Under the United States transportation act of 1966, which was passed at about the same time as our own transportation act, a transportation safety board was set up. The sole purpose of this board, as I understand it, is to investigate causes of accidents and to make reports so that the public may know what has happened. Contrast this with the situation in Canada. It is true the CTC has power to make inquiries, but I defy any member here to get the results-to get any details of those inquiries. I have attended several committee meetings at which the Chairman of the CTC, on top-ranking officials of that body, have been present. Just try to pry out of these men details of what happened in a particular accident. One committee member, in frustration last year, said it was like trying to nail jelly to a wall. All you get is a discussion of legalities. Under the law, they say, we are only charged with doing so much. You gentlemen are Members of Parliament. You know the law. Why ask as? I say that we, as Members of Parliament, are entitled to know what is going on.
Railway transportation is a mode of transport subsidized directly by the Canadian people. We are shareholders. We are users. We have a right to know that the railways are being operated in such a way that the safety
The Railway Act
of those who use the lines is secured. Under the present system the only chance we have of getting information from the CTC is to question officials when they are here before the committee. Even then, instead of straight answers we get fencing and dancing and dodging. Either those officials do not want to answer, or they do not have the answers ready. I recommend that the House let this bill go to a committee where members would have an opportunity to investigate all aspects of railway safety and come up with workable solutions to protect the interests of the public.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) for having brought this bill to the attention of all Members of Parliament. I support this attempt to get the railways of this country, whether publicly or privately owned, to disclose details of accidents which occur on the railway system. Though we shall undoubtedly hear speeches from across the way to the effect that there is considerable merit in what the hon. member proposes with respect to public disclosure of circumstances surrounding accidents on railways, there will be less readiness to take the necessary action to have the bill sent to committee. I believe all members over there, including the minister in charge of urban affairs, should allow the bill to pass and go to committee, so that instead of merely talking about the situation we could get things done.
I am sure the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) is aware that, since the election, parliament has emerged as a far more significant body than it was last year when initiative rested entirely in the hands of the cabinet. In these circumstances, it should be far more responsive to the desires of individual members.
The hon. member for Moncton has introduced a bill which, in my view, is of considerable importance and I wish to deal with it, if I may, from the point of view of one who comes from the Prairies. In my area of Assiniboia, if you drive between the two major urban centres-if I may call them that-from the city of Weyburn to the town of Assiniboia, you can cross six railroad crossings. There was a series of accidents on these crossings last summer. These accidents were of real significance to the question of area transportation. One accident happened in the middle of the night when a pair of individuals driving a truck were hit by a train. Apparently these two were not used to the particular highway and were unaware of the peculiar way in which the rail lines crossed the highway, which was at a certain angle that made it almost impossible to see the train. That was a major accident. In addition, we have had at least two derailments in that area.
I suspect that if there were some kind of public disclosure made of the cause of derailments in the Assiniboia area, you would find the railway companies were not maintaining to the required standard the beddings and the track. You would find that the cause of the accidents was that the railroads had not lived up to their responsibility in a part of the country from which they have drawn considerable revenue from the land they obtained when the railroad was put through, from the mineral rights in the area, and from many other sources. The tracks in that

January 30, 1973
The Railway Act
area are not up to the standard required for moving grain, and railroaders should not have to work on them.
My father worked the rails, as did my grandfather and many others in Saskatchewan and on the Prairies. They can tell you all about travelling on those lines. Public disclosure of the causes of accidents would be one way to gain information that would enable us to improve the lines and the service on those lines. In this way, those who work on the lines would be provided with some element of safety. These railroaders can tell you all about their attempts to book off because they did not want to travel those lines.
During the election campaign I did some travelling between two towns in my area. I remember watching, with a constituent of mine a train going over the tracks and seeing the movement of the tracks. They were moving as much as eight to ten inches as the train went over them. I contend that, in the event of an accident on that track, there should be public disclosure of the condition of the track. I and the people of Assiniboia know why the railroad is leaving the track in such a condition. It is because there are 605 miles of track they want to abandon in that area. However, that is not the subject of this particular debate.
I believe the hon. member's private bill is a very good one and that we should accept it, knowing full well its significance. There have been some tragic accidents on railway crossings. There was one in Quebec, I believe it was, involving a group of young people, some of whom were killed and others injured when their bus was hit by a train. There are other examples in my area where people in cars have been hit by trains at railway crossings as have people in trucks. This underlines the fact that there is a real need for reform in the area of public safety on the railroads, and that action ought to be taken by the Canadian Transport Commission. The first action that should be taken is that the chairman should be fired. Then, we could go on from there and bring in some measures relating to public safety.
At certain times of the day in my constituency it is absolutely impossible to tell whether a train is coming along the tracks or not, and I have to cross these tracks all too often. The safest drivers who cross the tracks are bus drivers who bring their vehicles to a halt. Other people are insane if they go over the crossings at 10 or 15 miles an hour.
Many constituents have written to me about the threat posed by boxcars or flatcars going along the tracks. For example, at crossings there are no warning signals. If flatcars are moving along the track at night, then you cannot pick them out with your headlights when you come to a crossing, and as a result many accidents are caused. This is why the question of public safety is of great importance. I suggest one of the first moves to improve public safety would be to pass this private member's bill thus enabling public disclosure to be made of railroad accidents.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, when I stood up a couple of weeks ago to make my maiden speech I referred to that strip of the country known as the green belt, or mid-Canada. I talked about the great dis-

tances we travel across the country and I spoke briefly about the way in which the railroads are failing us. Canada is a country that is tremendously dependent upon the railroads. There are two major railroads in this country which in my opinion, really do not want to run a railroad at all. Let me qualify that. One railroad, the CPR, has no interest in running a railroad, in my opinion. The other railroad, the CNR, plays a secondary role. But fundamentally neither is interested in running a railroad in this country in any modern sense.
There is a debate raging throughout the country about whether or not there should be a pipeline down the Mackenzie to satisfy the demand for oil and gas. Some hon. members have suggested that the railroads should look at ways in which they can contribute to the development of a new kind of ground transportation to compliment this kind of activity. But the railroads are just not interested. If a similar opportunity were offered to some other industry, it would be eager to grab it. There has been talk about developing an alternate means of ground transportation to the building of the new airport at Pickering. Where are the aggressive railroads who should seize this opportunity and develop ground transportation as the alternative? I believe we are approaching a major crisis in terms of growth and demand for energy, and that the railroads of this country will have to play a role.
I have lived in northwest Ontario for many years, in the town of Rainy River, which was a railroad town. I saw what happened to the people of that community when overnight the railroads decided to pull out-not completely but just about. They turned to diesel power and laid off 100 people, which practically wiped out any real estate values in that community.
The relationship that exists between the railroads and their employees is one that just cannot be imagined. I have heard railroaders say: "We don't work for the railroad but for the union; how the roads run, we just don't know". Employees who have worked for 35 years for the -CNR in one case, and who have worked 42 years for the CPR in another case, have found a carbon copy of a letter on their desks stating that they had been laid off effective the day before. The people who live in the north country and in the greenbelt are dependent upon the railroads, yet the railroads take these arbitrary decisions. It is enough to make the people in that area lose faith in Canada and make them wonder whether we are interested in solving our problems.
Early in December the CPR announced that they were going to lay off 22 operators between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg, and that in their place service centres would be set up. Apparently the CTC agreed to this. We have had some experience with the service centre at Thunder Bay. I have pictures of the service centre in the old city of Port Arthur, which I will show hon. members if they want to see them. These pictures show plaster falling off the ceilings, washrooms in dirty condition and so on. Those are the so-called service centres. These 22 men are going to be laid off. It is said they will be picked up in some other area, but somewhere along the line somebody will be bumped.
January 30, 1973

The name of the game, as far as the railroads are concerned, is subsidy. They go to the CTC, which allows them to lay these people off and run the railroads and services by using Zenith numbers, and so on. But the people are not going to ride these railroads. A year from now they will be back before the CTC saying the business is not there and they need bigger subsidies. The name of the game is not running a railroad, it is getting subsidies.
I support in general the implications of this bill because railroad safety is a subject that has bothered us a great deal. I have not the exact figures with me this afternoon, but I would suggest in the last 10 or 15 years the number of section men has been reduced to about 20 per cent or 25 per cent of what it used to be.
Last year, between April 20 and June 1, there were ten serious accidents on the railroad in the area between Thunder Bay and Sioux Lookout, and east, alone. On April 20 there was a derailment at Sunstrum with two lives lost and eight persons injured. I do not have the exact dates, but there was a derailment at Kelly, on the Sioux Lookout line, with 23 cars derailed and 11 persons sent to hospital. There was a derailment at Parmachenne, east of Thunder Bay, with a damaged bridge. There was a derailment at Jelly, seven miles west of the Neebing yards. There was a derailment near Shabaqua, 43 miles west of Neebing. There was a derailment between Garda and Arrita, about 30 miles west of Neebing. There was a derailment between mileage 78 and 79 on the Fort Frances subdivision.
There were also three bridges damaged, a washout near Griff on the Sioux Lookout line and a bridge damaged at mileage 20.8 on the Sioux Lookout line. There was a bridge damaged by fire west of Quetico, at mileage 109.6. There was another bridge accident subsequent to this which caused a great deal of damage, but the railway company has not cleaned up the pollution which resulted. These ten separate accidents happened between April 20 and June 1. In the north country we are now approaching the spring thaw, at which time washouts and accidents occur.
I am please^ to have an opportunity to speak on this matter because it is time we warned the railroads that we will be watching for accidents that may occur. I hope in our area there is not a repetition of what happened last year. Many of the employees are disturbed about this situation and fear for their lives.
Let me conclude by saying that an aggressive and concerned railway industry is vital to Canada, Canadian unity, progress and, in days of growing energy shortages, probably to Canadian survival. This industry must be vitally concerned with its responsibilities for the safety and the welfare of employees. If the management of the railways, particularly the CPR, does not want to assume responsibility, perhaps it is time parliament saw to it that management of these companies in Canada is put in other hands.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in support of the hon. member's private bill. As hon. members who have been here for some time are aware, every year Members of Parliament
The Railway Act
in all parties raise this and other issues concerning various aspects of our railroad system. Every year in this House and before the transport committee the same issues are raised. The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas), who has been here longer than me, can probably vouch for this. In spite of that fact, nothing seems to be done. I am getting sick and tired of government members saying the same things, with the same result. It is time for us to quit talking a good fight.
The whole matter of making public the results of inquiries into rail mishaps has been aired time and again in this House. The former member for Moose Jaw, Mr. Skoberg, raised this issue repeatedly. I have a file of press releases, correspondence with the Canadian Transport Commission, railway union officials and officials of the railways all concerning the safety of operation. Any amendment to Canadian railway legislation which will do something about this and other matters will be welcomed. I suggest it is long overdue as far as we in this group are concerned. We must do a lot more to restore public confidence in the safety of rail transportation. This mode of transportation usually has the best safety record, but confidence is disappearing.
I suspect that many of those who have worked on the railroads since I left will tell you that many accidents can be attributed to a decrease in the number of train inspectors, car inspectors and track maintenance personnel. I do not understand how a track can be properly inspected by a crew driving in a truck along a highway parallel to the track. No one can convince me that this is proper track inspection or maintenance, but both companies have been getting away with this practice for a number of years. The rate of railway mishaps, I suggest, has increased in almost direct proportion to the decrease in the number of maintenance personnel.
I can never understand why the results of inquiries into rail mishaps are not made public. I can only assume it is because of fear. I recall the tragedy of the crash of a DC-8 aircraft in Toronto a couple of years ago. The report of that inquiry was made public and every member of this House received a copy. This report even gave in detail the last conversations of the aircrew with the control tower before the crash. Every detail of that inquiry was made public, but nobody was looking for revenge or anything else; no one was looking for a scapegoat.
The public needs and has the right to know the results of these inquiries. Surely this applies to rail transportation just as it applies to air traffic. The hon. member for Moncton and others, including the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), have been making efforts in this area for a number of years. I imagine we will be members of the transport committee again during this parliament, and I suggest that we get together to find more effective ways, as we have in respect of other issues, to get results.
If government members choose to talk out this bill we can take the matter up again before the transport committee. But it would be nice if the House gave this bill second reading and referred it to the committee; we could then deal with it when we meet with officials of the Canadian National system and study their annual report. This would provide an occasion which we have not had for a

January 30,1973
The Railway Act
good many years to question the officials of the Canadian Pacific. Too often CNR officials are the only ones required to appear before a committee of this House. The CPR, which I submit has an even worse record, never has to come before the committee and give an accounting of the discharge of its responsibilities to the public under the Railway Act.
It would be nice if this bill were to be given second reading in a few minutes. I hope the hon. member for London East will agree. There would be no problem in reading this bill the second time. It may not go beyond that stage because the government may want to amend the Railway Act; and God bless it if it does! It would be useful from the standpoint of the work of the transport committee if this bill were given second reading now. We could then deal with it and meet with officials of the Canadian National Railways; officials of the CPR could also appear. Let us pass the bill; this measure is long overdue.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) who is a good friend of mine and is the sponsor of Bill C-ll, an act to amend the Railway Act. I think his bill should be placed on the statute books of this country.
Prior to my election in 1968 I was a CNR railway engineer, a head end man. Between 1941 and 1968, 27 years, I worked in that capacity. For the first ten years I worked as a fireman and for the next 17 as an engineer running yard, freight and passenger trains in southwestern Ontario.
Railways conduct their own investigations, as does the CTC. In the case of crossing accidents a "slow" order is placed on the crossing where a person has been killed until the accident has been investigated by a CTC investigator. I think statistics will show that most of the people killed by a moving train at a crossing lived within 25 miles of the crossing. They knew it was there and perhaps crossed it every day on their way to and from work.
The adage stop, look and listen means nothing to some people. Wigwags and flashers mean nothing. To some, flagmen mean nothing. I know of flagmen who have been run down by motorists at crossings. And let us remember the number of people who are killed in automobiles through running into trains stopped at crossings. Some drivers will even race a train to the crossing, and when they beat it they will turn around and thumb their nose at you. For many months I ran a train between London and Windsor. One fellow used to haul fruit and vegetables to the Windsor market. He played this game with us for about five weeks. Then one morning at a quarter to five we nailed him, and that was it.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the railways are trying out a new system for the care and maintenance of railway equipment and track. Five men used to look after approximately ten miles of track; today they look after 30 miles of track and others operate as part of a gang that works out of a bus. Many of these employees who are personal friends of mine will tell you that even if they had the

supplies necessary for looking after all the track, it would be impossible to do so because there are no longer enough men to work on the track.
I believe that railway accidents ought to be investigated by the railways and by the CTC. Quite definitely, a public statement ought to be made on such accidents. Many dangerous situations, if brought to the public's attention, could be eliminated. I certainly agree with and support the hon. member for Moncton.


Mr. loseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-ll is a good measure.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Come on, Joe, sit down.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) should be highly commended for presenting it to this House. Further, he should be given full credit, whether the bill is accepted this evening or at a later date, for making the suggestions it contains to the House. I should like to bring one matter to the attention of the House, and I will be brief.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Good. Sit down.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The matter is now being investigated by the general inquiry into safety which has been in progress for well over a year. Certain parts of the report have been released from time to time and are in the domain of public disclosure. As I said a while ago, the entire report is nearly ready and the final report ought to come out soon. Although I support the bill, I sincerely think it might be useful if this measure were delayed slightly. It might be useful if we waited to see what the final report says. The report on the inquiry into safety will be disclosed to the public.
There has been an increasing trend when dealing with particularly important accidents to make public the reports of investigations. This is being done more and more, and I think the hon. member's bill is certainly a step in the right direction. For example, although I do not have the details regarding the Belledune accident near Moncton, the inquiry was finalized last week and a report will soon be made public.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-ll, an Act to Amend the Railway Act, which has been brought in by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) considering that for these past few years the issue of security on our railways has become more important than ever, especially in the Province of Quebec with the many derailments that occurred in the months of November and December, 1972, and January, 1973.
The bill now before us proposes the appointment of one or many persons competent to inquire into the causes and circumstances of railway accidents in order to prevent other accidents. The bill also calls for a report to be made public in such cases.
Mr. Speaker, we should examine this bill carefully and also we should dismiss the idea that it has been introduced by a back-bencher. The proposal is very interest-
January 30, 1973

ing, as the hon. member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Guay) said, and the government should take it into consideration. No activity is free of danger and we shall never manage to prevent all accidents. Still, we can reduce their seriousness to a minimum in every field.
Mr. Speaker, I have visited Canada from east to west in the trains of our two railway companies and, despite some of their problems, I admit that they serve the people adequately and that the railroaders are familiar with then-routes. The railwaymen who are manning trains in the Rockies are to be congratulated since they work in very dangerous places. However, very few accidents are reported in the canyons of the Rockies where landslides are rather frequent.
A few years ago, we still had steam engines which could haul 50-odd cars. However, through the years, we have succeeded in building diesel engines which are more powerful and which nowadays can pull up to 150 cars.
It remains to be seen whether the technology of security has progressed at the same rate as the design of these powerful machines. As some of my colleagues will point out the railway companies have perhaps not brought comparable improvements to the security of railroads and passengers.
When we talk with diesel engineers who have to take those huge trains throughout the country, they agree with us that there are some dangers. They tell us that it is almost impossible to stop a train when they see an obstacle on the tracks.
The Canadian Transport Commission conducts regular studies in this field and an inquiry is now under way on security conditions of our railways. I congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) as well as the Chairman of the Transport Commission on their prompt inquiries into the causes of major accidents which occurred on our railways during the past few years.
Mr. Speaker, it should now be pointed out in this House that 10 years ago there were some forty crossings on the railroad between Matapedia and Gaspe, all of which, thanks to the co-operation of the Canadian Transport Commission and the government of the province of Quebec, are to be eliminated from Highway 6 which girdles the Gaspe Peninsula within the next three years.
Such improvements to the highway network will certainly facilitate traffic and the people of the Gaspe peninsula and their visitors will greatly enjoy driving along a highway free of railway crossings.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I shall say that there is always room for improvement in the field of railway security and I urge the House to adopt Bill 11 now before us.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I greatly regret not having been able to be in this House when the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) stated his case for the bill. Unfortunately, I had to remain at my office; I should have been most pleased to hear his comments.
Be it as it may, the subject matter of his bill interests me considerably, not to say that it fascinates me in a way,
The Railway Act
because since my election here in 1968 I have done the utmost to clarify all sorts of answers from the heads of various Canadian railway companies concerning accidents, number of passengers who use their lines and so on.
I even felt discouraged on occasion because every time I asked a question, they found all sorts of reasons for not answering. I have the feeling that it is not so much the minister responsible who answers in the House, for instance, regarding the railway companies, as the companies themselves which get together in order to withhold the vital information required by hon. members in the ordinary course of their duties.
The bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with the necessity to make inquiry reports public. I think that this is the essential aspect of the bill. About that matter, I have as have many other members very interesting experiences to relate to the House.
For example, I inquired, in the first session of the 28th Parliament, when a passenger service was established, in 1967, between Sydney-Halifax and Montreal via Edmund-ston, about the number of passengers from Edmundston, Moncton and other localities in the Maritime provinces. I quote that fact as an example only; the then Minister of Transport, the hon. Paul Hellyer, gave the following answer:
The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: It has not been the practice nor is it considered in the best interests of the Company to disclose information of a nature which would be of value to its competitors.
I had asked very specific questions about statistics relating to railway accidents, particularly in the province of New Brunswick. Of course, I am proud that it is a member from New Brunswick, the hon. member for Moncton who thought of introducing this bill. Some unjustified arguments, in my opinion, were also given to me in this regard to refuse to divulge information which I asked for as a member of parliament.
Mr Speaker, to allow members of parliament to do a good job for their constituents and the province they represent in this House-the Atlantic region as far as we are concerned-it is absolutely necessary that railway companies co-operate with us to a larger extent, when required, through the Canadian Transport Commission.
I think that much could be said about the inquiry process itself, which is too long, in my opinion, and I do not believe that problems which exist in this area will be solved by appointing a person responsible for investigations and obliging him to make public the result of these investigations, which are always endless. As a matter of fact, by the time the information is made public, quite often we will no longer need the information we asked for.
At all events, we must support this bill, but if it is not passed today there will be no reason to shed tears. The hon. member who took the floor on behalf of the New Democratic Party said that we should act according to our own convictions. It seems to me that the subject matter of this bill could very well be discussed in committee with the representatives of the Canadian Transport Commission when they will be called upon to appear before the committee on Transport and Communications, as well as with the CN authorities, and the Parliamentary

January 30, 1973
Pilotage Act
Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay) stated a while ago that the commission was not only studying but, if I understood him right, actually taking steps to meet the objective stated in this bill.
So although this bill is essentially honest and pursues an objective entirely commendable and desirable it seems to me according to the information given to us by the parliamentary secretary that it comes somewhat too late.
But the introduction of a bill is always, particularly during the private members' hour, an opportunity for members to support the movers of various bills because some problems are strictly regional and that is why I rose to ask the CN authorities to make additional efforts to ensure more security on railway lines which millions of Canadians travel everyday-


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
[Stage Direction]

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we agreed earlier that we might interrupt the debate to deal with order No. 10, an act to amend the Pilotage Act. We also agreed that we would deal with it in committee of the whole, rather than sending it to the standing committee, and going through all the stages here.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker. We think this important economic issue should be proceeded with right away.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party may I say that we agree.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-127, to amend the Pilotage Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole House.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would extend the bylaws and regulations described in subsection 43(4) to the 1st day of February 1974. This is because the pilotage commission has not yet completed 
the work it has been called upon to do and is requesting more time. I believe after consultation with representatives of the pilots association and industry on items of tariffs they will be in a better position to report shortly.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I think we expected a little more from the parliamentary secretary than that. This is a matter of economics, and inasmuch as we have been here for a month and have not passed a piece of legislation that affects the economy I think before we get into committee of the whole there are one or two observations which should be made.
First of all, I hope that the government is aware of the serious situation that will exist at the port of Halifax and St. John's, as well as the river ports, in view of the tremendous increases that are going to come about as a result of the provisions of this bill. In some cases it will mean an immediate 60 per cent increase and in other cases the increase will be 180 per cent or 200 per cent. No one in Canada objects to paying for what are essentially good services and there is no question that these services are needed for the conduct of vessels in and out of the ports and restricted sailing areas. No one objects to paying just fees; what is objected to is the situation where receivers of pilotage services in Canada are being forced to pay through the nose. That is a matter of regret.
Another matter of regret, Mr. Speaker, which I think must be expressed before we move on is the fact that the government has had 19 months in which to make consequential or substantive amendments to the clauses of the bill that needed change. They apparently miscalculated to the tune of a couple of billion dollars in an area in which judgment played a role. I wonder how on earth they could have misjudged the length of time it was going to take Mr. Mahoney to complete his study of the Canada Shipping Act, if this is in fact the reason why this House is tonight faced with a deadline.
Surely something more could be expected from the parliamentary secretary than his cursory remarks. This type of housekeeping legislation, if it is so urgent, should have been the very first thing placed before us a month ago; instead of that we have it tonight because the deadline is February 1 [DOT]
I do not think there is any point in getting into some of the details of the bill at this stage. Perhaps on second reading or during the committee stage the parliamentary secretary will explain why. after seven months in one sense and 19 months in the other sense, the government now wants an additional year. Perhaps he could tell us a little about the way Mr. Mahoney's work stands, and when we might expect to have a revision of the Canada Shipping Act before us so that we can do something about the pilotage legislation on a more permanent basis.
Perhaps over the next minute or two he would consider giving the committee some indication of what the government intends with respect to their reaction to the appeals that are being filed. I know that in a sense this is a little out of the context of our discussion in this House because it may become a matter for the courts, but perhaps the parliamentary secretary would give some indication of the government's position.
January 30. 1973


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated earlier, there is a disposition to expedite the passage of this bill. However, I am sure other members must wonder, as I do, why on the eve of the expiration of the extension of the old bylaws and regulations the government comes along and asks for another extension for one year. The short answer, of course, is that the new bills and new regulations in respect of the various pilotage authorities and areas are not yet ready.
However, what really disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that by tomorrow midnight, in my interpretation of what this bill means and what the Pilotage Act means, there will be a void, a vacuum, a situation in which there are no rules and regulations and no bylaws regarding the operation of ships in Canada unless this particular piece of legislation is passed. The extension that was available in the current law expires tomorrow at midnight. I can conceive of a pretty chaotic situation in the various areas and districts of Canada that are affected by the Pilotage Act. The old rules and regulations will disappear and there will not be any new ones to take their place.
According to people I have spoken to on the west coast there is tremendous concern about the period when a vacuum will exist. One thing that could happen is this. The new draft bylaws, rules and regulations which were to be the subject of consultation with the shipping and towboat industry may, if this bill is not passed, be put into effect out of desperation by the pilotage authorities because nothing else will be available to them: their old rules will be gone; they will have only the draft rules. Out of desperation, in order to have some kind of regulation or bylaw in force on February 1 they may put into effect a half-baked set of rules that will cause chaos. If that situation prevails, this government will be entirely to blame for waiting until the last possible moment to ask for an additional one-year extension.
We have given unanimous consent to bailing out the government. This indicates the concern of members of the House about this matter. Also, we respect the rights of the shipping industry. However, in the process of the bill going through the legislative machinery there could be a vacuum between here, the Senate and royal assent. I hope there will not. It is regrettable that the government, through the parliamentary secretary, should wait until the last possible moment, when we are on the brink of a confused and chaotic situation, to ask us to help them out of this desperate position. Naturally, we are concerned about this because of the situation that could exist with regard to shipping in Canada. We want to do everything we can to assist.
I have not seen the draft bylaws or regulations that are proposed for the west coast. I do not know if they apply to other parts of Canada as well. I have been informed that the draft form is so rigid that it imposes a straitjacket type of regulation on the towboat industry. This is a local type of towing. These boats tow from port to port in British Columbia. The skippers of these towboats know the waters in their areas far better than any pilot because theirs is a year-round operation. I hope these draft bylaws are not put into effect; if they are, a towboat skipper will have to take a pilot aboard to move from one side of
Pilotage Act
Vancouver harbour to the other. That is stupid and ridiculous. This industry knows more about shipping and moving barges and logs on the coast of British Columbia than any pilot or the Department of Transport, yet that is the situation that prevails.
In this extension of one year, I hope that whoever is responsible for drafting the bylaws that apply to the west coast, and possibly to other parts of Canada, will have enough common sense to make them meaningful and workable in the industry. I hope that those who are wrapped up in the bureaucratic concept of their own importance and cannot see beyond the paper they are writing on, cannot see beyond their office and cannot look into the industry to see what is happening, will be removed from those positions so that common sense can prevail in the drafting of the bylaws and regulations. I hope the minister, his parliamentary secretary or whoever is piloting this bill through the House will respond to the concerns I have expressed on behalf of those who will be affected by the current draft proposals.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am quite agreeable to proceeding tonight through the various stages of this legislation as outlined by my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). However, at the committee stage we ought to have more elucidation from whoever is piloting this bill through this chamber than was given to us by the parliamentary secretary in his few words on second reading.
I recall the sense of urgency with which members of this House were asked to deal with the legislation to set up the Pilotage Act. I recall that the committee was asked to sit morning, noon and night to get the new pilotage arrangement on the road. Those who participated in that exercise have a right to expect the parliamentary secretary, if he is to be the spokesman for this bill, to give us a better picture of what exactly has happened since we, under pressure, put the machinery in motion for the new pilotage authorities.
I would like to know what progress is being made. What is behind the fact that it will take another year for the pilotage authorities to establish, in their own right, their own particular bylaws and regulations? I realize there are complexities to some of these bylaws. I have not had a chance to examine in detail the proposal recently presented with regard to the proposed bylaws of the British Columbia pilotage authority.
What progress has the pilotage authority made in setting up a new pilotage system? This question is very much in my mind in view of some recent events in British Columbia involving a ship which, as stated by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in the House, had aboard a Canadian pilot and an apprentice pilot. While I realize we cannot in this discussion go into the pros and cons of the functioning of the pilot of that vessel, we should be enlightened as to why it is taking so much longer to make the new pilotage authority bill operative than was obviously anticipated when the legislation went through. The impression tvas given that this was a matter of great urgency. We were asked to wrestle with a new bill bringing new machinery into being, and government authorities would then proceed full steam ahead to make the new system operative.

January 30, 1973
Pilotage Act
I cannot recall exact dates but it seems to me it was a long time after parliament had passed the law before the members of the pilotage authority on the British Columbia coast were named and the new authority actually came into being. I think we should be given some idea whether it is the pilotage authority that has been lax in getting down to the task of bringing out new bylaws, or whether it is a case of dilatory action or lack of action on the part of the government following the passage of the Pilotage Act. These are among the questions which I believe ought to be examined when the measure is studied in committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 1-Continuation of Bylaws.
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, before we do anything else there are one or two questions to be asked by way of clarification so that we may understand exactly what it is that we are doing. The matter before us is the Pilotage Act. It is apparently to replace some existing provisions in the Canada Shipping Act. We have had it since 1971- around June 30 as a matter of fact. Section 43 (1) (2) and (3) came into force immediately, whereas subsections (4) (5) (6) and (7) of section 43 and the rest of the Pilotage Act did not come into force until proclamation which, if my memory serves me correctly, was about February 1 a year ago.
The hon. gentleman's opening remarks were so brief that by the time we got our earpieces in he had finished. While I accept them, I think the parliamentary secretary might have gone a few steps further. I believe he now senses what I am asking. Why, at this particular time, does he want a year's extension? Perhaps we could start with that question.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Chairman, I should like to give hon. members some additional information. The Pilotage Act, Section 43(4), provided that "every bylaw made or expressed to have been made by a pilotage authority as defined in the Canada Shipping Act and every regulation made pursuant to part VII of that act and in force, or deemed to be in force, on the commencement of this Act, continues in force unless the bylaw or regulation is revoked by an authority." The bylaws and regulations referred to in this subsection covered the operations of each pilotage district, including such matters as the licensing of pilots, examinations, collection of dues, dispatching of pilots, entry into the pilotage service, assignment to duty, discipline and other matters respecting the regulating of pilot service and tariff schedules for each of the 29 districts which were operated under the Canada Shipping Act.
Since their establishment the authorities have been required to negotiate with pilots of the various districts within their regions. Under the act, pilots may elect to be employees of the authority or to contract their services through their association. The authorities could not establish new pilotage tariffs until negotiations with the pilots were completed, and they have found it impossible to

adopt new bylaws and regulations prior to the expiration of the old bylaws and regulations because of unavoidable delays involved in rendering operable their administrative structures and in negotiating new tariffs with representatives of the pilots and industry to provide for their operating costs and allow for increases in wages demanded by the pilots.
Furthermore, some of the tariffs proposed were objected to under section 23 of the Pilotage Act. When an objection is filed before the Canadian Transport Commission a tariff is held in abeyance until such time as the objection is disposed of by the CTC. It may be some time before hearings are held by the commission and a decision is reached on the contentious items of the tariffs.
Due to the reasons I have outlined, no new regulations or bylaws were enacted establishing compulsory pilotage areas or prescribing ships or classes of ships to which compulsory pilotage applies. It is believed that the proposed regulations or bylaws on compulsory pilotage areas and ships will also be objected to by representatives of the pilots or the industry under section 14(3) of the act, entailing further delays before regulations on this subject are implemented.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wish at the outset to congratulate the hon. member for St. Boniface on being chosen parliamentary secretary. We have not had a chance to do this as yet. I should also like to congratulate him on his ability to read exceedingly well what has been written and placed before him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I learned that from the opposition.


Frank Howard: not going to abandon their responsibilities to the general public over what is going to be a course of negotiations regarding pilotage tariffs and fees.
The parliamentary secretary might be able to justify the government's negligence in the statement that he made earlier, but inasmuch as we have now reached almost the last day for passing this legislation-the deadline is midnight tomorrow, about 29 hours from now-I think we are entitled to ask just what is going to happen if the bill is not passed by February 1. What contingency plans exist? The parliamentary secretary avoided this question deliberately, but he should not have done so because parliament is responsible to the general public in this matter. The legislative authority for making bylaws expires at midnight tomorrow, according to the statement of the parliamentary secretary. But what if there are no bylaws, rules, regulations and safety requirements to go into effect?
True, all this is supposition. It may be that the Senate, contrary to its usual practice, moves with speed and dispatch and deals with this bill tomorrow. However, I am convinced that the government is not resting its whole case on the hope that parliament will give speedy passage to the bill. Although it received unanimous consent to deal with the bill this evening, the Senate may not give its unanimous consent and consider the bill in one day, with the Governor General then hustling down here tomorrow night to give royal assent to the bill. I think we are entitled to know what are the government's contingency plans, and so is the shipping industry.
I have another question I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary. As I understand it, unless the schedule has been altered there is in existence the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, a distinct authority with its office in Halifax. Its region is the Atlantic seaboard, the Atlantic coast. There is also in existence another pilotage authority known as the Laurentian Pilotage Authority. Its head office is in Montreal and its region of activity is the northern entrance to St. Lambert's lock and that general area. There is also the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority with headquarters in Cornwall, its region being all the waters in the province of Quebec south of the northern entrance to St. Lambert lock and all Canadian waters in and around the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba-in other words, the Great Lakes. There is also the Pacific Pilotage Authority which governs the waters along the Pacific coast.
I should like to know whether negotiations have been taking place with each of these pilotage authorities but have been stalled. Has each of these pilotage authorities been unable to reach a conclusive agreement with the pilots? I think we also require to know what is the position of the draft bylaws of each of these pilotage authorities. Are they incomplete, are they just proposals, are they waiting for some response from the industry in regard to whether or not they are acceptable, and does each of them require this additional one year's extension?
Another question I think we are entitled to have answered is this. I very much regret I have not yet had an opportunity to determine what authority is given by part VII of the Canada Shipping Act to make regulations. I assume from the general acceptance we give to the use of the word "regulation" that regulations made pursuant to
25714-5U
Pilotage Act
part VII of the act are regulations made by the Governor in Council. In other words, they are order in council regulations as distinct from bylaws made by pilotage authorities. We should like to know whether these regulations that should have been prepared within the one year's time are half completed, whether anyone has looked at them, whether they have started to be drafted, whether they exist at all or are simply on the verge of being brought into effect by order in council.
These are all substantial questions that I think need to be asked and answered. This is especially so when the government comes in at the last moment and asks for unanimous consideration of the bill by the House. Consent was given because we realized the importance of the matter and the necessity for dealing with it expeditiously. The government also insists that there is a crisis, otherwise why would it have asked for unanimous consent? We agree that the matter is urgent.
In view of this, surely parliament is entitled to a little more detailed explanation than the well read statement made by the parliamentary secretary, which some civil servant obviously wrote, perhaps to cover up his own inability to draft regulations in time for consideration by cabinet.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Chairman, I note that the last speaker kept on mentioning the fact that I read something. I am pleased to have read my statement because I am sure that the answers I have given him are correct. I also have a copy of what I said. I have definitely noticed that in many cases members on the other side of the House have no means of expressing an opinion unless there is argument. In respect of the hon. member's question as to what would happen if by midnight tomorrow we had not passed this bill, let me say that he knows the answer: we would not have the measures required.
In response to the question he asked as to why the authorities have taken more time than expected, let me point out that there were some difficulties experienced in setting up the internal organization after the regulations came into effect a year ago on February 1, 1972. Hon. members on the opposite side asked if we had expected that these authorities would be able to report before this time, but for reasons mentioned before they have not been able to do so. Another reason which made this impossible was the lengthy negotiation with the pilots associations. There were also appeals to the CTC in respect of proposed tariffs, and that commission has not yet concluded them. I might also say that there were long discussions with the shipping industry and the pilots in respect of pilotage, and these have not yet been concluded. I believe I have answered all the questions that have been asked so far.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the parliamentary secretary has said, but I wonder if he would answer the essential question. Had I known he was going to go off on that tangent I would have finished my question in the first place. I thought he understood it. What will be the status of these bylaws and regulations during the period February 1, 1973, to February 1, 1974?
January 30, 1973

Pilotage Act
Will they be frozen or will there be latitude for substantive amendment?
There are some punitive measures involved in this area. In fact, this is a matter that should have been before the committee in order that we could call witnesses and consider it in depth. I am now a little suspicious as to why this bill is brought in now and whether there is any reason other than the ones put forward. I gather that the House leaders met and arrived at an agreement to bring the bill before the House tonight. This is certainly not the time to deal with it. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would address himself to the status of the regulations and indicate whether they are frozen or are subject to amendment or change during this one-year extension.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I might be able to answer that question. In considering the short amendment to the act we had to make a decision as to how long we might have to wait for the pilotage authorities to complete their work, so we decided to give the pilotage authorities another year. During that period of time, hopefully, all the difficulties that have been mentioned will be cleared up and the pilotage authorities will have completed their work and established their own regimes. Until that is done, the existing regulations are in effect.
I regret that I have to come to the House with the parliamentary secretary asking for what I understand really to be an agreement to suspend the Standing Order. This has been necessary because the pilotage authorities have not completed their work and we must take steps to ensure that the regulations exist after tomorrow night. That is really the basic reason.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the House leader whether there was any indication at some point in time that the regulations and the bylaws would not be completed. Is that the reason we are dealing with the bill at this late hour? Was there some indication that the bylaws and regulations would be completed prior to the expiration of this act, and is that why we are now called upon to pass this measure before the expiration of those bylaws and regulations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, my understanding, which I think is accurate, is that it was hoped the authorities would have completed their work and would have established their own regulations. It was only a short while ago that I was made aware of the fact that it would be necessary to take this action. It was expected, until the very last moment, that they might be completed. However, as I understand it now, most of the work of the pilotage authorities is well advanced but not completed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, in view of the difficulties indicated by the parliamentary secretary which have arisen in respect of lengthy discussion, appeals to the Canadian Transport Commission, and so on, would it not have been advisable to have brought this bill in earlier, with a higher priority? The House has been in session since January 4. Why is it that we are now dealing with the bill at this point in time, when according to the parliamentary secretary there was sufficient indication that there was going to be a delay?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I really must offer additional congratulations to the hon. member for St. Boniface. I am sure it is not within his talents and abilities, but he is taking the approach that the way to stay out of difficulty in the House is to keep answers short and concise.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Precise.


Frank Howard: That may not be very enlightening to hon. members but at least it helps the position of the parliamentary secretary. I am sure this was an oversight on that hon. member's part, but he failed to respond to a couple of things about which I asked. Without accepting his initial response as being a reasonable explanation, because I do not think it is in one or two instances, I should like to know whether the regulations under part VII of the Canada Shipping Act are regulations as we normally know them, or are they the result of decisions by the governor in council?
If they are the result of such decisions, I would like to know why it is necessary to provide a year's extension to the governor in council in order to draft regulations. The governor in council has had more than a year to consider this matter; in fact, it has had all the time since the passage of the act by parliament. I am sure the cabinet has been considering these regulations. I would like to know whether a conclusion has been reached and why it is necessary to give this additional year's extension. If these regulations are not in any condition of preparedness, when is it anticipated that they will be?
The parliamentary secretary also failed to indicate what state, status or stage the various pilotage authorities have reached. Have those pilotage authorities which I enumerated earlier concluded drafting their bylaws, or are they still in consultation? The minister referred to discussions with the industry and the pilots. How close are those discussions to a conclusion? Is it the fault of the industry, the fault of the pilots or the fault of the pilotage authorities that those discussions have been protracted? How much longer will it likely be before the regulations and the bylaws of the various authorities are properly drafted? Are all the pilotage authorities at the same stage in respect of drafting the bylaws? In other words, are they proceeding in tandem? Does each association want to keep in step with the other? In other words, are they being held up because of the delay experienced by one authority in getting bylaws prepared, discussions concluded or negotiations satisfactorily settled?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I should like to repeat, and I hope it will be satisfactory to the hon. member, that when we were discussing this question we felt we ought to allow several months as it might be possible for the pilotage authorities to complete all their work in that time. My own opinion was that it would be better to be safe by giving them enough time, rather than a six months' period, for example, and then have to return to parliament because they had not completed their work. I understand that the work of all the pilotage authorities is well advanced but is not completed.
I understand that two or three months ago it was expected that they would be completed by February 1 and
[Mr. Forrestall.J
January 30, 1973

that this law would be unnecessary. I would be delighted if they could complete their work within a few months, but I will not take any chances. I want to make sure that it will not be necessary to come back to parliament with a bill. If they finish within a short time, that will be fine.


Frank Howard: What about the regulations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With respect to the regulations, I must confess I have not looked at that section of the Canada Shipping Act to determine whether they are regulations under the governor in council; I presume they are. If that is the case, there will be no delay on the part of the governor in council in making its regulations, because if the pilotage authorities had completed the work we would have made the regulations and it would have been unnecessary for us to come before this House. I should like to qualify those words because I have not looked at that particular section of the Canada Shipping Act.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one final question? Perhaps the government House leader or the parliamentary secretary can answer What would happen if the work leading up to the amendments that are required with respect to this law and regulations is completed, say, in another six or eight weeks? Can this matter return to the House so that the problem can be looked at in depth, or will it be frozen out, so to speak, for one year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would think if we were to notify the House that the pilotage authorities had completed their work in creating their own rules, it would not be necessary to come back with a bill. That matter certainly would be made known.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, in other words we would wait for one year and then there would be further amendment to this particular section, and that amendment would give it the long-standing position that is needed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is right, Mr. Chairman.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I take it that there would be no impediment to the work undertaken in the Great Lakes area. Many amendments have been introduced to regulations now in existence; these affect some of the other areas. I take it there would be no impediment to the work that is going on by virtue of this specific amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, absolutely none.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear that. Would the minister repeat his remark for the sake of the record?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to put that assurance on record for my hon. friend.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of questions I should like to raise in order to clarify certain things in my mind. As I listened to the parliamentary secretary explaining this situation, the question developed in my mind as to whether the proposed extension date of one year would be adequate. In other words, the committee ought to consider whether one year will be long enough. I ask the President of the Privy Council who has intervened
Pilotage Act
in the debate whether I am correct in assuming from what he said that he has personally looked into the situation and satisfied himself that the proposed one year extension will be adequate to cover this period.
Certainly, his remarks seemed to lead to an inference of that sort. On the other hand, the explanation given by the parliamentary secretary left me wondering if we should not make the period two years. Could the President of the Privy Council clarify that question? I should like to ask him another after he has replied.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I am reasonably certain, or as certain as one can be of anything in this world, that the work can be completed within one year. I discussed the matter with the officials and was so advised when the matter was being considered and the bill was being drafted.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Privy Council, being an experienced member of this House and of the government, has obviously left himself wide open with that sort of assurance, especially if ever he has to come back to the House and say it cannot be done. I should like to ask one or two questions about the present state of affairs. As I read the original section 43(4) this matter was envisaged, as I think we understood, as a continuing process. In other words, as each new section of the work of the new pilotage authority was completed and the authority worked out all that was necessary in respect of a new bylaw, the appropriate or equivalent section of the Canada Shipping Act would apply unless the bylaw or regulation was revoked by an authority.
There was some discussion of tariffs and pilotage fees. I heard the parliamentary secretary discussing the question. I also heard that notice can be given of an objection, the particular workings of the pilotage authorities that I am most vitally concerned about are those raised by the hon. member for Skeena. I am concerned about bylaws and regulations that have to do with the authority which is provided for in section 14 of the act. Also, there is the matter of the establishment of compulsory pilotage areas and the prescribing of ships or classes of ships that are subject to compulsory pilotage, as well as the qualifications of pilots, and so on.
Could we have some report on this matter? These are areas in which action is to be taken by the pilotage authorities, as I read the act, followed by approval of the governor in council. I take it that the parliament secretary or the President of the Privy Council have some knowledge as to where we stand on compulsory pilotage areas and the defining of classes of ships that are subject to compulsory pilotage. To me this is the area which is the meat and substance of the whole new concept and is very important in the long run with respect to the scale of tariffs that may be applicable at any given time.
Where do the pilotage authorities stand with respect to that part of the work? Has the governor in council approved proposals by any or all of the pilotage authorities? Naturally, of particular concern to me and to pilotage authorities in British Columbia is the question of the definition of compulsory pilotage areas and the kinds and classes of ships which are required to carry pilots. This, to me, is a most important aspect of the work and I think we

January 30, 1973
Pilotage Act
are entitled to know, when we talk about the timetable for extending the holdover of the Canada Shipping Act regulations, just where we stand in these very vital areas affecting the operation of the new pilotage system.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the philosophy behind the new Pilotage Act and of the royal commission that examined for such a long time pilotage in Canada is that the most efficient pilotage system can be established through decentralized authorities.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am agreeable to approving committee stage of the new bill, but what has happened with respect to putting decentralization into effect?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member is aware, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to that philosophy of decentralization four pilotage authorities have been established in the country. Probably it would be best to describe them as regional authorities. They were established a year ago. As I understand it, they have jurisdiction to establish compulsory pilotage areas.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Subject to the approval of the governor in council. Has the governor in council approved any of these?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On that particular detail I would have to obtain detailed information for the hon. member, and I would be glad to do so.


Frank Howard: As I understand the situation, it is the governor in council, really the cabinet, who appoint the members of the various pilotage authorities. Can the President of the Privy Council tell us whether it has been found necessary to make any changes in the membership of the various pilotage authorities since they were first constituted about a year ago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member says, the authorities were created just a year ago. The members of the authorities were determined as a result of nominations from pilots and shipping associations. To my knowledge there has been no necessity to change the membership of the authorities. I hope the hon. member won't have to ask that question a year from now, but maybe if he does I will agree with him that it might be necessary to do that.


Frank Howard: If that question were asked at any time subsequent to now, it would only be because of the inability of the authorities to get the bylaws drafted. That is why I wonder if there is any difficulty with them. Does the minister know, with respect to the personnel or staff working with the pilotage authorities-I presume they employ their own staff or, if not, the federal government does-whether it has been necessary to fire any of these people because of their inability to develop bylaws to a successful conclusion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Chairman. For example, the Atlantic Pilotage Authority employs 84 persons, including ten pilots, and supervises 60 pilots who are not members of the authority. We all ought to understand that the

pilotage authorities had to set up their own administrations. The parliamentary secretary has explained that the work of establishing the administrations took quite a bit of time in the early months following creation of the authorities. There has been no necessity to change or fire any persons in these authorities.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[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.
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, when preparing my few remarks for this evening I was reminded of the situation where, if you take your research material from one source, in effect you are copying, but if you take it from several sources, that comes under the glorified heading of research. Each member who has participated in this debate has done a tremendous amount of research and a great deal of soul-searching. The speeches I have heard so far give clear evidence that a great deal of reading has been done by hon. members, which has served to elevate the calibre of the debate.
I want to put my position on the record and the reasons for the stand that I am taking. I believe that the death penalty is an immature response to an irrational act. I believe that advocates of capital punishment for murder are looking for an easy solution. There is not one. I am indebted to the Rev. George Goth who had an article in the London Free Press on this subject, on January 13 of this year. I would like to quote a few extracts from it:
To be sure, I do not accept the voice of experts and statistics as final. None the less, it does need to be said that criminologists, by and large, do not believe that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. Violence creates violence.
If I may digress for a moment here, I would refer to the splendid address given by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) when he dealt with the question of deterrence. Returning to the Rev. Goth's article:
To the argument that homicide is on the increase since the death penalty has been stopped the answer is very simple. Most crimes have increased dramatically in the past ten years. The reason for this is not a more cavalier treatment of the criminal. Let us rid ourselves of North American conceit. We belong to a violent society. Respect for authority has gone with the wind . . .
We are living in a post-Christian era. The old order has died. No new one has come to take its place.
Faced with this, we in this House have a particular responsibility and certainly the government's responsibility increases day by day. The Rev. Goth makes the following points against the imposition of capital punishment, which he says does not meet the real problem. He writes:
January 30, 1973

There is no evidence that it will serve as a deterrent.
It would be a cheap evasion of the real causes of crime.
It is unworthy of any civilized state. Vengeance is not a mature response to an irrational act.
Violence creates violence. The state must not reduce itself to the level of the criminal.
We are looking for a simple answer and there is none. The way ahead will be long and hard.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the comments made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay I should like to refer hon. members to the statements made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and his timely comments yesterday. I have listened very carefully to the debate, and those speeches that I missed I have read. I must say that the calibre of the addresses has been high. This is due in no small measure to the fact that it is a free vote despite the occasion taken by some to launch cheap political shots. I think the tone and calibre of the debate is high also because there are good arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.
I was somewhat surprised, however, to hear my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), suggest yesterday that there is little room for error in our present courts system. I suggest to him that the courts system is a long way from being infallible and I think there are better arguments he could use than those that the courts nowadays are not very likely to make an error.
We have used the M'Naghten rule in dealing with the criminally insane for all too long a period, and although today psychiatrists can be called as expert witnesses it is extremely difficult on many occasions to convince a jury of schizophrenia, paranoia or other problems of the mind that would lead an individual to kill. But aside from all of that, I think we must be aware of the fact there is daily a possibility of error creeping into judicial decisions. Crowded court calendars increase this ever-present danger. There is always the danger of executing an innocent person. Mr. Dahn Batchelor writes in the current issue of the "International Review," and I agree:
One of the greatest arguments against capital punishment is the danger of executing an innocent person. No miscarriage of justice is more terrible to contemplate. The execution of the innocent generally results from three types of testimony: the first is circumstantial. It is impossible to dispense with circumstantial evidence. If such evidence was not permitted to be heard in a court of law, criminals could laugh at the laws because a legally sane person rarely commits murder in front of witnesses.
Mr. Speaker, the courts recognize that it is often necessary to rely on circumstantial evidence, but they also know it is dangerous to do so. I should like, as many of my colleagues have done, to relate a personal experience that perhaps more than anything else convinced me that mistakes could be made and that we should be extremely careful. I will alter the circumstances a little to protect my client and the other parties involved, but the circumstances are true.
Some years ago, an elderly couple in their seventies were viciously beaten by, they said, three men. The licence number of the car used by the criminals had been secured and the police, through a splendid bit of investigatory work, eventually charged three men. One of the three men came into my office and indicated that they
Capital Punishment
had in fact been together all day long, and this was established. He also indicated to me that they had done a tremendous amount of drinking. It is significant that this man did not know whether he had in fact participated in the beating up and the robbery, but he thought the likelihood was very good that he had although he assured me he had absolutely no memory of the incident; and in light of the amount of alcohol that had been consumed by him that day, I believed him.
Relying, however, on the necessity of the Crown to establish its case, a plea of not guilty was entered on behalf of this particular individual. In a subsequent interview with him I asked if time had helped his memory, had given him any reason to believe that he had participated or that he had not. He indicated that he established with his landlord the exact time that he had come into the house. Because he was actually at that particular time some 20 miles away from the scene of the crime, he began to wonder if he had, in fact, participated in the savage beating and robbery.
When we retraced his steps it was determined that he had left the company of the other individuals. The three men had driven off in the car, but subsequently he got out of the vehicle and went to a restaurant. We were able to find someone there who remembered him, not only because he had been violently ill in the restaurant but also because he had neglected to pay his bill. It was established that he had been in the restaurant at the time the vicious and brutal beating had taken place. I wondered at the time, Mr. Speaker, if we had not been able to locate that witness in the restaurant and if the elderly couple, or one of them had been killed, whether this man, not knowing whether he had participated, could have been hanged for this particular offence.
Aside from errors in the courts, Mr. Speaker, there are errors that creep in as a result of circumstances in particular cases. This case convinced me in dramatic fashion that it is possible to make a mistake. As I say, I wondered whether this man would have been found guilty of murder if one of the couple had died, or whether he would have served a long prison sentence if we had been unable to establish his innocence. He could not, in effect, go into the witness-box and proclaim his innocence because he did not know whether he had participated.
Mr. Speaker, it was exciting this afternoon to hear the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) answer the question that I think is on the minds of many of us. Many of us have answered it to our satisfaction. I do not feel that I came down here as someone to pass on what I think the majority of people in my riding would do in the circumstances, to act as a computer card punch-out. I think I have an obligation to use such intelligence as I have to vote as I see fit.
The retentionist is in the enviable position of not having to pull the cord that opens the trapdoor, to pull the switch nor, for that matter, to drop the gas vial into the gas chamber. I think in the heat of the moment almost anyone could kill in the interest of protecting a member of his or her family, or in the interest of protecting a fellow human being from a vicious attack. This is done without thinking in the heat of the moment, and I think it is possible for most people. However, I wonder if a year later, after the

January 30, 1973
Capital Punishment
passion had been dispelled, after the heat of the moment and after the victim had long been buried, whether one person could go into a cell and hand another a cyanide tablet and say, "This is retribution for the heinous crime you committed " I think it is unlikely. The right hon. gentleman this afternoon pointed out very clearly that these hangings, these killings do not take place in public. If we are going to use that as a deterrent, surely in public is where society should say it should take place.
Mr. Speaker, I take strong exception to those who say that we abolitionists are backed into a corner; in other words, that we have more concern for the accused than we have for the victim. Of course this is not the case; this just cannot be true. I have no sympathy-my heart is filled with revulsion at the thought that one individual would take the life of another.
When the Solicitor General (Mr. AUmand) in his remarks mentioned that the first hanging in Canada was that of a 16-year-old girl, I think that filled most of us with revulsion. Had that taken place last night I do not think that one person in this House would have agreed with it. We have come a long way in 150 years, Mr. Speaker, and I think the time has come for abolition. I am going to support this bill, but I hope amendments will be introduced at the committee stage. I am not at present a member of the committee; that is why I want to make one or two remarks about my attitude.
Because I am an abolitionist, I think more than ever we have an obligation to society to protect society and so I abhor the situation where an individual who takes a life, a sexual offender, a psychopathic killer, is granted leave of absence or parole after a ten-year period. I think something must be done to protect society and that is why I feel, as an abolitionist, that individuals who kill other individuals should be put in prison; whether it be for a period of 20 or 25 years could be argued, it is academic, but the time has come to stop these ridiculous, easy paroles.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I do not want to talk about particular cases, nor do I want to take the position that the right hon. gentleman took this afternoon to usurp the responsibility of the parole board, but the people of Canada are fed up with the easy access to leave of absence and parole. Mr. Speaker, I think I have made my position clear. I am an abolitionist; I support this bill. It would be my hope that amendments would take place at the committee stage which will see to it that there are no easy paroles, no easy leaves of absence. I hope the committee will read my speech and make appropriate amendments.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in any debate, when it comes time for the thirtieth or thirty-fifth speaker, or whatever I am, to stand and say a few words, that person wonders what he can possibly contribute to the debate. I expect the answer is always, very little. What I am really doing this evening is giving a personal testimony rather than attempting to influence the outcome of the debate, since most of the arguments on either side of this case have been presented very ably by members who
(Mr. Cullen.)
preceded me. There are a few things which are peripheral to the issue but they may have a bearing on the thinking of some members of this House. I want to draw these to the attention of the House before dealing with the main issues.
Some participants in this debate, notably the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), seem to consider it. to be a sort of interlude between discussions of more difficult and socially important legislation. There is a certain element of hypocrisy in the legislation before us, legislation which continues the practice of restricting capital punishment to murderers of policemen and prison guards. Most of us cannot conceive of a Canadian cabinet reversing the practice of more than a decade and failing to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy on behalf of someone convicted of murder.
As appropriate as the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) were this afternoon when he said, in effect, "The law is the law; the cabinet must obey it. If it does not like it, it must change it," it is extremely unlikely that a cabinet would change the practice of the past decade or more. Like the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), I would be much happier if we were completely honest with ourselves and the country and dealt with arguments for and against the abolition of capital punishment on their merits, avoiding the kind of obfuscation incorporated in the bill before us.
Having said that, I cannot associate myself with those who argue that the question of whether or not to retain the death penalty should be of relatively low legislative priority. To me, the outcome of this debate will reveal the general level of civilization, sophistication, compassion and understanding in Canadian society. It will also help to determine the level of civilization, sophistication, compassion and understanding in the years to come, because laws do change social attitudes. For that reason, this debate is important.
The debate is also important because the people of this country are telling us it is important. I very much doubt that any member at this moment is receiving more mail on any other subject. Public interest is revealed also in the response to questionnaires sent out by members. Returns of questionnaires which avoided the question of capital punishment have been much lower than returns of questionnaires which asked for opinions on the issue.
I entered this debate only after a considerable amount of soul-searching both with respect to the merits of the case and having decided that total abolition of the death penalty represents the greatest public good with respect to the correctness of taking a stand which would not seem to be in accord with that taken by a majority of my constituents, at least a majoi'ity of those who have taken the trouble to acquaint me with their views.
I feel obliged to inform the House, even in speaking for abolition of the death penalty, that returns of my questionnaire, about 3,000 of them now out of 35,000 mailed, confirm the results of similar unscientific, and I emphasize that word, surveys, conducted over the past few months by newspapers, magazines and the electronics media. In the returns of my questionnaire there is overwhelming support for the retention of the dealth penalty.
January 30, 1973

In retrospect, I believe that a more careful wording of the questionnaire would have modified the results of the questionnaire somewhat but would have left a majority of opinion in favour of retention of the death penalty.
Some grade 11 students from Lord Selkirk regional comprehensive secondary school in my constituency conducted a much more careful survey of 1,000 people on the issue of capital punishment. They discovered that in excess of 50 per cent of those polled favoured retention of the death penalty and only 36 per cent of the adults wanted abolition. I have lived in my constituency since I was 11 years old. I feel very much a part of it. I am saddened by the seeming fact that a majority of my neighbours do not believe, as I do, that capital punishment must be abolished. Yet I will vote for abolition in this House, or as near as I can come to abolition of the death penalty. What gives me that right? How can I, as an elected representative, vote against what would seem to be the wishes of the majority of my constituents at this moment?
Other members in attempting to explain their taking similar action, that is voting for abolition, referred to or quoted John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke on the difference between a delegate and a representative. Stripped of their elitist language, both Burke's statement to the electors of Bristol and Locke's passage in an essay on representative government help to explain my position. Put simply, I believe that as an elected representative I have been sent here to exercise my judgment based upon the best information available to me, and that one of the most important pieces of information upon which I base any judgment is my assessment of the opinion of my electorate at any given moment. The opinion of my electorate always remains one of my most important considerations. It is always taken into account. However, there must be other considerations as well. In the final count, the opinion of my electorate must remain just one consideration, however important that one consideration may be.
I am not a delegate. Our system, I believe wisely, does not require me to poll my constituents on every issue and vote according to the results of that poll. If after reflection my constituents believe my judgment to have been faulty, their remedy lies in the polling booth. It is my hope that they will never feel obliged to resort to that remedy, but in the final analysis I must live with myself and my conscience.
Capital punishment is an emotionally charged issue. It is the duty of a politician, when dealing with such an issue, to attempt to divorce himself from emotion and to make his decision on the basis of logic and the facts before him. If that means occasionally acting contrary to the immediate wishes of his constituents-and such occasions will present themselves only rarely-then so acting is his duty. There are few Canadians today who do not wish that more of their politicians had possessed the courage or the judgment to oppose the internment of Canadian-Japanese and the confiscation of their property during World War II, although public opinion at the time was overwhelmingly in favour of the action taken by the government. I wonder, in that regard, how public opinion would be expressing itself in relation to capital punishment today if yesterday we had discovered that the state
Capital Punishment
had hanged an innocent man or woman, something which has happened in the past.
The advocates of the retention of capital punishment have never yet answered Lafayette's challenge, "I shall ask for the abolition of the penalty of death until the infallibility of human judgment has been demonstrated to me." The hon. member for Calgary North tried to answer this challenge yesterday but I believe he failed to do so. No one can say how many innocent persons have been murdered by the courts. Consider the opportunities for error, the opportunity for false testimony to be given, the possibility of mistaken identification, the possibility of a biased jury, the possibility of evidence being misinterpreted. I could go on.
Responsible estimates of the proportion of innocent persons among those executed run as high as 5 per cent. But even if the figure is only .5 per cent, the argument against capital punishment because of the possibility of judicial error is a powerful one. That a judicial error may occur, even if only rarely, is sufficient reason to avoid exacting the penalty of death. I believe society should never lay claim to absolute authority over life.
Why do so many Canadians at this point in time wish to retain the death penalty? Part of the reason lies in the fact that we are disturbed, even frightened by the pace of change, social and technological, in our society. We seem to be losing control over important events which affect our daily lives. We set up a complicated system to ensure a reasonable standard of life for those people who have suffered misfortune-people who for illness or some other reason are no longer capable of providing for themselves-and we see people for whom the system was never intended benefiting from it. We pay our taxes and for the most part we obey the laws which govern us; we avoid temptations to cheat and steal and to take advantage of our neighbours. Yet we see others almost literally getting away with murder.
We search desperately for a touchstone, some evidence of permanence and certitude in a world increasingly characterized by change. And our search is without success. This leads to frustration, to a desire to lash out and assert ourselves As a result, some citizens commit crimes of violence. The rest of us react by saying, "Kill them", thinking perhaps that in so doing a danger to our lives and to the lives around us may be removed and that others so inclined might be frightened away from such action.
To such thinking I pose two principal objections. The first is that we as a society have no right to take the life of any person. The second is that state-sanctioned murder probably accomplishes no real purpose in any event. The first argument is a moral one. I appreciate that there are sincere, concerned people who will disagree with me on moral grounds. For many of us, this is a matter of interpretation. What do we do when in one place a guide book to moral behaviour says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" and in another place seriously questions the moral authority of judge and executioner, "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone"?
806

January 30, 1973
Capital Punishment
I hope that this debate will not see numbers of members quoting the Bible as an authority for the retention of the death penalty. If such does happen, there are other members of my party who are better equipped than me to offer rebuttal. But in anticipation I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to a passage from a publication put out by the Institute of Mennonite Studies:
A close study of these earliest chapters of the Bible shows that the death penalty as stated there is clearly not so much a requirement as a limitation. It is spoken against the background of a story of corruption in which vengeance was the general pattern . ..
Let us, therefore, begin realistically as the Bible does. Vengeance does not need to be commanded; it happens. It is the normal response of fallen man to any situation which calls for his hostility. And normally such vengeance is unlimited.
Most primitive peoples show the same pattern of vengeance as the Old Testament peoples for whom the rules in the Bible were initially established. In such societies it is normal for vengeance and counter-vengeance to raise the toll of suffering brought about by any offence far beyond proportion to the original damage done. Limits have been set, as in the Old Testament. But I believe it to be a terrible distortion to interpret this practical solution, to limit punishment to the actual wrongdoer, as providing some sort of sanction for the death penalty. On the contrary, I believe the most powerful assertion of my heritage is in favour of the sanctity of human life.
I want no part in a decision, even a collective decision, which leads to the taking of sentient human life. Murder of any sort, in any circumstances, even in the course of an execution, is never moral and it should not be legal. In "Spirits Rebellious," the Lebanese philosopher, Kahlil Gibran, comes across the corpses of three people who have been executed for committing crimes. He writes:
Three human beings who yesterday were in the lap of life today fell as victims to death because they broke the rules of human society. When a man kills another man, the people say he is murderer, but when the Emir kills him, the Emir is just. When a man robs a monastery, they say he is a thief but when the Emir robs such a man of his life, the Emir is honourable.
Shedding of blood is forbidden. But who made it lawful for the Emir? Stealing money is a crime, but taking away one's life is a noble act. Shall we meet evil with evil and say this is the law? Shall we fight corruption with greater corruption and say this is the rule? Shall we conquer crimes with more crimes, and say this is justice?
I said earlier that some people are leaning toward retention because they feel capital punishment may reduce the number of murders committed. This theory of deterrence is undoubtedly the most serious of the social arguments for the retention of the death penalty. It is argued that if persons who are tempted to commit a crime know in advance what the punishment will be, they will turn away from committing such a crime. Superficially this appears to be a sensible argument. It is the argument put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) on Friday.
However, that the argument is basically in error can be seen clearly upon closer examination. A major source of the error is the assumption that murder is like speeding and that a normal person, through fear of being caught, will refrain from it out of consideration for the consequences. But the fallacy is this: murderers are not normal people, for the most part. Most of them are driven by forces of emotion, or outright insanity even, to such an

extent that no reasoning takes place at all; there is no weighing of consequences as they proceed to kill. I am not necessarily making a plea that such people ought to be pitied; it is a demand that we understand the circumstances in which they are, for the most part, incapable of reacting and reasoning like normal human beings.
Thus to attempt, as did the hon. member for Crowfoot, to draw a parallel between the noose and the breathalyzer is at best foolish. Numerous psychological studies have made this fact clear. In committing murder, people for the most part are committing an insane act and are not capable of reasoning rationally. I think the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) this afternoon cited studies made of skyjackers, but there are other cases on record where unbalanced persons lacking the strength of will to kill themselves have committed murder or other violent acts as an indirect act of suicide. Here the death penalty is an encouragement to murder, not a deterrent. A small minority of murderers are professional criminals for whom death is simply one of the occupational hazards. They are also reasonably sure of avoiding capture, or if captured of avoiding conviction, or if convicted of avoiding execution.
The error of the deterrent theory can also be shown statistically. I do not intend to cite the great tables of statistics that are available, because this would take up too much time. In addition, such statistics are vulnerable to subjective interpretation and most of the statistics available have already been cited by other participants in this debate. However, I will cite the judgments of objective studies which have analysed the statistics. These studies have consistently found that there is absolutely no valid evidence to prove that the death penalty has any deterrent value whatever. This has been the finding generally throughout the western world and it has led country after country to abolish capital punishment over the course of the past 100 years. There are now probably in excess of 70 jurisdictions in the world that have abolished capital punishment.
In 1953 the British royal commission on capital punishment concluded that there is no clear evidence that homicide rates are influenced by the death penalty or by the frequency of executions. The New Jersey commission to study capital punishment found that the death penalty could not be demonstrated to be a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment. In Canada the joint committee on capital punishment reported on June 27, 1957, that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, that it had no unique deterrent effect that could not be accomplished by imprisonment.
Ten years ago the United Nations published a report questioning the deterrent value of the death penalty in which it said that data showed no correlation between the existence of the death penalty and the incidence of murder. More recently, Dr. Fattah of the University of Montreal once again demonstrated in an objective study that a case cannot be made for the deterrent value of capital punishment.
I shall not waste time exchanging interpretations of statistics with hon. members who wish to retain the death
January 30, 1973

penalty, but I will say this. If there is dispute about the meaning of the statistics-and I would admit the possibility-then the burden of proof rests on those who wish the state to commit murder. There is a powerful moral argument against killing a person even by way of judicial execution. To support their position, those in favour of the retention of capital punishment, by any standard of justice, must present evidence beyond reasonable doubt that executions have some beneficial social effect. So far in this debate I submit they have not done so.
I am convinced that the people of Canada do not lust after the blood of murderers. I am convinced that if at the moment the majority tend to favour capital punishment, it is because they want an assurance that their lives and the lives of their loved ones will not be placed in jeopardy because of inadequacies in our penal system, our parole system and the totally and completely inadequate attempts at rehabilitation in penal institutions.
I am convinced that if the people of Canada could see avenues to explore other than the death penalty in the search for security from crimes of violence, they would eagerly explore them. To the extent that we as elected politicians have not made .it apparent to Canadians that other avenues do exist, we have failed the Canadian people. We should be looking, for example, at indeterminate sentences for crimes of violence. We should be looking, until we can bolster and render effective our efforts at rehabilitation and at making our parole system effective, at longer mandatory sentences for those who commit violent crimes. We should be seeking effective psychiatric services for those in our penal institutions. Finally and most importantly, we should be seeking the means to remove the social causes, the inequalities, the injustices, the uncertainties, the frustrations that foster and nourish crimes of violence.
However this debate is decided-and I fervently hope it is decided in a manner that will bring us closer to the total elimination of the death penalty-we will be failing ourselves and our electorate if we do not immediately begin work on providing real measures of security for Canadians; and I submit that the death penalty does not provide any real measure of security. We shall have failed if we do not immediately begin work on improving our penal system; to ensure that our penal system is capable of rehabilitating criminals; to ensure that until that rehabilitation is complete, possibilities for parole do not exist; to ensure that until our penal system is capable of accomplishing rehabilitation we do not admit persons to the streets who are incapable of undertaking their responsibilities as citizens.
This is the kind of action we must take. We must immediately begin the task of removing the injustices, frustrations and uncertainties that produce crimes of violence. Once this debate is finished this must be our task; otherwise this debate will have been pointless and we will have failed in our duties as legislators.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, contrary to all calculations and to my own expectations, my remarks in this debate at this hour of the night turn out to be my maiden speech. On this special occasion, therefore, I wish to join my voice with those who have
Capital Punishment
extended congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on election to your high office and to those who also occupy the chair.
I am sure Mr. Speaker will understand when I suggest that to some extent I was encouraged to present myself as a candidate for a parliamentary seat by the firmness and impartiality-and even humour, where humour was needed to defuse tense situations-with which you and your illustrious predecessors, one of whom is sitting here with us, one in the other place, and still another being the present occupant of Rideau Hall, conducted the business of this House, thereby preserving for us its ancient and noble role, its dignity and tradition against so many attempted affronts.
It is a formidable task, I suggest, in this my maiden speech and as a retentionist, to follow almost immediately on the heels of the eloquence of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I accept the challenge although I have none of his legal training nor practice before the courts and in this House. I accept it more readily because, fortunately, there are a number of incidental statements made by the right hon. gentleman with which I do not have cause to take issue. I refer to his comment about the need of the fulfilment of the law carried out to the full, granting mercy where mercy is recommended but executing where execution is warranted, hard though that may be when no extenuating circumstances have been advanced. With all deference, however, I find that I must take issue with the right hon. gentleman not only on his basic stand for abolition but also in citing a supreme court ruling uttered by United States judges and suggesting that it might have a bearing in the Canadian context.
Meaning no disrespect to the right hon. gentleman or for the law of another country, I find the law of Canada, if properly administered, to be a law under which I feel I can live. I know we have inherited much of our law from Britain. We inherited it and we have transformed it and made it something Canadian of which we can be proud. Properly administered, that law is something of which we have no need to be ashamed. Nor do we have to go outside this country to buttress our respect for it. Carry an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, if you will, but let us draw all our arguments in any such submission from Canada's own experience and Canada's special character.
It has been said on a number of occasions from this side of the House that those sitting on the other side failed to get the message the electorate was seeking to get across during the campaign in September and October of 1972. Usually this deafness or obliqueness on the part of the Liberal party has been cast in economic terms; we have said it frequently and we will say it again. I think the Progressive Conservative party has tuned in to that message and is now seeking from this side of the House to get the government on the proper wavelength, but the government is being very obtuse.
The government missed the message that was cast in economic terms and, as evidenced by its approach to capital punishment, it missed it again on this issue of law and order. At least that was the message in my constituency, and I would say the government missed it throughout
25714-52J

January 30,1973
Capital Punishment
the land. Had the government been attuned to the public pulse it would have heard the refrain, "Bring back capital punishment. Our womenfolk can no longer go out in the evening alone to post a letter." I have heard that said in my constituency, and I am ashamed. Petty larceny, assault with violence, muggings if you will, purse-snatching and even assault causing bodily harm are on the increase in this country.
In these circumstances the people in my constituency want tighter disciplinary controls imposed on those who refuse to accept the laws of society. They are not against rehabilitation, do not get them wrong. What they are against are consultants and do-gooders being hoodwinked by a bunch of smart con men into getting early paroles or leave passes on compassionate grounds. Where does compassion lie? What compassion had these miscreants when they snatched a purse from an elderly lady who had just got her pension cheque cashed, or when they mutilated a little girl and left her abandoned beside the road to be found by heartsick parents and angry neighbours?
Compassion is a virtue whose display restores man's faith in his fellows and whose absence breeds only disgust. The people of this country are compassionate people. They know what compassion is. But let not those who know no compassion seek, by feigning contrition, to wring compassionate tears from those who have compassion deep in their hearts.
In addition to failing to get the message the electorate was seeking to put across in September and October, the government managed to get its priorities thoroughly confused. From statements issued by the government during the campaign and since, it is clear that the rights of the criminal are placed above the protection of society. How can such a government demand the support of society and the Canadian people?
Furthermore, since coming into the House the government has demonstrated with incredible clarity just what is its set of priorities. These priorities are not those of the Canadian people, of that I am convinced. The government refused to respond to the Conservative party's offer to defer the throne speech debate in order to get down to priority matters-inflation, unemployment and relief for the elderly living on fixed incomes. The government's response to inflation was a proposed inquiry into food prices.
Then it set out, not to suggest measures for curing unemployment but, rather, to legalize an illegality in procedures in respect of financing insurance payments, plus a number of schemes for toughening up the regulations affecting qualification for unemployment benefits and increasing penalties for illegitimate claims. Now we have had this eleventh hour consideration of the pilotage bill. The government certainly failed to read the message of the general election. Not only that, it is derelict.
May I call it 10 o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that we
call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on January 19 I asked the Secretary of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) a question in respect of land banks and the sum of $500 million suggested by the minister to be used over a five-year period at the rate of $100 million per annum. I asked the minister whether he was going to use these funds in any one particular urban area in Canada, particularly metropolitan Toronto. I suggested to the minister that if he was going to use these funds in metropolitan Toronto, he would have to buy land from certain large corporations around metro Toronto sometimes referred to by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) as corporate bums.
The matter was brought to my attention even more forcefully in a call from a constituent, Joseph Pittari. He was very upset when he went out in Mississauga to buy a house and found that although he earned $13,500 a year he, his wife and daughter could not find a house in a new development, not even a semi-detached house, for less than $35,000. He telephoned me and wanted to know what this government was going to do about that problem.
Clearly, the problem of housing in metropolitan Toronto in particular, and in all Canada probably, centres around the cost of urban land. There is no question that the price of a lot in metropolitan Toronto is as high or higher than anywhere else in North America. It is disgraceful that less than 11 per cent of the people in this area can afford to own a new home.
The minister has set aside $100 million a year for the acquisition of land for a land bank in all of Canada. On checking the cost of vacant land in and around metropolitan Toronto and the town of Mississauga which I represent, I found that the average cost of land which could be developed in the immediate future or within four or five years for housing is $40,000 per acre. I calculate that if the entire $100 million were used to purchase land in the town of Mississauga, the minister might conceivably acquire 2,500 acres for the whole of Canada, all in one municipality. Mr. Speaker, that is less than half of the land owned by S. B. McLaughlin and Associates Ltd., less than one-third of the land owned by Erin Mills Development Ltd., and approximately two-thirds of the land owned by Mark-borough Properties Ltd. If the land of each company was purchased, it would still amount to a minor proportion of the land available or needed. The truth of the matter is that there is a land bank in the metropolitan Toronto area but it is owned by private development corporations.
We shall not solve the problem of making housing available by spending limited social capital on buying land. The problem will be met by using social capital to service land and to make municipal road patterns possible. It must be spent to make water and sewers freely available,

January 30, 1973

on public transit, on halls, on public arenas, on community centres and schools. It is because there are problems connected with the provision of these amenities that it is impossible for the province of Ontario and municipalities in and around to permit land to be developed.
That land is there; developers right now want to develop it and are trying to develop it. The Urban Development Institute in Toronto which recently submitted a brief to the Prime Minister of Ontario set out this problem. They said that developers do not want to withhold land from the market place, that they want to develop the land in their land banks. It was suggested that the problem really is one involving ancillary costs of development. The province of Ontario and certain municipalities, particularly the municipality I represent, have already indicated to developers that development cannot be allowed to take place because there are not funds available for looking after those ancillary services.
The real difficulty is that this government is bankrupt when it talks about land banking. Land banks are not the answer. The answer will be found by using money presently available for LIP projects, for Opportunities for Youth projects, for waste here, there and everywhere and for every conceivable demand, in the right way. That money should be made available and lent to municipalities. It should be lent on debentures and secured against the land only so that needed land can be developed and the municipalities and provinces can get on with the job of making housing available.
Just going out and buying a piece of land has never been the answer to the problem of lot values. I speak with personal knowledge on this matter. A few years ago, I and some associates purchased 178 acres in the towmship of Vaughan, south of No. 7 highway; land you can stand on today, just, as you could five or seven years ago, and see apartments and a housing development on three sides of it, with a sew'er running through it. But that municipality still has not enough money to put in the access roads, the u'ater mains, develop the water capacity, or build the schools to make it possible to service this land. Indeed, that and many other parcels of land could be made available so that lots could be sold in the area at the price they fetched ten years ago.


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


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister ol State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question put forward by the hon. member relates to the exact location of federally-supported land banking activities in the coming years. He mentions the Toronto area specifically. It is the government's belief that the specific location of these land bank areas is to be negotiated with the provincial and municipal governments directly concerned. So far as the government of Canada is concerned, the problems of price and the availability of serviced land in cities have to engage the attention of all three levels of government. A few months ago when Bill C-213 was introduced in the last session, again with the recent federal-provincial conference on housing and with the NHA amendments introduced today, the government has made clear its position on the question of land banking.
Adjournment Debate
The idea behind land banking seems to have been missed entirely by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) who has made the point that he feels the water, the sewer services and the other various service costs for a particular piece of land which he has given as an exam ple should be paid for by the municipality. Mr. Speaker, I represent an area outside Montreal where over the years I have seen this kind of speculative activity which does not profit anyone but the speculator, the land profiteer. I put it to the hon. member for Peel South that it is not the municipality involved with the particular 178 acres that he mentions who should be responsible for those services; the owners of the land should be responsible for them. There is no question about that. For too long in this country we have seen examples of-


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot seek the floor when he is not speaking from his own seat.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is you he should be addressing, Sir.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, for a number of years we have had money available for land assembly projects. The total amounts which provinces have sought for this purpose in the past year comes to $50 million. We are offering $100 million and it is our belief that at the moment $100 million is sufficient for these land banking purposes. The objective is to create an amount of land available-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Again I regret that I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but the time allotted to him has expired.


CANADA EVIDENCE ACT-SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO COMPEL. SPOUSES TO TESTIFY IN CHILD-BEATING CASES
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) if he was considering bringing in appropriate amendments to the Canada Evidence Act that would make spouses compellable and competent witnesses in cases relating to child-beating. The minister replied that the Law Reform Commission would probably be looking into this matter and that he would be considering the recommendations contained in its report.
Child-beating by parents is one of the most heinous of crimes as the victims are innocent and totally helpless. Each year in this country thousands of parental child-beaters go unpunished because the common law for many purposes has long regarded the married pair as constituting only one person, so one spouse cannot be forced to testify against the other in many instances, one of which is child-beating. Mr. Speaker, it is high time the Canada Evidence Act was amended to put an end to this archaic practice.
Most parental child-beatings take place within the confines of a house or apartment so that it is extremely difficult to find third party witnesses to such crimes. It is this problem, plus the Canada Evidence Act, which makes

January 30, 1973
Adjournment Debate
it virtually impossible to prosecute such cases in our courts. In 1971 there was 442 known or suspected cases in the province of Ontario alone of parental child-beatings, only 51 reached court and only 15 convictions were secured. And the rate of child-beatings has been increasing over the years. It has been estimated on good authority that in Canada in 1971 there were close to 5,000 such crimes.
The problem, of course, is that while physicians may report such incidents, law enforcement agencies in an overwhelming number of alleged incidents simply cannot lay charges because they know full well that neither the father nor the mother can be compelled to give evidence in court. Consequently, policemen are forced into the frustrating position of not laying charges when in fact they have good reason to believe that child-beating has taken place, complete with medical evidence. And if charges are laid, prosecutors are in the unfortunate position of either having to withdraw the charge "due to lack of sufficient evidence" or to attempt to proceed knowing full well they cannot examine the witness to the childbeating for corroborating evidence with which to gain a conviction.
I am fully aware of the fact that even if spouses were made compellable and competent witnesses in cases of child-beating, great fear would exist in the mind of a parent as a witness-I would think in most cases the mother-to tell the truth for fear of physical reprisal by the other spouse. But surely, Mr. Speaker, this is no excuse. In the first place, the spouse testifying would have the full protection of the law on her side and threats of physical reprisal could be dealt with effectively by the appropriate authorities. Besides, it is the infant's mental and physical well-being that we are concerned about here.
I strongly plead with the Minister of Justice to introduce amendments to the Canada Evidence Act to attempt at least to lessen the number of child-beatings in this country. I have talked to Crown prosecutors, police officers, and Children's Aid officials, all of whom have urged me to make this representation in the House of Commons and all of whom have expressed their utter frustration at the present limitations of the Canada Evidence Act. I sincerely hope the Minister of Justice will act quickly to plug a legal loophole that is responsible for allowing parental child-beaters to go unprosecuted and unpunished.
It is my understanding that the Law Reform Commission is looking into the whole area of family law, which badly needs reform. It is my hope that the Minister of Justice will in his wisdom and sense of compassion expedite recommendations of the commission as they may relate to child-beating.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I emphasize my argument with regard to certain anomalies in the Canada Evidence Act by citing the following: A spouse may testify against the other spouse in a case of rape, but not murder. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the time is long overdue in bringing the Canada Evidence Act into the twentieth century.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that the Canada
[Mr Blackburn.]
Evidence Act be amended to make spouses compellable and competent witnesses in cases relating to child-beating will be studied very carefully by the Department of Justice. A recent report of the committee assigned to review the criminal code in England recommended, and I quote:
9.(3) In any court proceedings, the wife or husband of the accused shall (unless one or the other is accused jointly) be compelled to act as witness against the accused or the person jointly accused with the latter.
(a) The act or acts constituting the offence will consist of assault or violent treatment on the part of the wife or husband of the accused, or any person who belonged, at the time, to the same family of the accused and was under 16 years of age.
The committee assigned to review the criminal code felt that this would protect battered children who might be unable to supply themselves the proofs of the accusation.
As indicated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in his reply the first time the question was put in the House on January 16, 1973, the question of amendments to the Canada Evidence Act and the criminal code is at present under study by the law Reform Commission, but in a broader context.
One of the first reports submitted by the Law Reform Commission relates in part to the appearance of witnesses in criminal cases. The report suggests that spouses should be forced to give evidence in all cases. That, naturally, would involve a substantial change to present legislation and before preparing final recommendations on the subject, the law Reform Commission wisely called for the opinions of competent individuals and groups interested in this legislation.
In the circumstances, the minister of Justice feels that he should await replies from the public and final recommendations of the commission concerning the admissibility and the appearance of witnesses before bringing forward new legislation in this field, particularly since the law Reform Commission is making satisfactory progress in its project related to evidence.


MANPOWER-ON-THE-JOB TRAINING PROGRAM-REASONS FOR LACK OF APPLICATIONS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my comments to the Department of Manpower and Immigration, specifically to on-the-job training. It appears this government has been dedicated to alleviating unemployment by a band-aid approach. For example, we have become the unhappy recipients of more types of programs than you can think of, such as LIP, OFY and Summer '73. Massive infusion of public moneys have been used to cut down the rate of unemployment. While the programs have merit in part-I do not want to be condemning in a general way-they are generally on a short-term basis. What we must concentrate on is long-term employment. On-the-job training, properly administered, could be a partial answer to that problem.
As I have stated in this House, I am very concerned about rural depopulation. I am also convinced that rural Canada has a labour force that can be utilized for the development of secondary industry in rural areas. Large numbers of our rural labour force are going to the cities to find employment that is more meaningful. Often they
January 30, 1973

receive on-the-job training in the cities which they do not receive in the rural areas. Often they are employed by companies in which they see job advancement as being more likely than in rural areas. How is the on-the-job training program working in the areas to which I refer?
We are all aware that the age group between 18 and 25 is experiencing the highest rate of unemployment. Many of these people after completing high school go to the city only to be dissilusioned by the workaday world. Often they cannot find meaningful employment or any employment at all. With the minimum wage rate rising in many provinces, employers are not willing to hire these young men and women and offer them a long period of on-the-job training. Rather, they continue to prefer older employees, people with experience who have been on the labour market for some time, who do not need further training or who need only limited training.
As I see it, three problems have developed in the field of on-the-job training. The first is that communication with regional offices has been difficult in some areas in Manitoba. Employers were placed in the unfortunate position of having to press the government for specific details in relation to the program. While the department often came out with a variety of glossy printed material, employers were not able to get specific answers from the department once they had read the material.
I submit that departmental officials should be in the field to help employers get started with the program. The department has spent large sums advertising the merits of the program and trying to get employers to take part in it. It seems incongruous to me that in these circumstances employers should find difficulty in obtaining information.
Second, No. 12 of the fact sheets presented by the department requires employers to show technical and financial competence to provide full-time employment. Surely, departmental officers can decide without an exchange of bureaucratic red tape whether a firm can in fact afford to employ a person for on-the-job training. If we look at the training schedule on the basis of a 40-hour week for 40 weeks, we are looking at an outlay per employer of approximately $1,000. The government reimburses an average of 62.5 per cent during the training. I suggest there are better ways of determining the financial position of employers than by requiring them to fill out one form after another.
Lastly, employees have been asked in certain cases to provide specific work schedules for trainees. While I can see merit in this requirement up to a point, I believe these
Adjournment Debate
schedules should not be such as to force an employer to second guess the question whether or not an employee should be accepted under this program. Employers generally consider that employees should be exposed to various areas of the industry rather than made subject to a specific schedule.
In conclusion, I should like to submit that on-the-job training has merit. 1 welcome the program, as a former teacher, but I suggest the department take a look at some of the bureaucratic practices which are being followed and the administrative detail which is required at the present time. This, I feel, is minimizing some of the positive effects the program could have.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, as a result of last year's experience with the on-the-job training program we introduced certain refinements in this year's program. First, a sliding scale of wage reimbursement providing an average of 62.5 per cent to the employer in lieu of a flat 75 per cent. Second, reduction of the maximum training period to 40 weeks from 52 weeks. Third, introduction of a maximum reimbursement of $100,000 per employer per region.
As well, the closing date for receipt of proposals was advanced to January 31, 1973, to ensure that maximum program impact would more closely coincide with peak winter unemployment. By introducing these refinements we had hoped to increase the number of trainees at the same level of program funding. Though the actual response from employers in terms of number of trainees and proposals received is somewhat higher than last winter, so far it has not been as high as we had anticipated.
I am sure the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) would wish to ensure that employees in training on-the-job programs are adequately protected, and it is primarily for their benefit that adequate scrutiny of employers has been introduced. There has been some experience of employers going bankrupt, and since the government pays the employer in a case of that kind the employee may be left without reimbursement. While we have introduced a requirement for employers to provide evidence of their financial capability for this purpose, we have no evidence that employers are not submitting proposals because of the questions they are asked in this investigation. However, if the hon. member has any particular case he would wish to bring to our attention, we would be very pleased to investigate it.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

January 30, 1973


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Statement By
Transport Minister Jean Marchand On The Site Selection For A Second Toronto-centered Region International Airport
The Minister of Public Works has now tabled the report of the Hearing Officer on the expropriation of the land for the new Toronto airport at Pickering and has indicated that the government intends to confirm the expropriation.
As the minister responsible for transportation, I should like to explain the reasons which led the Government to take this decision.
It is a decision with many broad facets. It involves the communications and business of the nation, the life style of Canadians, and their aspirations for travel. Equally it involves the growth and planning of the Toronto region and the opportunities for good community environment.
The federal government shares this concern about the elements of growth in the Toronto planning region, and has been moved by its expression across Canada as a whole and, more specifically, in the Toronto region. It is not a matter of the airport alone. Commuter rail services, rapid transit expressways and other transportation considerations are all related. Projections indicate that by the end of the century, just 27 years away, the Toronto region will have a population in excess of six million people. Some projections are well in excess of this, if one considers the entire Toronto-centered region within a radius of some ninety miles. The quality, direction and pace of this growth is a matter of deep interest and involvement for the federal government. The government is satisfied that the new airport is required, and for this purpose the expropriation of the Pickering site has been confirmed. In making this decision we are aware of the broad implications of such a development, particularly coordinated as it is with Ontario's plan for the Toronto-centered region. Accordingly as the government stated on previous occasions we will establish an independent group who will look at these questions and in doing so receive representations on all the issues related to the planning and transportation needs of the region.
Representations have been made in the recent Hearings on many aspects, but primarily on three main issues; the need for a second airport; the selection of the site; and the degree of public participation in the selection.
With regard to the need, no one can question that Toronto is at the hub of the domestic air transportation system. Equally, its importance as a gateway internationally and to the United States is growing rapidly and can be expected to increase at an even greater pace. People are exchanging visits from this area with families and relatives across Canada and abroad to Britain, Italy, Germany and Scandinavia, to name just a few. Transportation by air is no longer for the wealthy few, and in the years to come, its role can be expected to increase even more. The new bilateral agreements now before the government provide improved access abroad for Toronto and Ontario residents to many parts of the world. Travel to improve
Canada's trading position and very great increases in the use of air cargo will be a vital part of our international economic activity.
Thus, more facilities will be needed-not just a little more but many times more than we have now. All technical studies affirm this. No one has challenged this although there have been differences as to what the forecast might be over the next twenty-five years. Most forecasts point to a seven to eight time increase. Some suggest a four-fold increase; and others a ten to twelve-fold increase. To deny this key area of Canada anything but its full potential for development would be dishonest and a true derogation of federal responsibility.
In 1968, in anticipation of the need, the idea was put forward to enlarge the present airport at Malton. The plan called for acquiring some 2,500 acres of land, land planned, and, in some parts, already serviced by adjacent municipalities for other purposes. Concentrating virtually all traffic at Malton would have resulted in a vast increase in the area and number of people that would be affected by noise. Some 65,000 more people in existing homes would be disturbed by the resultant increase in flight activity.
The government listened to the reaction of the people and of the municipalities and subsequently rejected this concept. Malton would continue to be expanded for the traffic of the 1970's, but not enlarged. This has continued to be our policy since the Minister of Transport, in December 1968, announced the two airport system.
Ontario later established controls on land around the airport based on our forecasts of the traffic in the 1970's to keep the situation from becoming worse. Since then communities outside the controls have grown rapidly; this is the fastest growing area of the fastest growing region of Canada. In contrast the residential areas on the land that is controlled have grown very slowly.
Some say that if we were more clever we could squeeze through all the traffic without enlarging the airport. Unfortunately this is simply not true.
With all the traffic at Malton, a fourth runway will be required by the late 70's and a fifth will be required for the traffic to the year 2000. The idea of building the fourth runway-very close (1,000 feet) to the existing north-south runway was studied. Our critics feel that this is what we should do but such a proposition will only give us about a 20 per cent increase in capacity, simply not enough. The fourth runway should be separated by some 5,000 feet and certainly no less than 3,500 feet. More terminals will be required and will represent the major portion (85 per cent) of all the expenditures to the year 2000 whatever the proportion of traffic at Malton and at the new Toronto airport.
January 30, 1973
[Stage Direction]
There is simply not enough land for all these developments within the existing boundary; furthermore, the federal government and the province is concerned about the commitments made by the province of Ontario to those people in adjacent communities who were assured that the traffic would not increase and the noise would not become intolerable from the traffic of the 1970's.
The technical studies clearly show that the problem of noise is simply the volume and frequency of traffic over existing built up areas. Even if no new runway were needed (and clearly it is) and all the traffic could be accommodated on the existing three runways, approximately the same number of people will be affected. And we looked for every possible advantage in quieter aircraft, quieter engines.
We studied STOL in great detail as well as high speed ground transport. The development of STOL as Canadian transportation and industrial initiative is a matter to which the Government attaches high importance in both industrial and transportation terms. Clearly if it could solve the need of Toronto it would be most fortunate. But this solution does not meet the test. The fastest growing air marked is the long-haul; domestic, continental and international for which air is the natural way to travel. STOL will be important but will not reduce the need for facilities and the noise adequately to alter the basic need for the new airport. Similarly with high speed ground transport which in fact is a competitive mode with STOL: Neither are relevant or economic beyond 300 to 500 miles.
Next I shall deal with the selection of the site. Experts have made very extensive studies on our behalf assessing various alternatives. These studies have been released to the public and subjected to critical evaluation. As one would expect, there is much conflicting information and opposing points of view, but there are some common themes that provide the basis for a decision.
The Toronto region is continuing to expand. Ontario has elaborated a regional plan for orderly development in the area referred to as the Toronto-centered region. This plan recognizes that the growth should be distributed to reduce the pressures of urbanization in some areas and improve the economic and social opportunities in other areas; as this question is largely within provincial jurisdiction, the federal government does not feel that it should interfere with provincial planning priorities.
It was therefore apparent to the government that close collaboration with the provincial government was desirable. In this regard we have learned some lessons from the experiences of establishing a second airport in the Montreal regin. When this decision was taken in 1969, it was apparent that traffic at Dorval would expand by the late 1970's to a point where the existing airport facilities could not accommodate it, and there was no way in physical or environmental terms to expand Dorval. A second airport was required-a decision which I believe was fully supported by Quebec. However, the provincial government had other objectives in the selection of the site not consistent with civil aviation requirements or other national interests. We proceeded, but the federal government was obliged, because of the lack of provincial support at the time, to acquire 88,000 acres of land to guarantee environmental protection. The land for the airport site itself was about 17,000 acres, roughly the equivalent of what we are expropriating at Pickering.
In my view, it has been a substantial move forward in federal-provincial relations in that we have been able to achieve a consensus of view with the province of Ontario in selecting the site consistent with their planning and where they undertook to carry out zoning to protect potential noise land.
Since 1970, working with the province jointly we boiled down the possibilities for a new site and reached some basic conclusions.
We showed that Southern Ontario really consists of two broad regions of air travellers: The Toronto area; southwestern Ontario. Given the very great size of these regions, it became clear that two systems of airports for each region specifically developed for the needs of that region were most convenient.
In fact the documents demonstrate that even if we could accommodate all of the traffic at Malton, which we cannot, new airports would be required for maximum convenience. The multiple system of airports that we have proposed is more convenient and will cost the users less than any one single airport, even Malton.
With Malton to the west of Metro Toronto the closest possible site for the majority of travellers who live or are destined to Toronto is the Pickering site to the east. In turn the passengers from the southwest would increasingly use the improved facilities there especially for short haul or charter operations. Improved connections to regional domestic points and to key international airports from a number of centres like Hamilton, Windsor and London where relatively modest expansion is envisaged, would benefit these communities and adjacent areas; equally important, it would hopefully reduce automobile traffic congestion and fatalities.
This conclusion has been challenged. Critics say that the majority of passengers live to the west and if a new airport is needed it should be west of Toronto. Actually the majority of passengers live in Toronto and the idea is to locate as close as possible to them for convenience while avoiding as far as possible disruption as at Malton. There are fewer, but still a considerable number of passengers to the southwest, and they will find it convenient to use the airports there.
It emerged from all the studies that Pickering fully met aviation criteria, was convenient, and could be developed to satisfy future demand.
The Ontario government also reached the basic conclusion that the airport at Pickering best suited their regional planning. In the airport they saw further opportunities to achieve the goal of stimulating more growth to the east.
The planning of Ontario together with the establishment of a new airport held out the prospect of new jobs for 100,000 Canadians over the next decade. Clearly, this factor is a matter of interest to both levels of government.
As one who has long worked with people, I deeply regret the disturbance of some homeowners. This is true at any site. The natural features of the site will also be
[Stage Direction]
January 30, 1973
disturbed. These concerns must be weighed against the concerns of greater disruption elsewhere.
We set ourselves the task of finding ways to minimize the disruption, and we set ourselves the obligation of having the general public test these conclusions before we made a fined decision.
All those on the expropriated land will be paid not only the market value but also related payments for relocation and disturbance as provided for by the Expropriation Act and other related expenditures as the Act is based on the principle of "a home for a home".
We will strive for the preservation of both historic buildings and the area's natural landscape; in this regard we will cooperate with the conservation authorities of Ontario, and also allow adequate opportunities to historic, horticulture and wildlife groups, to make recommendations as to steps that should be taken in respect to these questions.
A great deal of concern has been expressed in respect to the destruction of agricultural lands and we are convinced that with proper planning a great deal of expropriated land can be made available for agricultural use within the airport zone. We wish to assure residents that such lands will be leased back at rates which will assure that farming can be conducted on an economically viable basis.
Given the steps both levels of government have taken or envisaged, it can be fairly argued that the dangers in the general area around Pickering of unstructured urban sprawl and ravage to the environment that would have occurred had private speculation been allowed to continue, has been diminished rather than increased.
The question so often raised in connection with green belts and urban growth east of Toronto are, in our view, extremely important from an environmental and quality of life viewpoint. The federal government is convinced that an airport in the region will not, in itself, prohibit the achievement of an adequate buffer zone for green belt and recreational lands between Toronto and communities to the east. This is a matter which the federal government would be prepared to discuss further with the provincial government.
The final question concerns public participation.
Since the original announcement about expansion at Malton, we have listened to the people.
With respect to Pickering, hearings under the Expropriation Act have been held. This was the first time the act was employed for such a major project. The Hearing Officer conducted the hearings with objectivity and fairness. Everyone had the opportunity to object and was given the time to he heard.
Many objections were heard and they have been very effectively summarized in the report that my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, has tabled. The report records only the objections. But it is an important document and it weighs heavily in the balance of reaching a final decision.
In this balance we must also weigh the objections of others to the other alternatives and the objections of the
majority of people today and in the future who will condemn us for procrastination and the abdication of our responsibilities until it is too late and impossible to plan sensibly.
Let me review the numbers of people involved and the issues raised. 2,163 people objected. These include 136 households and the land being expropriated. Some 130 owners also being expropriated formally wrote asking that the expropriation go ahead. The majority of the total 815 property owners did not object.
The approximately 2,000 people who objected and who live near the site and elsewhere were very articulate in their presentations. From the time of the announcement they have challenged the conclusions of the two governments.
Over and above the hearings, groups have met with government ministers, and numerous officials have themselves been made available to answer their questions. In addition, technical reports have been released for their consideration.
Their fundamental point is that we are overestimating the amount of the traffic, underestimating the amount of facilities that we could squeeze into Malton airport and not taking enough account of new technologies that could quieten the aircraft and reduce noise.
They are right that aspects of future technology are uncertain. We have evaluated these possibilities ourselves and are continuing to do so. But these important possibilities do not negate the need for the land for the new airport. The report that I am tabling today summarizes reasons drawn basically from the previous documents that demonstrate this conclusion.
Fundamentally it is a choice of either enlarging Malton or developing a new airport. Clearly failure to meet the growing demand is not an acceptable option for the people of the region, for Ontario and for the nation. And in the balance of the numbers of people disrupted, the economic and planning advantages gained and the capacity for air transportation achieved, Pickering is preferable.
After years of technical studies and after all the arguments have been heard, it remains to elected governments to make the decision. I personally could claim the need for additional time to review the whole matter further, and a few would applaud. But I have reviewed the matter, and this government has decided to go ahead sincerely believing it to be the right decision, and supported in this belief by Ontario.
While we intend to acquire the land, no one will be disturbed nor will construction begin until there has been an opportunity for an independent group working with the federal, provincial and municipal governments to determine the type and timing of facilities required and the one which in their view could be most consistent with the transportation and other planning activity of all three levels of government.
The decisions resulting from such an open public discussion will affect the life style of the residents of the region for generations to come. For this reason, it is felt that concerned community groups, as well as governments, should have full opportunity for participation.
January 30, 1973
[Stage Direction]
This process will be the first of its kind and could be a model for the future.
The land will remain secure while this participation of the public and various groups occurs. The people will be able to make whatever inputs they feel is appropriate, not only on the question of the airport but also on the kind of urban region and how this affects air service and airports. The independent group and the government will be open-minded and will consider all information including any vitally new facts on technology or changes in the attitudes of the people that might point to a different conclusion than our present conviction. Should such information come to light and should we be moved to reconsider our present conclusion that the people of Toronto and Canada need this facility, the land will still be there and the option will still be open.
But in planning for the future we have concluded on the best information available that the Pickering airport is needed.
I hope this public examination will proceed expeditiously so that we avoid within ten years any kind of transportation crisis for Toronto which would force the travelling public there to use less convenient methods of travel or rely on other gateways for access abroad. As the transportation and planning needs of the area are urgent, it would not be in the general interest to unduly prolong such a hearing. It is the government's intention to meet with the leaders of the other levels of government immediately to commence the study at the earliest possible date and report within twelve months.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 31, 1973