1973-05-16

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr, Speaker, in view of the fact that, on the one hand, thousands of young people will be unemployed this summer and that, on the other hand, there is a shortage of skilled manpower in the farming industry, I request the unanimous consent of the House pursuant to Standing Order 43 in order to move a motion concerning this very important and extremely urgent matter. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That a special committee of this House be created without any further delay in order to consider the serious problem of youth unemployment, as well as the shortage of skilled agricultural manpower, and that the said committee be instructed to make recommendations to the minister in order to solve this problem and to report to this House before June 15, 1973.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not and the motion of the hon. member cannot therefore be put.


TRANSPORT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in light of several telegrams I have received in the last few days, I am rising pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On several occasions this matter has been brought to the attention of the House; I am referring to the lack of rail cars available to the lumber industry in British Columbia. The CNR has drastically cut back their supply of cars to British Columbia over the last three months, and this has now had disastrous effects since several plants have had to shut
down. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds);
That this House move to strike a special committee under the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to investigate all matters relating to this very serious situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion also requires unanimous consent since it is proposed 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.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total number of public servants who have been involved in language training courses to December 31, 1972?
2.	Of the total number, how many were involved in French language instruction and how many in English language instruction?
3.	Of the number entering courses in language instruction in both English and French, how many have successfully completed the courses entered?
4.	How many persons are now employed by the government in language training programmes and what is the estimated cost in salaries and expenses for these persons in the fiscal year 1972-73?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: The answer, in so far as the Language Bureau of the Public Service Commission is concerned, is as follows: 1, 2 and 3.
	Number of students involved since 1964	Number of students who have graduated and/or who have passed the language knowledge examination
English Courses. . .	.. 4,320	1,935French Courses....	.. 16,407	2,122Total	.. 20,727	4,057
May 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions
The data is as of December 31, 1972
N.B. It should be noted that the intensive language training program of three weeks three times a year was begun in 1968. It takes approximately three years for a student to complete this program and, therefore, the first graduates in quantity have only begun to emerge from the system. Further, continuous language training courses will begin this year and these are expected to provide a larger number of graduates by the completion of their formal language training within a twelvemonth period.
4.	Approved Man-Years 1972-73
Monitors Total (Winter Works Program)
Administration	
63	-	63Teaching	
559	206	765Pedagogical Services	124	-	124746	206	952
Estimates for 1972-73 Expenditures
Authorized Expenditures	Monitors*	TotalPersonnel (salaries)	$ 8,751,000	$ 1,569,125	$10,320,125Transportation and communications	198,000	25,000	223,000Information	10,000	4,000	14,000Professional and special services	650,000	650,000Rentals	49,000	-	49,000Repairs and upkeep	20,000	-	20,000Utilities, materials and supplies	227,000	45,000	272,000Construction and acquisition of machines and equipment	74,000	4,000	78,000All other expenditures	61,000	61,000Total	
$10,040,000	$ 1,647,125	$11,687,125
Winter works program.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Company of Young Canadians adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that agency's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same agency who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that agency?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	At the Ottawa office: 25 employees, (a) English unilingual, 7 employees, 28 per cent; (b) French unilingual, 0; (c) Bilingual, 18 employees, 72 per cent. In the field, field staff and volunteers speak the language spoken by those with whom they work.
3.	The CYC was created in 1966. Records at the national office were not maintained in a manner to provide such information.
4.	No amount is specifically budgeted for the development of bilingualism. The cost of providing administration, communication and publication services in both official languages is borne out of general operating revenues.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Tariff Board adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that agency's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same agency who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that agency?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and Tariff Board as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a) 19 English unilingual, 57.5 per cent; (b) none; (c) 14 bilingual, 42.4 per cent.
3.	Figures not available.
4.	No separate budget item.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Canadian International Development Agency adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that agency's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same agency who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that agency?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Canadian International Development Agency as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.

May 16, 1973

2.	(a) English unilingual	382
(b) French unilingual	31
(c)	Bilingual-
Anglophone bilingual 94 Francophone bilingual 265 359
49.4 per cent 4.1 per cent
46.5 per cent
Totals
772 100.0 per cent
3.	No statitics on bilingualism are available prior to 1970.
(a) English unilingual	324
(b) French unilingual	28
(c)	Bilingual-
Anglophone bilingual 45 Francophone bilingual 160 205
58.2 per cent 5.0 per cent
36.8 per cent
Totals	557 100.0 per cent
4.	From 1960 to 1970, no budget was allocated for the development of bilingualism.
-For the fiscal year 1971-1972, $81,000 and 9 man-years were allocated.
-For the fiscal year 1972-1973, $357,000 and 33.5 man-years were allocated.
Order Paper Questions
1968: (a) English unilingual-49-44 per cent; (b) French unilingual-None; (c) Bilingual-63-56 per cent of which: 58 Francophones-52 per cent, 5 Anglophones -4 per cent.
Total number of employees as of May 31, 1968: 112.
1970: (a) English unilingual-85-44 per cent; (b) French unilingual-3-1.5 per cent; (c) Bilingual-107- 56 per cent of which: 94 Francophones-49 per cent, 13 Anglophones-7 per cent.
Total number of employees as of October 1, 1970: 192.
4. Budget allocated to bilingualism:
N.B. The following figures take into account only the direct costs which were incurred within the official bilingualism programs:
1968-	no specific budget.
1969-	no specific budget.
1970-	$ 5,300.
1971-	$17,600.
1972-	$30,800.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 454-Mr. Beaudoin:
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Canadian Radio-Television Commission adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that agency's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same agency who were
(a)	English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that agency?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	Linguistic status of the CRTC employees at the present time: (a) English unilingual-127-46 per cent;
(b)	French unilingual-5-2 per cent; (c) Bilingual-142- 52 per cent of which: 119 Francophones-43.5 per cent, 23 Anglophones-8.5 per cent.
Total number of employees at the CRTC as of January 1, 1973: 274.
N.B. These statistics do not take into account the casual employees and the persons under contact.
3.	Linguistic status of the CRTC employees since 1960: The CRTC having been created in 1968, we shall give statistics only for the years 1968 and 1970. Moreover, since the tests of second language is only relative.
1.	Has the National Energy Board adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that agency's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same agency who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that agency?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the National Energy Board as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
	Number	per cent
(a)	173	81.5(b)	1	0.5(c)	38	18.0Total	212	100.0statistics	available for the	years 1960 to 1969,Number	per cent(a)	126	79.2(b)	0	0.0(c)	33	20.8Total	159	100.04. The development of bilingualism has been carried out since 1969 within the total operating appropriations pro-	
vided by Parliament.

May 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Tax Review Board adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that agency's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same agency who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that agency?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Tax Review Board as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a) 13, 48.1 per cent; (b) 0, 0.0 per cent; (c) 14, 51.9 per cent.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	1972-73, $11,500. (Tax Review Board in existence only since December 15, 1971.)


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a) 78, 61.4 per cent; (b) 0, 0.0 per cent; (c) 49, 38.6 per cent.
3.	The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs was officially created on July 1, 1971.
4.	$2,400, 1972.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Unemployment Insurance Commission adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that agency's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same agency who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that agency?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Unemployment Insurance Commission as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	The Unemployment Insurance Commission initiated a few months ago an internal survey to obtain accurate information on the total number of its unilingual English, unilingual French and bilingual employees. This is being achieved through the utilization of the Public Service Commission language knowledge test. A statistical analysis cannot be completed until the undergoing exercise is finalized.
3.	Such information is not available.
4.	By year since 1968, the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism was as follows: 1968/1969, 18,877; 1969/1970, 21,255; 1970/1971, 24,396; 1971/1972, 30,300; 1972, 156,700. Figures for each year prior to 1968 are not available.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Treasury Board adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a) 386, 72.8 per cent; (b) 4, .8 per cent; (c) 140, 26.4 per cent.
May 16, 1973

3.	For 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966 and 1968, the information is not available. For 1970: (a) 325, 73 per cent; (b) nil; (c) 120, 27 per cent.
4.	1960-1961 to 1970-1971, nil; 1971-1972, $88,000; 1972-1973, $574,770.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has Statistics Canada adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that agency's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same agency who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that agency?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and Statistics Canada as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	As of January 31, 1973, there were: (a) English unilingual employees, 2,453, 65.3 per cent; (b) French unilingual employees, 318, 8.5 per cent; (c) Bilingual employees, 983, 26.2 per cent.
3.	No information is available for 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966 and 1968. However, information for 1970 follows: (a) English unilingual, 2,550, 77.9 per cent; (b) French unilingual, 151, 4.6 per cent; (c) Bilingual, 561, 17.5 per cent.
4.	1960-1970, nil; 1970-1971, $36,671; 1971-1972, $182,667; 1972-1973, $442,914. For the period 1960-1970 there were no specific budgetary allocations for the development of bilingualism. During this period funds were re-allocated from other projects, however, precise information on the amount is not available.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Ministry of State for Science and Technology adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Ministry of State for
Order Paper Questions
Science and Technology as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a) 61.2 per cent; (b) 2.3 per cent; (c) 36.5 per cent.
3.	Not applicable as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology was formed in August, 1971.
4.	The period 1960 to March 31, 1972 is not applicable as all expenses of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology up to March 31, 1972 were paid from Privy Council appropriations. 1972-73, $23,000.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Public Service Commission adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that agency's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In I960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same agency who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that agency?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	Number Total percentage	
English unilingual	595	27%French unilingual	922*	41%Bilingual	717	32%
* 574 employees of the Public Service Commission are engaged in teaching the French language and 219 in monitoring French language retention. 793 positions, therefore, require a thorough knowledge of the French language.
N.B. An employee who passes the Commission's Language Knowledge Examination and obtains a mark which is equal or superior to that which has been established as the minimum required for his occupational group is considered bilingual. An employee who has not tried the examination (which is optional) is considered to be unilingual. It should be noted, however, that every employee who has not tried the test or has not completed his language training is not necessarily unilingual though the records will show him as such. Because of employee turnover, of the continuous process of testing, and because of language training, the figures given above are not static.

May 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3.	Prior to 1968, records were not kept based on this type of identification. In 1969 and 1970 some research was carried out. However, it was centered around the bilingual population. In 1969, 27% of the employees claimed to be bilingual. The instruments for testing and establishing standards were being developed and started to be used in mid-1970. Consequently, no meaningful figures are available to supply an answer to this question.
4.	No special budget was allocated before 1969. In 1969, the budget allocated was, $15,585; in 1970, it was; 18,982; in 1971, it was, 204,000; in 1972, it was, 1,209,925.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has Information Canada adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that agency's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same agency who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that agency?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and Information Canada as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	As of December 31st, 1972 the Information Canada staff is composed of: (a) Unilingual anglophones, 203, 37.1 per cent; (b) Unilingual francophones, 24, 4.0 per cent; (c) Bilinguals, 320, 58.0 per cent.
3.	Information Canada did not exist before April 1970. The following statistics are as at December 31st, 1970: (a) Unilingual anglophones, 178, 46.9 per cent; (b) Unilingual francophones, 19, 5.0 per cent; (c) Bilinguals, 182, 48.0 per cent.
4.	The following funds have been allocated for the development of bilingualism in Information Canada: Budget 1970-1971, no special budget; Budget 1971-1972, $73,000 (for the last 4 months only); Budget 1972-1973, $270,000.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?
[Mr. Reid.)


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Agriculture as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualiam is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	Out of 9,142 employees in the Department (a) 7,686 (84%) are English unilingual, (b) 773 (8.5%) are French unilingual, and (c) 683 (7.5%) are officially bilingual.
3.	(a) (b) and (c) No records of first and second language or bilingual ability for employees of the Department were kept prior to the establishment of the Bilingualism Programme Division in November, 1971.
4.	No budget allocated prior to 1967-1968, when a Bilingual Adviser was apointed. 1967-68, $14,000; 1968-69, $16,000; 1969-70, $17,000; 1970-71, $18,000; 1971-72, $48,000; 1972-73, $693,000.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	As of January 1, 1973, the total number of people employed in the Department was 1769, of which (a) English unilingual, 65 per cent; (b) French unilingual, 12 per cent; (c) Bilingual, 23 per cent.
3.	The information requested is not available from our records for the years in question.
4.	The required figures are known for the following years only: 1969-70, $18,091; 1970-71, $27,100; 1971-72, $27,849; 1972-73, $286,800.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of the Environment adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
May 16, 1973

2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Environment as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a) 88.9 per cent, 8639; (b) .2 per cent, 29; (c) 10.9, 1068. This includes employees on active training at varying degrees of knowledge of the other official language.
3.	Not applicable; the Department of the Environment was officially created on June 11, 1971.
4.	1971-72, $174,816.15; 1972-73, $1,087,206.00.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of External Affairs adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of External Affairs as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	The number and percentage, according to the staff establishment of the Department of External Affairs totalling presently 2,656 (excluding the Passport Office)*, are as follows: (a) English unilingual, 1,554, 59 per cent; (b) French unilingual, 91, 3 per cent; (c) Bilingual, 1,011, 38 per cent. These statistics were prepared according to results up to this date of the Public Service Commission language tests.
3.	We have no results of any real scientific value for the period extending from 1960 to 1970 since the Public Service Commission language test had not yet been initiated.
__________________________________3817
Order Paper Questions
Budget
1960-1969	nil
fiscal year 1969-1970	nil
fiscal year 1970-1971	$126,000
fiscal year 1971-1972	$145,000
*The Public Service Commission has not yet transmitted the Test results of this group of employees.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Finance adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Finance as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a) 348, 69.6 per cent; (b) 8, 1.6 per cent; (c) 144, 28.8 per cent.
3.	For 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966 and 1968, the information is not available. For 1970: (a) 217, 67.4 per cent; (b) Nil; (c) 105, 32.6 per cent.
4.	1960-1961 to 1970-1971, Nil; 1971-1972, $84,276; 19721973, $324,960.


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.

May 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	The Department is currently carrying out a language testing program and to date 1718 employees have been tested. Of these (a) 1103 or 64.3% are English unilingual, (b) 153 or 8.9% are French unilingual and (c) 462 or 26.8% are bilingual.
3.	Our first statistics on the language evaluation of the Department's employees only go back to January 1971. The current figures are indicated in the answer to part 2.
4.	1960-61, nil; 1961-62, nil; 1962-63, $15,000; 1963-64, $37,700; 1964-65, $58,500; 1965-66, $96,400; 1966-67, $120,000; 1967-68, $30,000; 1968-69, $6,300; 1969-70, $28,650; 1970-71, $117,000; 1971-72, $184,000; 1972-73, $1,144,000. From 1962 to 1968, the Department established and administered a language school for its own employees. From 1969 funds were expended for the development of bilingualism as indicated in the answer to Part 1.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a) 1611, 72.3 per cent; (b) 4, .2 per cent; (c) 614, 27.5 per cent.
3.	The Department came into being in 1969; figures are available only for 1969 and 1971. 1969: (a) 1548, 81.6 per cent; (b) nil; (c) 348, 18.4 per cent. 1971: (a) 1634, 77.7 per cent; (b) nil; (c) 468, 22.3 per cent.
4.	The Department came into being in 1969. Figures were not maintained before 1972. For 1972 the amount was $1,644,600.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Veterans Affairs adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
[Mr. Reid.)
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Veterans Affairs as follows: 1. Departments, policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	This information is not available and an extensive and costly study would be required to provide a complete answer to this question.
3.	This information is not available.
4.	1960-1970, Nil; 1970-1971, $42,000; 1971-1972, $52,000; 1972-1973, $85,000.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Transport adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Transport as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	As of January 1, 1973, the number of continuing full time employees was: (a) English unilingual, 12,360, 80 per cent; (b) French unilingual, 1,558, 12 per cent; (c) Bilingual (tested), 1,201, 8 per cent.
3.	Figures are not available for the years mentioned because PSC language proficiency tests were not developed at that time.
4.	Total budget allocated for development of bilingualism is available only for the following years: 1969-70, $92,280; 1970-71, $59,100; 1971-72, $324,754; 1972-73, $976,900.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Supply and Services adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In I960, 1962, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in the department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Supply and Service as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	Based on the information presently available on the existing strength, the situation in the Department of Supply and Services is as follows: (a) 5292 employees, 65.6 per cent; (b) 463 employees, 5.8 per cent; (c) 2310 employees, 28.6 per cent.
3.	The Department of Supply and Services was created on April 1, 1969. Therefore, the requested information is presented from that date only, based on the available information: 1970: (a) 5266 employees, 67.5 per cent; (b) 433 employees, 5.5 per cent; (c) 2100 employees, 27.0 per cent.
4.	The Department of Supply and Services was created on April 1, 1969. Therefore, the requested information is presented from that date only, by fiscal periods: 1969-70, $22,000; 1970-71, $26,500; 1971-72, $53,400; 1972-73, $99,100.


SOLICITOR GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Solicitor General Department adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In I960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Solicitor General Department as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation
Order Paper Questions
Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.
R.C.M.P.	C.P.S.	N.P.B.	Min. Sec.	Totals	No. %	No. %	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%(a) 12,193 86	3,454 67	318	65	73	59	16,038	80(b) 450 3	77 01	18	03	00	00	545	03(c) 1,577 11	1,616 32	160	32	50	41	3,403	1714,220 100	5,147 100	496	100	123	100	19,986	1003.	R.C.M.P.*	C.P.S.*	N.P.B.**	Min. Sec.**	1968	1970	1970	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%(a)	204	71	263	68	43	75(b)	06	02	11	03	00	00(c)	78	27	112	29	14	25288	100	386	100	57	100
No statistics available for years asked. [DOT][DOT]Figures available only for the years shown.
4.
R.C.M.P.* C.P.S.**	N.P.B.	Min. Sec. Totals***$	$	$ t1969...	1,755	20,2311970...	Nil	26,0411971..	. 1972..	.	}l87,000	908	29,976 32,985
No separate account maintained with respect to costs related to the development of bilingualism in the Force.
[DOT][DOT]Budgeting for the development of bilingualism commenced during the fiscal year 1971-72
[DOT][DOT][DOT]Figures for years, other than shown, are not available.


SECRETARY OF STATE DEPARTMENT-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Secretary of State Department adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Secretary of State Department as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.

May 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	All employees have not been tested for language proficiency. However, a survey across the Department has indicated the following: (a) Employees using English as sole or main language of work 14 per cent or 265; (b) Employees using French as sole or main language of work 16 per cent or 303; (c) Employees using both English and French in their work situation 70 per cent or 1,325.
3.	No figures are available as it was not until 1970 that methods for testing and establishing standards were developed.
4.	1960-70, Nil; 1971-72, $64,000 for last quarter of fiscal year; 1972-73, $565,000.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION- BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	English unilingual, 585, 64 per cent; French unilingual, 100, 11 per cent; Bilingual, 227, 25 per cent.
3.	1960-68-The Department was established in April 1969. 1970: English unilingual, 617, 69 per cent; French unilingual, 83, 9 per cent; Bilingual, 194, 22 per cent.
4.	1969, $20,000;	1970, $27,600;	1971, $65,100; 1972,


$215,500. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a) English unilingual, 2,110, 76.0 per cent of the total non-operational; (b) French unilingual, 226, 8.25 per cent of the total non-operational; (c) Bilingual, 427, 15.45 per cent of the total non-operational.
3.	The Department began establishing records of language skills in 1971 and at first, only recorded those that were bilingual-not those that were unilingual English or unilingual French. Out of a total of 2,593 professional, administrative and managerial staff, 337 or 13 per cent were bilingual. It had not established language records for operational staff.
4.	1969-70, $19,644; 1970-71, $32,500; 1971-72, $169,000; 197273, $532,000. These figures cover only the direct expenses of the office of the Adviser on Bilingualism. The Department has not segregated expenses involved in translation of documents, manuals, signs etc. nor expenses involved with attendance at language training.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Post Office Department adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Post Office Department as follows: 1. Departments' policy on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.
Present Total Staff	Present No. /% of bilingual staff	Present No. /% of employees using French as sole or main language of work	Present No. /% of employees using English as sole or main language of work	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%20,588	2,541	10	5,860	29	14,698	71
These figures include only the National Capital Region and other areas or districts where there is a significant bilingual population. Other areas do not keep records of bilingual employees.
May 16, 1973

3.	We have no figures for these periods.
4.	Prior to the fiscal year 1971-72 there was no special budget for the Programme on Bilingualism activities and charges were made to the Personnel Branch budget. 197172, $100,725; 1972-73, $149,549.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of National Revenue adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of the National Revenue as follows:	1. Departments' policy on
Bilingualism is based on the requirements of Official Language Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
By National Revenue, Customs and Excise:
2.	(a) and (b)-Records are not kept in such a way as to make it practical to answer those parts, (c) Number of bilingual employees is 1868. The percentage based on a total work force of 8301 is 22.6 per cent.
3.	(a), (b) and (c)

 Records are not kept in such a way as to make it practical to answer this question.
4.	For the period from 1960 to 1970 inclusive, there was no budget allocated specifically for the development of bilingualism in this department. For the two fiscal years since 1970, the departmental allocation for bilingualism was as follows:
1971-72	1972-73
Man-Years Dollars	Man-Years Dollars
12	230,000	148	1,707,500
By National Revenue, Taxation:
2.	The following numbers and percentages of departmental personnel are effective on December 31, 1972: (a) English unilingual, 7,854, 75.7 per cent; (b) French unilingual, 1,232, 12.0 per cent; (c) Bilingual, 1,329, 12.3 per cent.
Order Paper Questions
3.	The information required by this question is not available. (The departmental language testing and identification program was not completed until the fall '72, therefore, the figures requested are not available prior to 1972).
4.	The total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism within the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is as follows: 1972-73, $1,647,400; 1971-72, $667,920. In years previous to 1971-72, no funds were separately budgeted for the development of bilingualism as such.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2 and 3. Employees may only be considered as officially bilingual on the basis of having successfully completed the Public Service Commission second language proficiency test and met all standards set for their particular work category. Since this test is not compulsory, there may be certain persons who are in fact bilingual and who are not counted as such. However for the purpose of this question, all employees not bilingual, are considered to be unilingual. There is, at present, no basis for officially identifying unilingual French or unilingual English employees. The information requested in 2 and 3 was not available before 1971. Listed below are the data available since this date regarding the language proficiency of employees is compiled for departmental requirements.
Year	Total number of employees	(a) and (6) Total number of unilinguals	%	(c) Total number of bilinguals	%1971	. 6,752	6,245	92.5	507	7.51972	. 6,938	6,441	92.7	497	7.31973	. 7,124	6,559	92.1	565	7.9
May 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions
4.	There is no easily retrievable information as to monies spent for Bilingualism in NHW before 1971. The Departmental Budget for bilingualism allocated in 1971-72 was $138,000 and in 1972-73 is $419,000.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) Bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of National Defence as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	On 31 December, 1972 there were (a) 61,960 (76%) unilingual Anglophones (b) 10,422 (13%) unilingual Francophones (c) 9,000 (11%) bilingual Canadian Armed Forces personnel. There are 30,976 permanent civilian employees in the Department. Some have been tested as to their linguistic competence, others have made self-declarations of bilingual capability but these self-declarations in some instances have proven too unreliable to be included in statistics therefore no accurate figures for (a), (b) or (c) above are available.
3.	Prior to 1972, personnel statistics did not reflect this information. In order to provide an accurate answer, additional staff would be required in a large number of field units to peruse files to ascertain self-declaration at the times listed. The Department does not have the resources that would be required to employ such additional staff, nor, as indicated in (2) above would reliable statistics result.
4.	No cost data is available for the fiscal years 1960-61 to 1967-68. During the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1971-72 inclusive no funds were specifically allocated for language training activities, however, it is estimated that the following amounts were used for the development of bilingualism in the Department: 1968-69-$3,865,500; 1969-70-$3,782,400; 1970-71-$5,757,200; 1971-72-$14,825,100. The 1972-73 estimate is in the neighbourhood of $28,094,600 of which $14,503,500 represents salaries of personnel on Language Training.
[Mr. Reid.)


DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Manpower and Immigration adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a), (b) and (c) The information is not available from departmental records.
3.	(a), (b) and (c) The information is not available from departmental records.
4.	1960-69-The information is not available from departmental records. 1970-71, $111,000; 1971-72, $174,000; 1972-73, $671,000.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Labour adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Labour as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a) 482, 71.4 per cent; (b) 1; (c) 195, 28.6 per cent.
3.	Information not available.
4.	1960-67, Nil; 1968, $10,000; 1969, $18,400; 1970, $23,000; 1971, $33,200; 1972, $100,350.
May 16, 1973


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Justice adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Justice as follows: 1. Departments' policy on bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	(a) 440, 61.4 per cent; (b) 3, 0.4 per cent; (c) 274, 38.2 per cent.
3.	Information not available.
4.	From 1960-67, Not applicable; 1968-69, $4,829.29; 196970, $28,395.03; 1970-71, $55,455.80; 1971-72, $57,023.33; 1972-73, $32,650.84 (April 1 to December 31, 1972).


POSITION HELD BY MR. RAY PERRAULT
Mr. Nelson: Does Mr. Ray Perrault hold any official paid position in any department of the government and, if so (a) what department is he attached to (b) what is his area of operation (c) is he authorized to make announcements and statements on behalf of any government department (d) what expense budget does he receive (e) what office facilities does he have and in what cities?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Yes. (a) Department of the Environment; (b) Executive Assistant to the Minister; (c) Mr. Perrault has the normal range of responsibilities associated with such a position; (d) Mr. Perrault has the normal expenditure allowances; (e) One office in Environment Canada headquarters, Hull, Quebec.


NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVANTS INVOLVED IN LANGUAGE TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Crouse: 1.	How many public servants were enrolled in language training programs from 1966 to December 31, 1972 and what was the average drop-out rate in the same period?
2.	How many public servants enrolled in the language training program successfully reached Level 3 by December 31, 1972?
3.	How many public servants enrolled in the language training program successfully reached Level 4 by December 31, 1972?


James Hugh Faulkner: have been given the following answer by the Public Service Commission: 1. The number of Language Bureau students from 1966 to December 31, 1972 is 20,563. The average drop-out rate to August 31, 1972 is 33 per cent.*
Order Paper Questions
2.	The number of students who completed the third level, but not the fourth level, is 2,138.
3.	The total number of students who completed the fourth level is 942.
N.B. The total number of language training graduates to December 31, 1972 is 3,080. In addition, 977 Language Bureau students passed the commissions language knowledge examination and are considered sufficiently bilingual to perform the duties of their positions.
Included in the drop-out rate are students who left the Public Service or were transferred out of the country or to regions where training facilities are not available.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many appeals have been initiated against decisions of the Department of National Health and Welfare by applicants for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan?
2.	Of the total number of unfavourable decisions rendered, how many were appealed, and of that total number, how many appeals were successful when heard by the Review Board?
3.	How many of the favourable decisions rendered on appeal of the Review Committee have been appealed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the Pension Appeals Board, and of those appeals considered and decided by the Pension Appeals Board, how many confirmed the decision of the Review Committee and how many were unfavourable?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: All answers refer to the period from February 1, 1970 (when payment of disability pensions commenced) to December 31, 1972.
1.	Appeals to the minister for reconsideration of the initital decision, 1,833.
2.	Of the 7,501 decisions which were unfavourable to the applicants, out of a total of 36,881 decisions, 1,833 were appealed to the minister for reconsideration of the initial decision; 833 of these appeals were not upheld by the minister and, of these, 159 requested a Review Committee hearing, 35 being successful.
3.	The minister appealed to the Pension Appeals Board in 23 cases. He subsequently withdrew two appeals after obtaining additional medical evidence which allowed him to grant the pension. Of the 21 cases remaining, 10 have been heard: in one case the decision of the Review Committee was confirmed on the basis of new evidence, seven decisions were in favour of the minister and two decisions have not yet been given.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-BENEFICIARY COUNT
Mr. Hellyer: How many persons were in receipt of unemployment insurance payments in Canada in each month of 1972?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Order Paper Questions
Beneficiaries of Unemployment Insurance Benefits1
May 16, 1973
1972	Regular Benefits2 No With Earnings Earnings Reported Reported	Special Benefits3	TotalJanuary	.... 552,000	34,000	34,000	620,000February	.... 614,000	40,000	43,000	697,000March	.... 613,000	42,000	42,000	697,000April	.... 589,000	41,000	35,000	665,000May	.... 518,000	40,000	32,000	590,000June	.... 454,000	34,000	32,000	520,000July	.... 466,000	28,000	33,000	527,000August	.... 470,000	27,000	33,000	530,000September	... 413,000	30,000	35,000	478,000October	.... 418,000	33,000	41,000	492,000November	.... 457,000	35,000	45,000	537,000December	... 536,000	41,000	48,000	625,000Annual Average..	... 508,000	36,000	38,000	582,000
JEach of these statistics relate to a reference week taken as representative for the month in question.
2Regular unemployment insurance benefits including benefits for trainees who have completed their courses but have not found work.
3Special benefit types include Sickness, Maternity, Retirement, fishing and benefits paid to trainees while on an approved training course.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-PREMIUM REVENUE AND BENEFITS
Mr. Roche: 1.	How much did the government receive in UIC employer-employee contributions for the calendar year 1972?
2.	Is this the total amount to be received by the government as provided for under the Act, and, if not, what amount has the government estimated to be the total employer-employee contribution for the calendar year, 1972?
3.	How many individuals have drawn benefits under the Unemployment Insurance plan from January 1 to December 31, 1972, on a monthly basis?
4.	How many individuals drew UIC benefits between January 1 and December 31, 1971, on a monthly basis?
5.	What was the average length of time of a benefit period from January 1 to December 31, 1972, not including maternity benefits?
6.	(a) What percentage of all individuals drawing UIC benefits during the period January 1, 1972 to the latest month for which statistics are available, received (i) the maximum benefit (ii) the minimum benefit (b) what was the amount of the average benefit?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. $715 million.
2.	This represents both the actual revenue received and the estimated revenue for 1972. The final figure will not be known until all T-4's have been collected in August 1973 and any adjustments will be made at that time.
3 and 4. Beneficiaries of Unemployment Insurance Benefits-All Claim Types

	1971	1972
January	591,000	620,000February	692,000	697,000March	640,000	697,000April	692,000	665,000May	550,000	590,000June	279,000	520,000July	264,000	527,000August	265,000	530,000September	269,000	478,000October	269,000	492,000November	319,000	537,000December	414,000	625,000Annual Average	437,000	582,0005.	The average length of time on regular and fishing benefits during 1972 was 17.2 weeks.6.	(a) (i) 13.7 per cent of all claimants qualifying for benefits in 1972 were eligible for the maximum weekly benefit of $100. (ii) 0.3 per cent were eligible for the minimum weekly benefit of $20. (b) The average weekly benefit amount paid during 1972 was $62.


CANADIAN-UNITED STATES BOX CABS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In the past three years (a) what revenues were received by each railway in Canada as a result of the use of Canadian boxcars on American lines (b) what payments were made to American railways for the use of American box cars and by which railways?
2.	What is the average duration in which Canadian box cars are retained in the United States?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. The
car rental tariffs currently in use by North American Railways are complex in that the rates vary with the age and original cost of cars and the mileages they travel while on lines other than the owning railways'; the information is therefore not at hand.
2. The records of the companies are not maintained in such a manner as to enable ready identification of specific types of equipment, such as box cars.


CITIZENSHIP PROGRAM
Mr. Grier: 1.	Does the Department of the Secretary of State plan to provide citizenship outreach programs in 1973?
2.	Will such plans include provisions for qualified personnel to be available outside normal working hours, and in locations other than citizenship offices, to process the first and second stages of citizenship applications?
3.	When would such procedures be ready to take effect?
4.	Will consideration be given to training or otherwise enabling persons, other than departmental employees, to process the first two stages of citizenship applications?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes, where necessary.
3.	A decision on these programs has now been taken and recruitment of the necessary personnel to implement them will start shortly.
May 16, 1973

4.	Where no departmental facilities exist, such arrangements have already been made for a number of courts to process citizenship applications.


CAR RENTAL CONCESSIONS AT MINISTRY AIRPORTS
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the policy of the Department of Transport in regard to the number of car rental concessions allowed at major airports?
2.	Is there adequate counter space at air terminals to allow the five major car rental firms proper operating space?
3.	Is there adequate parking space at major air terminals to allow four or five car rental concessions?
4.	Are difficulties being experienced at the present time by the Department of Transport managers in providing parking space for car rental firms?;
5.	Does the Department of Transport have information on how many car rental firms are allowed at the London, England and Miami, Florida Airports or other major cities in the USA or Europe and, if so, what is it?
6.	Is it the policy of the Minister of Transport to allow only one limousine concessionaire, one book shop and one barber shop but allows unlimited car rental operators and, if so, for what reason?
7.	Would the Minister of Transport consider consulting with Canadian-owned car rental firms to reach an amicable solution to the number of concessionaires to be allowed at major airports?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
policy of the Ministry of Transport with respect to car rental concessions is: (a) The company must be able to serve at least 50 per cent of the Ministry's Airports which already have car rental service and the system must be established in the cities served by those airports; (b) The company must have a Canadian head office with which the Ministry would negotiate, and which would be signatory to the agreement with the Ministry i.e., the Ministry would not deal with individual franchised operators; (c) If the company meets these two criteria it would be required to pay an annual guaranteed fee equal to the average annual concession fee being paid by the other car rental systems established at Ministry Airports.
Order Paper Questions
2. Any new car rental concession could not be assured of receiving accommodation at all airports equal to that enjoyed by the four car rental firms presently operating at these airports.
3 and 4. Parking space is limited at some of the major airport terminal buildings. A new concession could not be assured of being provided with the same equivalent space of present car rental companies.
5.	The number of car rental firms allowed at European and United States airports varies, but the Ministry does not have information as to the exact number operating at these airports.
6.	The limousine operations are licensed and controlled by provincial authorities. Concessions for the book and barber shops are not exclusive and are awarded on the basis of a public tender call. It is the practice to grant one concession when it is considered that the business offering would not justify the provision of additional facilities.
7.	In the past, the Ministry has consulted with the car rental industry in developing the policy and is prepared to continue to do so, either individually or collectively.


PORTNEUF CONSTITUENCY-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOLS
Mr. Godin: Since 1965, has the government contributed financially to the construction of schools and the purchase of equipment in the constituency of Portneuf and, if so (a) to how many projects have such grants been applied (b) what was the total amount for each project (c) on what date were such amounts paid?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: (a) 6; (b) See attached table; (c) This information is not readily available and would require an inordinate cost and length of time to prepare.
Financial Contribution by the Government of Canada for the Construction
Project	65-66	66-67	67-68
of Schools and the Purchase of Equipment in
68-69	69-70	70-71	71-72
Portneuf
Total
Payments
Ecole Secondaire Albert Ouellet-
Charlesbourg	
Ecole Secondaire Polyvalente-
Charlesbourg	
Ecole Secondaire St. Joseph-
Loretteville	
Ecole Secondaire Polyvalente-
Neufchatel	
Ecole Secondaire Polyvalente-
Duberger-Les Saules	
Ecole Secondaire Polyvalente

Ancienne Lorette	
Total


PENITENTIARIES-COST OF MAINTENANCE AND PAROLE SUPERVISION OF INMATES, 1972
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the average cost of maintaining one inmate during
129,395	-	-	-	-	129,395-	1,400,000	387,842	236,160	-	2,024,00285,713	-	-	-	-	85,713-	930,202	317,151	67,275	57,000	1,371,628-	-	-	49,078	1,468,000	1,517,078-	1,046,305	250,696	-	-	1,297,001215,108	3,376,507	955,689	352,513	1,525,000	6,424,817
the year 1972 in (a) federal institution of all types (b) maximum security institutions (c) medium security institutions (d) minimum security institutions (e) farm and work camps?
2.	What is the average cost of parole supervision per parolee for the year 1972?

May 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. (a) $9,325; (b) $9,839; (c) $8,458; (d) $4,518; (e) farm and work camps are, in fact, classified as minimum security institutions. Accordingly, maintenance costs of inmates in farm and work camps have been included with (d) above.
2. $1,280.
Notes:-Part 1 The average cost of maintaining inmates for the fiscal year 1971-72 is based on actual operational and maintenance expenditures and the amortization of total capital costs. The decrease in the total average cost per inmate from 1970-71 is due to the implementation of improved accounting procedures which included an amortization of 20 per cent on capital costs and of 10 per cent on equipment costs. Part 2 The figure $1,280 includes the cost of maintaining the National Parole Board, the cost of supervision, communication, travel, training and education, stationery, supplies, administrative support, and capital cost, as well as the cost of revocations and forfeitures, and case preparation for those inmates not subsequently granted parole. However, the cost of hiring a parole officer, paying his accommodation, clerical assistance, travelling, etc., would be approximately $20,000. He could supervise 40 cases on parole. This means that the cost of maintaining an individual on parole would amount to approximately $500, exclusive of general overhead costs for administration of the parole board and case preparation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSIONADVERTISING COSTS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total amount being spent to explain the new T4U slip in all media and how is this divided among (a) newspapers (b) radio (c) television?
2.	What advertising agency is handling this matter?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Although all the invoices have not yet been received it is expected that the total cost of T4U advertising will be approximately $290,000; (a) Newspapers $200,000; (b) Radio $90,000; (c) Television, nil.
2. (i) The newspaper advertising was handled by Omnicom Advertising Limited; (ii) The radio advertising was handled by our own Public Relations Branch.


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


Jean Marchand: 1. Two thousand and fifteen.
2.	1,157; 1,606; 1,734; 1,904.
3.	103,154; 181,713; 163,458; 156,527; 15,530.

4.	$1,026,407; $1,607,206; $1,946,579; $2,026,258.
5.	AI-00, $5,750 to $6,350; AI-1, $8,175 to $9,727; AI-2, $9,739 to $11,589; AI-3, $11,104 to $13,218; AI-4, $12,539 to $14,930; AI-5, $14,414 to $17,159; AI-6, $16,076 to $18,268; AI-7, $17,052 to $19,377; AI-8, $18,029 to $20,488; AI-9, $19,079 to $21,676.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-OVER-SNOW SUPPORT VEHICLE
Mr. Rowland: 1.	Are the Canadian Armed Forces currently considering the purchase of an over-snow support vehicle?
2.	What are the names of the vehicles and their manufacturers currently being considered for this function?
3.	How many units is it anticipated would be purchased and what would be the per unit price?
4.	What is the anticipated total expenditure on the purchase of such a vehicle?
5.	Will any eventual contract for purchase contain the provision that the vehicle must be manufactured in Canada?
6.	Would any eventual contract for purchase contain provisions for regional distribution of expenditures on the vehicle?
7.	On what date may an announcement with respect to the letting of the contract be expected?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Supply and Services as follows: 1. Yes, evaluation trials are now under way and are expected to be concluded in July 1973.
2. Dynatrac Mark 2, Oversnow vehicle, Flextrac Nod-well, Calgary Alberta; Volvo BV202, Bandwagen, Bolinder Munktell, Sweden.
3 and 4. Approximately 300 vehicles. Sufficient information is not available to allow a realistic estimate to be made of either the unit or total program cost at this time.
5.	The provisions of the purchase contract cannot be determined until the source of supply has been selected. It is Canadian government policy always to take Canadian content into consideration when selecting a source of supply.
6.	No special contract provisions are contemplated at this time.
7.	Later in 1973.


CAPITAL MURDER
Mr. Olaussen: In each year 1952 to 1962, what was the number of (a) people executed for capital murder (b) capital murders?


John Mercer Reid: (a)	(b)
	No. of	No. of
	executions	convictions
1952	7	181953	10	161954	8	15
May 16, 1973

Order Paper Questions BURIAL AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
	(a)	(b)
	No. of	No. of
	executions	convictions
1955	8	141956	7	101957	4	81958	2	191959	3	141960	3	81961	2	111962	2	11
By Statistics Canada:
(b) The table below provides the number of murder victims where the charge was capital murder, each year 1954 to 1962 inclusive. Data are not available for 1952 and 1953. After September 1961 the offence of murder was divided into capital and non-capital murder. Prior to this, all murders in Canada were considered capital murder.
Year	No. of murder victims where the charge was capital murder
1954	125
1955	118
1956	131
1957	129
1958	153
1959	141
1960	190
1961	109"'
1962	90'"
01 Figures are affected by change in law; division into capital and non-capital murder.


PAYMENT TO TRIDENT STEAMSHIP COMPANY FOR SERVICES BETWEEN HALIFAX AND ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What amount of money is paid the Trident Steamship Company for services provided between Halifax, Nova Scotia and St. John's, Newfoundland?
2.	(a) What are the terms of the contract (b) on what date does it expire?


Jean Marchand: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. A subsidy in the amount of $12 per ton of general cargo carried between Halifax, N.S. and St. John's, Nfld. with a minimum annual payment of $300,000.
2. (a) For the five year period ending March 31, 1977, the minimum service shall be one round trip per week, weather and ice conditions permitting. The above subsidy amount is guaranteed for three years. The subsidy payable for the remaining two years of the agreement will be an amount agreed upon by the Commission and the contractor after a revision of the Company's over-all operating results at that time; (b) The subsidy agreement expires on March 31, 1977.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	(a) How many persons are buried at the government's expense throughout Canada each year (b) is this the sole responsibility of the federal government, a provincial obligation or a joint venture?
2.	Of the total number buried, how many are adults and how many are children?
3.	What is the cost to the government to carry out this service for an adult and for a child?
4.	Of the costs incurred to bury a person, what percentage is allotted to the cost of the casket and to administrative costs?
5.	How many people die each year in Canada and, of this number, how many are buried?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and Statistics Canada as follows: 1. (a) During 1971, approximately 6,500 persons in need were buried at government expense; (b) the federal government and the provincial governments share in the cost of burying needy persons under the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan.
2.	This information is not available at the federal level.
3.	The average cost to the federal government of burying an adult is $160 and a child, $140.
4.	This information is not available at the federal level.
5.	The following table gives the number of people who have died each year 1967 to 1971 inclusive in Canada. Data are not yet available for 1972. Number of Deaths in Canada 1967-71: 1967, 150,283; 1968, 153,196; 1969, 154,477; 1970, 155,961; 1971, 157,272.


STATUS OF HUDSON STREET CROSSING OF FRASER RIVER
Mr. Reynolds: What is the present status of the Hudson Street crossing of the Fraser River?


Jean Marchand: The
main contract for the Hudson Street crossing was awarded on January 3. The work is presently on schedule, with project completion in early 1975.


INFORMATION RELATING TO MONEY PAID TO RAY PERRAULT
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How much money has been paid by the government, before any deductions at source, in the nature of salary, honorarium or retainers to Mr. Ray Perrault between October 30, 1972 and up to and including March 31, 1973?
2.	Has any money been paid to Mr. Ray Perrault as an expense allowance of any kind whatsoever and, if so (a) what is the total amount of such expenses paid (b) what is the exact description of each expense and the amount involved in each case?


Bill Rompkey: 1. Mr. Ray Perrault received salary from October 30, 1972 to March 31, 1973, based on an annual salary of $17,500 to $20,000.
2. Travel expenses, $791; total expenses, $791.

May 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions


POTENTIAL TRADE ACTION BY UNITED STATES AGAINST CANADA
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	On what dates since January 1, 1973, did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce communicate with the Secretary of Commerce of the United States regarding possible or potential trade action by the United States against Canada?
2.	Have letters of protest to the United States Government been sent by either the Prime Minister or the Minister and, if so, on what dates and to whom?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is as follows: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce met with the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, as well as with the Secretary of the Treasury, March 29, in Washington and had discussions on the trade situation.
In answer to part 2, our concerns about possible U.S. trade actions have been made known verbally, both by the minister and in government to government consultations. In addition, there have been a number of formal representations made to the U.S. authorities through normal diplomatic channels, for example, Michelin. In so far as the Prime Minister's office is concerned, the answer is no.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That is a wonderful answer of indefiniteness.


POSSIBILITY OF USING CAR FERRY &quot;PRINCESS OF NANAIMO&quot; BETWEEN NOVA SCOTIA AND NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Neale (Vancouver East): 1.	What inquiries were made regarding the possibility of using the car ferry Princess of Nanaimo in the service between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland for which the ferry Travetal is now being used?
2.	What was the outcome of these inquiries?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
government of Canada made no inquiries regarding the possibility of using any vessels in the service between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland now being served by the ferry Travetal" as this service is a privately operated service owned by the Trident Shipping Company. We understand that the vessel referred to, the Princess of Nanaimo, has been renamed the Henry Osborne and is in a competitive service to the Travetal 2. Not applicable.


DISPUTE BETWEEN PELEE ISLAND SHIPPING COMPANY AND UNION
Mr. Grier: 1.	Does a legal dispute presently exist between the Pelee Island Shipping Company Limited and the union representing the Company employees and, if so (a) what are the detailed reasons for the dispute (b) what methods have been taken, and are presently being taken, to resolve the dispute?
2.	Is the operator of the ferry Pelee Islander in full compliance with the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. Yes; (a) The union has been seeking to conclude a collective agreement following certification as bargaining agent by the

Canada Labour Relations Board on June 30, 1971; (b) The dispute has gone through the full conciliation process under the legislation, beginning with the appointment of a Conciliation Officer, a Conciliation Board and further post-conciliation mediation by the Conciliation Officer. At the union's request, an Industry Specialist was appointed as mediator on March 13 pursuant to Section 195 of the Canada Labour Code. He has brought about a settlement.
2. Yes. The settlement terms comply with the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.


NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM
Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How much money has been awarded in grants from the New Horizons Program since its establishment?
2.	How much has been awarded (a) in each of the ten provinces
and each of the two territories (b) in Metropolitan Toronto and in Scarborough?


Marc Lalonde: The amounts given below are as of April 17, 1973. 1. $3,387,631.
Provincially:	$
Newfoundland	73,589
P.E.I.	29,946
Nova Scotia	237,853
New Brunswick	207,140
Quebec	848,691
Ontario	984,217
Manitoba	206,132
Saskatchewan	176,544
Alberta	240,173
British Columbia	374,210
N.W.T.	9,136
Yukon	0
(b) Metoropiltan Toronto	442,481
Scarborough	17,136


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Nesdoly: 1.	With regard to the Canada Pension Plan, from its inception to March 31, 1972 (a) what were the total employer and employee contributions (b) what were the total benefits paid out in this period (c) how much money was in the fund as of March 31, 1972?
2.	With regard to the Canada Pension Plan, from April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973 (a) what were the total employer and employee contributions (b) what were the total benefits paid out in this period (c) how much money was in the fund as of March 31, 1973?


Marc Lalonde: 1. (a) $4,404.5 million; (including contributions from the self-employed); (b) $297.8 million; (c) $4,778.5 million.
*2. (a) $897.4 million, (including contributions from the self-employed); (b) $206.3 million; (c) $5,794.1 million.

*The above amounts have not been finalized for the fiscal year 1972-73 and may be subject to minor revisions.


CANADIAN EQUESTRIAN ASSOCIATION
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Who is the Director of the Canadian Equestrian Association and what is his salary?
2.	What was the total amount granted to this Association for the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73?
3.	What is the projected grant for this Association for the fiscal year 1973-74?


Marc Lalonde: 1. To the knowledge of the Department of National Health and Welfare, no Executive Director has yet been appointed by this association.
2.	1971-72, Nil; 1972-73, $19,280.
3.	Not known at this time.


CANADIAN YACHTING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Who is the Director of the Canadian Yachting Association and what is his salary?
2.	What was the total amount granted to this Association for the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73?
3.	What is the projected grant for this Association for the fiscal year 1973-74?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Mr. Terry Phillips (Executive Director). The salary of the Executive Director is the responsibility of the Association.
2.	1971-72, $38,618; 1972-73, $90,689.
3.	No grant has yet been approved for 1973-74.


COMPENSATION TO POTATO GROWERS
Mr. Godin: For the years (a) 1970 (b) 1971, what were the amounts paid by the government to compensate potato producers for damages sustained by their crops in the constituencies of (i) Champlain (ii) Portneuf (iii) Montmorency?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Nil.


HONOURS RECEIVED FROM KING GEORGE VI AND HER MAJESTY, ELIZABETH II SINCE 1947
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What Canadians have since 1947, and on what dates, received honours from King George VI and Her Majesty Elizabeth II which are the Crown's prerogative to confer?
2.	Have any such honours been awarded (a) without consultation (b) with the consent of the Government of Canada and, if so, to whom?


John Mercer Reid: The answer to part 1 is as follows: Since 1947 the following Canadians received from the late King George VI and from Her Majesty The Queen honours which are the personal gift of The Sovereign. Order of Merit: November 17, 1947, Rt. Hon. W. L. MacKen-
Order Paper Questions
zie King; January 1, 1953, Wilder G. Penfield, M.D.; May 28, 1971, Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson; Royal Victorian Chain: July 23, 1960, Rt. Hon. Vincent Massey; Royal Victorian Order: January 1, 1969, Miss Mary Goldie, M.V.O. (IV); January 1, 1972, Esmond Butler, C.V.O. It is usual that The Sovereign informs the Prime Minister when such honours are to be conferred.
The answer to part 2 (a) is: From 1947 to 1968 when the present regulations came into effect governing the acceptance of honours by Canadians, all British honours and decorations other than those listed in (1) were conferred on the recommendation of the Canadian government. Excluding the Korean Campaign, however, only awards in recognition of acts of bravery by Canadian citizens were recommended.
Mr. Speaker, the answer to part (b) is that from 1968, the following Canadians received honours on recommendation by the United Kingdom Government under the provisions of the Canadian regulations. 1968: Jardine, Mrs. Isabel, MBE; 1969: Andrews, Miss Inez M. MBE; Bult-Fran-cis, Lt.-Col. D.S.F. OBE; Campbell, Mr. J. C. CMG; Currie, Miss Mary MBE; Durham, Elliott M. CBE; Galarce, Mrs. Mary J. MBE; Gordon, Mrs. Joan E. W. MBE; Marks, Mr. J. E. CBE; Ross, James J. A. N. CBE; Sharratt, Miss Alice MBE; 1970: Byrne, Leslie D. CBE; Mascari, Dr. A. J. MBE; Talman, Dr. James J. OBE; 1971: Best, Dr. Charles CH; Bleasby, Mr. J. R. G. OBE; Haughan, Mr. W. B. CBE; 1972: Mann, Mr. Charles N. MBE.


AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION BOARD-DISPOSAL OF 1971 POTATO CROP
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	In what manner did the Agricultural Stabilization Board dispose of the potatoes of the 1971 crop that the Board bought in 1972 in the Province of Quebec?
2.	What quantities were placed on the market?
3.	What quantities were destroyed?
4.	What quantities were simply left to the producers with permission to dispose of them as they wished?


Eugene Whelan: 1. In
those cases where agreement could be reached with the producer, the potatoes were sold back to him for livestock feed. In other cases they were dumped.
2.	After being dyed, 23,790 hundredweight were sold for livestock feed.
3.	65,637 hundredweight.
4.	None.


BREAKDOWN OF PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN FISHERIES SERVICE
Mr. Haliburton: What is the total breakdown of personnel engaged in (a) administration (b) inspection (c) protection of the Fisheries Service of the Department of the Environment employed in the Province of Nova Scotia during 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1971 and 1972?


Bill Rompkey: No data available for the period 1950 to 1960.
3830

May 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions
(a)	(b)	(c)Administration	Inspection	ProtectionConti-	Conti-	Conti-nuing	Term	nuing	Term	nuing	Term1965...	. 36	Not	89	Not	175	Notavailable	available	available1970...	. 46	12	96	6	204	511971...	. 44	11	97	11	204	641972....	. 47	13	96	19	206	47


CBC-POLICY OF PRODUCING PROGRAMS IN ENGLISH AND FRENCH
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What instructions have been given by the government to CBC with respect to its policy of producing programs in English and French only?
2.	Is the government planning to amend relevant legislation so as to specifically provide for program production or dubbing in non-official languages?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. No instructions have been given by the government to the CBC with respect to its policy of producing programs in English and French only.
2. No amendments to the legislation are planned at the present time to provide specifically for program production or dubbing in non-official languages.


TELEPHONE SERVICE TO PEOPLE IN RURAL ONTARIO
Mr. Wise: Is it the intention of the government to provide free telephone service to people in rural Ontario telephoning regional government offices?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: No.


CONSTRUCTION OF WHARF ON THWARTWAY ISLAND
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development state in a reply to Question No. 419 on the Order Paper that there were plans to construct a wharf at Thwartway Island in the St. Lawrence River during the 1973 season?
2.	Did the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development advise the Member for Leeds by letter dated April 11, 1973 that there are no plans for any construction at Thwartway Island in the St. Lawrence River during the 1973 season and, if so, what is the reason for this contradiction to the answer given to Order Paper Question No. 419?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes.
2. The letter of April 11 stated "that there are no plans for any major construction at Thwartway Island". The apparent confusion arises from the fact that the wharf planned will be constructed by park employees. Therefore, there are no contracts involved and no major construction.


NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TRANSFERRED FROM DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES TO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Knight: 1.	How many employees of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources were transferred to senior positions in the Department of the Environment in 1972 and to April 1, 1973?
2.	What positions do these employees now hold in the Department of the Environment and what is their salary range?
3.	What qualifications do these employees have for these positions?


Bill Rompkey: 1. No employees in the senior category were transferred from the Department of Energy Mines and Resources to the Department of the Environment during the period January 1, 1972 to April 1, 1973.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


INDIAN LANDS
Mr. Godin: 1.	Can an Indian who is the owner or the holder of an ownership certificate for a tract of land on a reserve resell the land to a non-Indian?
2.	Can a band council buy houses (non-taxable properties) on a reserve and subsequently rent them to non-Indians in order to collect the rents?
3.	Is there an actual distinction between an ownership certificate and an occupation certificate?


Mr. Lien Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.
No.
2.	Under the provisions of the Indian Act a Band Council may acquire parcels of reserve land from an individual Band member who has been placed in lawful possession of the land. An Acquisition of such land would include a house or any such improvements made to the property in question. The Indian Act stipulates, however, that Band held reserve land must be surrendered to the Crown before it can be leased to non-Indians. The leases are entered into with the Crown and moneys collected are credited to the account of the Band concerned.
3.	A certificate of Possession is the documentary evidence of an Indian's right to lawful possession of the reserve land described therein and entitles him to quiet possession of the land. A Certificate of Occupation is evidence of an Indian's right to temporary possession of the reserve lands described therein and is normally issued subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions as to the use and settlement of the land. The Certificate of Occupation is issued for a term of two years and may be extended for a further two year period. It is replaced by a Certificate of Possession upon fulfillment of the necessary conditions.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-OVERTIME PAY
Mr. Andre: During the months of January, February and March 1973, respectively, what were the total amounts paid in overtime pay to employees of the Department of Labour?


John Carr Munro: January, $1,205; February, $3,195; March, $3,870.


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


NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLES OWNED BY GOVERNMENT,
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	In 1972, how many motor vehicles were the property of the government (a) automobiles (b) station wagons (c) trucks (d) boats (e) airplanes?
2.	What was the average cost of the vehicles?
3.	What were brand names of automobiles, station wagons and trucks?
4.	Were the vehicles purchased by tender and, if not, by department, who decided on the purchase of the vehicles and how was the choice made?
Return tabled.


MR. WALTER SCOTT HOAR-APPLICATION FILED WITH BUREAU OF CLASSIFICATION REVISION
Mr. Bell: 1.	Has a Technical Category Position Questionnaire, signed by Mr. Walter Scott Hoar of the Saint John office, Plant Protection Division of the Department of Agriculture, been filed with the Bureau of Classification Revision and, if so, on what date?
2.	Has a revised questionnaire been substituted and submitted with changes or deletions and, if so (a) by whom (b) who signed the document (c) by what authority was the substitution made?
3.	Has Mr. Hoar's position beeii re-classified and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reasons (c) what is the new classification?
4.	Have applications been received from Mr. Hoar requesting a review of his position and, if so, how many and on what dates?
5.	What action has been taken to review Mr. Hoar's position with regard to the work he performed prior to 1968?
Order Paper Questions


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, because of the length of this response, perhaps it could be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Mr. Bell:: I don't know how it could be so lengthy, but go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Return tabled.


AMOUNT PAID TO RAILWAY COMPANIES PURSUANT TO SECTIONS OF RAILWAY ACT
Mr. Benjamin: In each fiscal year since 1968-69 up to and including estimates for fiscal year 1973-74, what amounts have been paid to each railway company pursuant to each of sections 256, 258, 261, 272 and 413 of the Railway Act?
Return tabled.


EMPLOYMENT OF MR. AND MRS. RYTEN BY STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How long have Mr. and Mrs. Ryten been employed by Statistics Canada?
2.	What is Mrs. Ryten's level of university education?
3.	Who recommended them?
4.	Did they obtain employment following an open competition and, if so, who were the other candidates and who were the members of the examination board?
5.	Have Mr. and Mrs. Ryten been promoted since and, if so, on what basis?
6.	How many trips have they made since they were hired.and what was the purpose of each trip?
Return tabled.


DISTRIBUTION BY INCOME GROUPS OF FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS
Mr. Orlikow: In Canada, for the years 1961, 1966, 1971 and 1972, what was the distribution by income groups of families and individual taxpayers and particularly the groupings of income (a) above (i) $1,000,000 (ii) $500,000 (iii) $250,000 (iv) $100,000 (b) below (i) $6,000 (ii) $5,000 (iii) $4,000 (iv) $3,000 (v) $2,000 (vi) $1,000 annually, based on income tax returns, Statistics Canada statistics or any other source?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Cossitt:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Monday I asked the parliamentary secretary about question No. 1,769 on the subject of the previous employment over a period of five years of members of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group. I do not know why it was not answered along with the other questions I asked on the same subject. The parliamentary secretary offered to look into this
26314-25 h

Motions for Papers
matter and report. Is he now in a position to say when this question will be answered?


John Mercer Reid: I regret I cannot give any assurance at this time. I am still having consultations with the office of the Solicitor General.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall these notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the answer just given to question No. 1,864 concerning honours. The question asked was, what Canadians since 1947, and on what dates, received certain honours which are the Crown's prerogative to confer. Mention was made of the Victorian Order, the Order of Merit and the Companion of Honour. Those are the three and there are no others. The question on which I wanted some information and on which after a month and a half of gestation I was given an answer was whether any such honours have been awarded without consultation. The answer was that generally there was consultation. That is not an answer to that question at all. The second question asked about honours awarded (a) without consultation and (b) with the consent of the government of Canada and, if so, to whom. That was not answered either except by indirection. Most of the answer given me at length has to do with honours that have nothing to do with the prerogative right of the Crown. I ask the government to give reconsideration to that question so that the facts will come out rather than the fantasies contained in this so-called answer given today.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question raised by the right hon. gentleman simply is that honours under the prerogative of the Crown do not require the consent of the government. There are a series of honours concerning which the government of Canada does make recommendations and give consent, but in those cases it is the natural and normal practice that this be done. In the case of those honours which are in the prerogative of the Crown, the government of Canada is informed by the Crown but the government of Canada does not exercise a veto.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when one asks what the prerogatives of the Crown are and how they are used the question should be answered by the Prime Minister, not by a parliamentary secretary. This is a ridiculous situation.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I might be able to throw some light on this. I believe that only one such honour was

accorded during the time I have been Prime Minister, namely, the one accorded to the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. I confirm what the parliamentary secretary said, that I was informed of that in advance but not consulted.


John George Diefenbaker: Not consulted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not consulted.
As regards those previous to my time, I did not have the answer and that is why the parliamentary secretary obtained the answer from Government House which has a record of these things. In so far as my term in the office of Prime Minister is concerned, the parliamentary secretary gave the answer and I confirm it here that I was informed but not consulted.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I wanted to know from the Prime Minister, not the parliamentary secretary.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who will perhaps recall that about a month ago he said he would make inquiries from the appropriate authorities in the United States about the possible implications for Canada arising from the tax proposals made by President Nixon to Congress. I ask the question particularly with regard to the possible invocation of special tax measures by the United States on U.S. companies that make new investments in Canada and the possibility that the tax cuts proposed by the Minister of Finance with regard to manufacturing and processing profits might invoke that kind of action on the part of the U.S. taxing authorities. Has the minister made those inquiries and what are the results?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have made inquiries. They are not conclusive, but the general intention and purpose of the American measures as we understand them, short of seeing a text of the measures as they are introduced before Congress-and certainly until Congress deals with them we will not have the ultimate decision-was not to affect the specific tax reductions proposed by the Canadian government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not suggesting that was the purpose of the tax, but would the minister not agree that according to certain authoritative interpretations originating in Washington from government sources the proposed U.S. tax measures may very well in fact be invoked in such a way as to affect investment by U.S. subsidiaries in Canada?
May 16, 1973


John Napier Turner: There is a variety of interpretations coming out of Washington these days. What I suggest to the House is that short of seeing the precise text, and certainly short of seeing how Congress would deal with the measure, I would think that the Canadian government and parliament could best deal with the situation in Canada as we see it now, and if there are adjustments to be made at a future date they will be made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is this the reason for the minister's delay in bringing forth his tax measures and the legislation associated with them? Is he waiting to see what the U.S. legislation is going to be, or is there some other reason for the delay in doing what he said he was going to do many months ago?


An hon. Member:: A year ago.


John Napier Turner: As the Leader of the Opposition would expect, I am weighing all relevant factors, but I want to reassure him that I consider the corporate measures to be an urgent matter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -and would hope that the government will be able to introduce these measures at an early date.


APPLICATION OF PRESENT ACT TO CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE FILED RETURNS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. I believe I have given him notice of it. What measures is the minister taking at the present time to enforce the present Income Tax Act against those corporations that have filed their returns with him, based on the statements of the Minister of Finance last May, according to which corporate year ends have passed long ago? I want to have a full explanation of this from the minister now, if possible.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think you might not wish me to give a full explanation now in view of the length of time this might involve. I have already told the hon. member that, of course, where companies are asking for immediate assessments those would have to be made according to the law as it exists. Otherwise, we are accepting returns in the form that they are being submitted by corporations, and they will be dealt with in accordance with the law at the time each assessment is made.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I want to know how the minister can justify treating one taxpayer one way and not bothering to collect taxes from another taxpayer in the proper way?
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CORPORATE TAX CUTS IN LIGHT OF PRESIDENT NIXON'S PROPOSAL RESPECTING AMERICAN SUBSIDIARIES ABROAD
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that if the government does proceed with its corporate tax proposals this will almost certainly put taxation of manufacturing industries owned by American corporations clearly within the category aimed at by President Nixon's tax proposals, would the minister reconsider his decision to introduce this legislation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the hon. member's preamble.


POLLUTION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the federal interest in preventing the continuing pollution of the Wabigoon and English River systems by mercury contamination emanating from Dryden Pulp and Paper and Dryden Chemicals Limited and the destruction of the livelihood and welfare of the Indians and others residing in that region, will the minister take the initiative proposed by the Environmental Law Association and commence proceedings under the Criminal Code with a view to preventing continuation of such pollution and securing restitution for those whose property rights have been affected, or will he consult with the appropriate provincial authorities to see that they undertake this task?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the pollution released by the plants in the area ceased over two years ago as a result of initiatives taken by the federal government essentially under the federal Fisheries Act. The plants there have been meeting the federal standards with no release of mercury whatsoever from them. The continuing problem arises from mercury in sediment downstream from the plants which was deposited over a long period, but such release ceased two and a half years ago.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, would the minister mind answering my question whether action will be taken by the government to prosecute those responsible for this destruction of the livelihood of many Indians and other Canadian citizens?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have been in close consultation with the government of Ontario, which, incidentally, administers the Fisheries Act in that area, and have been giving technical advice on this subject.

May 16, 1973
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-DATE OF ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL COINS
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Finance.
Can he tell us whether he will soon be announcing the issuance of commemorative coins for the Montreal 1976 Olympic games?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member should await the legislation.

[ English]


INCOME TAX
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition of the Minister of Finance. In order to settle the doubts that exist in the country and the business community, will the minister assure the House that it is his intention to introduce the measures dealing with corporate tax cuts and bring them to a conclusion before the summer recess?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can give the hon. gentleman that assurance, and I would be very interested in the assurance of his hon. leader as to how he is going to deal with it.


SUGGESTED ABANDONMENT OF PROPOSED CORPORATE TAX CUTS IN LIGHT OF PROFIT INCREASE LAST YEAR
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that corporate profits in Canada have gone up by about 20 per cent in the past year, would the minister now consider not introducing the corporate tax bill?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I have said to several of the hon. gentleman's colleagues, the corporate tax measures are medium and long term measures to allow Canada to remain competitive in world markets and the new European Economic Community, the United States and Japan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. I want to suggest that hon. members have now reverted to the first question to ask a series of supplementaries. I was hoping that today an effort would be made to go beyond three or four questions. I would invite hon. members to give the Chair an opportunity to go on to other questions before we get involved in a debate on this very important matter which was raised originally by
[Mr. Davis.}
the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Wellington.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with the tragic incident in which two Canadian girls from my riding by the name of Miss Christine Sinclair and Miss Marion Drijberg were killed when Zambian troops fired across the Zambia-Rhodesia border at a group of sightseers who were visiting Victoria Falls. Before asking my question, Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members would want me to convey to the parents of these two girls our sincere and profound sympathy. My question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he registered a protest or received an explanation of the tragic and criminal deaths of these two Canadian girls, both innocent visitors to that country, and did the Department of External Affairs notify the families of the two girls before they read of the tragedy in the news media?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy on this terrible tragedy in Rhodesia. My department will naturally be willing to make any arrangements for the funerals that the families wish. As we do not have diplomatic representation in Rhodesia my department received the information from Capetown and immediately got in touch with the families of the young women. I am not certain, of course, whether we conveyed this news before it was read in the newspapers, but I believe that we did. The Canadian High Commission has been in touch with the Zambian government and has been assured of their complete co-operation. The facts of the matter are, of course, not yet established. The hon. member says that they were fired upon by Zambian troops. That may or may not be the case, and we will try to ascertain the facts as part of the inquiries we are making.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In view of the fact that skirmishes and crossfiring have been going for some time in this location, what steps did the Department of External Affairs take to warn visitors of the great danger in this particular area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, we are not represented in Rhodesia and there is no way in which we could advise Canadian travellers in Rhodesia to stay away from the Zambian border. I think the facts of the guerilla activities that are going on in that area are well known, and I would think the Rhodesian government would be equally anxious to avoid tragedies of this kind.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the recent revelation that some $1.2 billion of goods and services have been procured in the past year for federal government departments, including the Prime Minister's office, through a tendering process where tenders are mainly opened in private, and in view of the fact that of 11,630 such tenders closed in the past 12 months only nine were opened in public, would the Prime Minister explain to the House his statement of last Friday that he did not know of any such departments in the federal government which procured goods and services where tenders were opened in secret?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that I did not know and I have only learned the details from the hon. member now. After that question was asked the other day I said I would have it looked into. I did ask to have it looked into but I have not received the answer yet.



FINANCE


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and it is really a matter of clarification. Am I correct in my understanding of the answers given recently explaining the rise in the bank rate that it is primarily to respond to changes in the interest rate situation in the United States rather than an interpretation by the Department of Finance that there is any basic change in economic activities in Canada?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is not quite accurate either in his own assessment of the situation or in his assessment of what the Department of Finance may or may not have been saying. The reasons are twofold: First, a response to a very strong demand for credit in response to an expanding economy in this country and, second, a response to international interest rates. Both have to be taken into consideration. The Bank of Canada has made it clear, and I wish to reiterate, that the monetary policy is not a restrictive one. It is to moderate a very strong expansion in the economy that will continue.


James McPhail Gillies: How can rising interest rates not be restrictive in the economy as the minister suggests? How can it be that with rising interest rates we are not moving toward a tight money policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply briefly, but it seems to me that the minister and the hon. member are getting into a debate. The minister will be given the floor for the purpose of a reply, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Northwest Territories.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the gross national product is growing at about 6V2 per cent to 7 per cent, if the latest price indicator is about 5 per cent and total expansion is about 12 per cent, if money is expanding at a rate of 30 per cent, then obviously there is some way to moderate it without restricting the expansion of the economy.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
REASON FOR PROVISION OF TELEVISION RECEPTION FACILITIES AT NORMAN WELLS BEFORE RAE-EDZO AND fort McPherson
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. With regard to the plans of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to bring radio and television coverage to as many people as possible in the Northwest Territories, can the minister advise the House why it is that Norman Wells, an oil company town in the Northwest Territories with a population of approximately 300 people, will receive a television repeater station before Rae-Edzo with a population of over 1,000 people, or Fort McPherson with a population of 750 to 800 people where only a booster station at about one-quarter the cost of the repeater station at Norman Wells is needed?


James Hugh Faulkner: No,
Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question but I would be pleased to refer it to the corporation for a response.



DISSATISFACTION OF PEOPLE OF NORTH WITH TELEVISION PROGRAMMING THROUGH ANIK SATELLITE

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. While the minister is referring that question to the CBC, will he also refer to its officials the dissatisfaction of the people in the north generally in both territories with the short programming through the facilities of Anik as a result of the time difference between the southern and northern portions of Canada, which means that television programming terminates at 9.00 or 9.30 in the evening?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[ Translation]



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In view of spiraling feed grain prices in eastern Canada, particularly during the past months, which shows the urgency of my question, and in view of the statement

May 16, 1973
Oral Questions
made by the present government and the hon. Minister of Agriculture himself in January and February last to the effect that a bill was in preparation to seek solutions to that urgent problem, can the hon. minister tell us whether a bill will indeed be brought forward before the House in this regard and if so, when?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are preparing a program for a feed grain policy for Canada. I am not prepared to say at this time whether it has to be introduced in the form of a bill. It is my own personal opinion that this can be done without the introduction of a bill in the House. I am sure it will be such a fair policy that it well be accepted no matter whether it is introduced by a bill or otherwise.


Léonel Beaudoin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Can the hon. minister tell us when the House will be informed of this program, or whether he will make an explanatory statement in the House?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that if the House is still sitting when the program is finalized it will be announced to the House. If it is not, we made a commitment in the Speech from the Throne that is would be done before the new crop year and it will be done by then.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY RESPECTING FEED GRAIN-CONSULTATION WITH EASTERN CANADA FARM ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture if, before announcing this policy, he intends to consult with the agricultural organizations of eastern Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have asked for the agricultural organizations' opinions and I am sure some of them are going to be implemented in the program. We have also discussed this same program with and asked for suggestions from my provincial counterparts. They have made suggestions too, and I am sure we will probably be consulting with all of them.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have given the minister notice. Is it the intention of the minister to phrase out the residential

schools for Indian children at Portage la Prairie, and Dauphin, Manitoba, by 1974?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are contemplating this possibility because there are not enough pupils now in the two residences. We have not reached a final decision, but I would not be surprised if that final decision was that we are forced to close those two residential schools.


Peter Paul Masniuk: Will this decision be made in consultation with the Indian Brotherhood?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course we are keeping the Manitoba Indian Association informed of our actions; nevertheless, when the number of pupils in those residences has become insufficient, we are forced to close them for economic reasons. But in this case, the final decision has not been reached yet.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of certain statements recently made about the composition of the board of directors of the government-owned Panarctic Oils Limited, and in view of the fact at least three federal deputy ministers and an assistant deputy minister are members of that board, will the minister undertake to assure the House that no conflict of interest is compromising these public servants in their dual reponsibilities to the oil industry and federal objectives in the Arctic?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any conflict of interest between those deputy ministers who represent the government on the board of directors. I can re-examine that question and if indeed there are conflicting interests, we would have to act accordingly. But it does not seem to be the case.


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister also undertake to provide the House or, alternatively, members of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, with a complete and detailed account of the various other positions occupied by senior members of his ministry?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, a complete and detailed account of what?
May 16, 1973


Duncan M. Beattie: Of senior members of your ministry.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A complete and detailed account of what? I did not hear the hon. member's last words.


Duncan M. Beattie: Perhaps I will-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would address his question to the Chair. In this way the minister might understand it. There seems to be a difficulty in communication between two Scots.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Duncan M. Beattie: Will the minister undertake to provide the House or, alternatively, members of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works with a complete and detailed account of the various other positions occupied by senior members of his ministry. This is in relation to the first question I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that, of all the ethnic groups I should understand, this is certainly one. I would be glad to respond to that inquiry.



CANADIAN CULTURE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for multiculturalism and concerns the establishment of the advisory committee. Can the minister indicate, in view of the fact he has had the list of names in his possession for some months now and has said on many occasions that the announcement would be made soon, what the holdup is and why their accouncement has not been made?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to assure the hon. member that we have taken extensive steps and painstaking consultation to make sure that the composition of the multicultural consultative council will be a good one. I am pleased also to assure him that an announcement will be made soon.


Mr. Paproski:: Where? In Edmonton?


Paul Yewchuk: Can the minister assure the House that he is not waiting until after the next election, at which time there will be lots of defeated Liberals available for appointments?
Oral Questions TRADE



INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN MINIMUM PRICE TO ENCOURAGE PRODUCTION BY DEVELOPING NATIONS FOR SALE TO CANADA

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has to do with the brief presented to him on April 29 by a church group on the GAAT FLY project. Can he tell me whether, as a result of the representations that were made to him in regard to the upcoming international sugar agreement negotiations, he will consider giving consideration to their representation that minimum prices under the agreement should be increased to encourage production by developing nations and sales to Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the representations the hon. member refers to were detailed, technical and, I think, to some extent even complicated. I can assure the hon. member that the representations will be given very serious consideration by my department.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I ask the minister whether his department and, indeed, the government is going to review its present policy of purchasing major amounts of sugar from South Africa, in view of the representations made by the same church group and in view also of the statement by the Prime Minister in the House that he would take notice of a question asked in the House on this matter? I wonder if either the minister or the Prime Minister would reply to that question.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely clear as to the nature of the question. If the question is whether we are prepared to continue our trading relationship with South Africa, then the answer is yes, we are.


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


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, my question is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. He will, of course, be recognized in a moment. I gather that the hon. member who was just speaking seeks the floor on a point of order.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether the minister understood my question. I did not ask him about our total trading relationship. I asked the minister a question about our purchases of sugar. I did not think it was that difficult to understand.



FISHERIES


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower
3838

May 16, 1973
Oral Questions
and Immigration I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. Having regard to the fact that seasonal unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen ran out yesterday, May 15, and in view of the fact that persistent ice conditions are hindering the execution of the inshore fishery, has the minister taken any action or has he consulted with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with a view to extending the date beyond May 15?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the latest information I have is that, in addition to the benefits running out in the last few days, the ice has also been moving off the coast and it is possible for the inshore fishermen to begin to fish again.


Jack Marshall: Can the minister advise the House whether he has come up with any program to provide catch insurance for fishermen so that this problem may be avoided in future?


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member knows, this matter is under active consideration by the department in consultation with the industry.



GOVERNMENT POLICY IN LIGHT OF TRANSPORTATION ROUTE FOR PRUDHOE BAY OIL PROPOSED BY B.C. PREMIER

Mr. John Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a question I asked the Prime Minister on Monday when he referred the matter to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that Canadian policy, as stated by the Prime Minister the other day, seems to favour an overland gas and oil route down the Mackenzie, do the recent discussions with Premier Barrett of British Columbia and the apparent study of his suggested oil route which would come down from Alaska through the Yukon and British Columbia indicate a change in government policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker. The view we take continues to be that the Mackenzie Valley would be the best route for bringing Prudhoe Bay oil to southern markets. However, in the case of a serious proposal, such as we believe Premier Barrett's was intended to be, the government does feel an obligation to have an investigation of this alternative route to determine whether or not it is feasible and, in general, whether it would be in the national interest to promote it further.


John Allen Fraser: It has been stated that the policy is to bring Prudhoe oil down the Mackenzie. While we know that some studies have been carried out with respect to a gas pipeline, may I ask whether equivalent studies have been made under the aegis of the government of Canada with respect to an oil pipeline from Prudhoe Bay? Can the minister tell the House what co-ordination exists with respect to planning some kind of joint application with respect to gas and oil? If we proceed on the basis of just one, we shall not end up with any cohesive policy.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the studies carried out by the government of Canada, about $20 million worth up to this point, relate to both a right of way for gas and an oil pipeline in the sense that they deal with ecological problems, soil quality and other related matters. With regard to the possibility of constructing an oil line, I would remind the hon. member that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline research group, made up principally of the Prudhoe Bay consortium, has completed an exhaustive study of the feasibility of such an oil line, the results of which have been made available to the government of Canada. It is fair, however, to point out to the hon. gentleman that while we have reason to believe there will be an application for a gas line in the fourth quarter of this year; there is no indication on the part of any private parties that at this time they will be coming forward with an application for an oil line. It could well be that, depending on the turn of events with regard to TAPS in the United States, they would do so, but neither they nor the United States government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. On Monday I asked him whether he would consider making statements on motions concerning changes in the government's monetary policy and, in addition, with respect to what I might call the growing tension in the international monetary field. The hon. gentleman said he would take the matter under advisement. Has he now done so, and does he intend to make a statement so that we may be given a full explanation of these changes both on the domestic scene and internationally?


John Napier Turner: There has been no change in the government's monetary policy, but in terms of the international situation I would be glad to take an appropriate opportunity, if that develops, to discuss the matter in the House.



NATIONAL PARKS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he has received a telegram from the Prince Albert Chamber of Commerce taking strong exception to the decision of his department to close and to dispose of for removal the tourist facilities existing at the Narrows on Lake Waskesiu, wherein it is
May 16, 1973

pointed out that what is being done will eliminate all incentive to people to visit the area. In view of the seriousness of the situation created in consequence of directions that have come from some of the ivory tower Caesars in his department, will he have this matter looked into? Prince Albert national park was created by Prime Minister Mackenzie King as a resort for the average Canadian, and what is being done will emasculate it unless this order is changed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the telegram, but I will be very happy to look into the question and report back as quickly as possible to the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you. Report to the House.



REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS-DISCUSSION WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Recently the Prime Minister, in answer to a question put to him by the right hon. member for Prince Albert about riding boundaries, promised to consider the suggestion that the present number of ridings be kept in each one of the provinces. Can he tell us today whether he has met the representatives of the political parties to discuss this matter, and whether he has a statement to make with regard to new boundaries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has in fact undertaken discussions with his colleagues of the other parties, and certain proposals were put to them. For the time being, no final decision has been taken, but the government intends to put the matter before the House, preferably some time before the end of June.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of the Privy Council.
In view of the discussions he has had with his colleagues of the other parties, can he tell us what conclusions were arrived at and what steps he intends to take in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, discussions were held but no conclusions were arrived at by the representatives of the four parties. Again I say that the government intends to put the matter before the House, and I trust that, in the meantime, the various parties will have made up their minds about the ideal solution.
Oral Questions



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the minister aware that members of the security and intelligence division of the RCMP have been questioning members of native organizations and native leaders generally on their attitude to the Wounded Knee incident and asking them to identify and give information about other native persons from group pictures which the leaders feel could not have been taken at Canadian demonstrations?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the activity of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I believe this question should normally be put to the Solicitor General. As far as I am concerned, I have not been informed of these incidents but I shall inquire to see what I can do. But, fortunately perhaps, the RCMP does not come under my department.



TRANSPORT


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport can the hon. gentleman's parliamentary secretary tell the House whether the department is responding to the many appeals for assistance by the lumber industry of British Columbia which urgently needs more rail cars in order to keep the industry moving?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This matter is under study. I will refer the question to the minister, but the hon. member can rest assured that it has been discussed very recently by the minister and the department. I am sure the minister is quite aware of the situation, but in any case I will draw the matter to his attention again.


Frank Oberle: Can the parliamentary secretary tell me whether cars are deliberately being withheld for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a bargaining position between the British Columbia Railway and Canadian National in certain discussions that are going on?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise of the question, but again I will refer the matter to the minister.
3840

May 16, 1973
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES



COLLINS BAY-ESCAPE OF LASLO EPER

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Has the minister yet received reports that a 30 year old convict serving a sentence for attempted murder and attempting to wound has escaped from Collins Bay north of Kingston and that he used a gun and had a ladder ready for use to get him over the wall? If so, what action is being taken in regard to this escape from that institution?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have a report here, which I received just before coming into the House, about a Laslo Eper. I do not know whether this is the same person and I do not have his record before me, but I do have a report that a Mr. Eper escaped from Collins Bay using what appeared to be a makeshift revolver or facsimile of a revolver. He forced a guard to bring him to the wall with what appeared to be a revolver and got over the wall. The Ontario Provincial Police were called in immediately and they are now looking for Mr. Eper. Dogs are being used, and so on.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General which is further to the question I asked him yesterday about the number of persons who had been indicted for capital murder other than murders of police officers or prison guards. I understand he is now in a position to tell the House whether or not there is any person in that category and whether or not all legal proceedings have now been finished.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, to our knowledge there are no persons in that category.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the announcement of the minister that in the near future he hopes to introduce legislation to bring an end to PFAA, would he inform the House what will happen to the $10 million in the PFAA emergency fund, and is the minister giving consideration to developing an over-all disaster program for western producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think I said that the fund would be used for the

good of the farmers of western Canada. It has not yet been decided in what particular way it will be used.
[ Translation]


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to be patient for a moment. I should have recognized the hon. member for Assiniboia who wants to ask a supplementary question.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, in view of the response of the minister, can he inform the House how he is going to disburse these funds in view of the many ways in which this could be done, and will it be done in such a manner as to protect those people who over a long period of time have found PFAA essential since they have been in dried-out areas?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, many people have enjoyed the benefits of PFAA and many people in Canada have contributed to PFAA. This money will be distributed in a fair and equitable fashion as far as I am concerned.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us, if he knows it, or would he otherwise inquire, what government department, office or directorate ordered recently from CROP a public poll in Quebec in order to check on the rise of the Parti Quebecois?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have heard reports about this story and I have been assured that it is surely all made up. However, I shall take the invitation of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and check once more to make sure that it is pure fabrication.



MANPOWER


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but since he is not in the chamber perhaps his parliamentary secretary would answer it. In view of the weekend tragedies at Rochdale College, Toronto, referred to yesterday in a motion by my colleague from Scarborough East, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House whether there are any outstanding LIP grants to anyone associated with or living at Rochdale? If so, is the minister prepared to withdraw or to cancel any or all of these grants to members of this drug-infested institution?
May 16, 1973


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice and try to get the information for the hon. member.	.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary and then call orders to the day.



HOUSING


Otto John Jelinek: I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since in previous comments the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs did not seem too disturbed by the continual tragedies at Rochdale College-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary question. I suggest to him that he is now going beyond the limits of a supplementary question. He should ask his question.


Otto John Jelinek: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; I will rephrase my supplementary question. In view of the fact that thousands of disturbed citizens are concerned about the tragedies at Rochdale College, its death problems, drug problems, unpaid tax problems and many other problems that the government has so far countenanced, is the Prime Minister prepared to or interested in dealing immediately with this deplorable situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the minister on previous occasions. As a result of a meeting that I had in Toronto two Saturdays ago, or two Fridays ago-I am not sure which-with some Liberals I undertook to raise the question again and I am looking forward to some discussions on the matter. I have no further comment at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might have supplementaries tomorrow. Orders of the day.
Before proceeding with the order of business, I believe the hon. member for Crowfoot is seeking unanimous consent to return to the item, presentation of reports. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Capital Punishment



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Horner.
[Editor's note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 15, 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. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that one has such an audience in the Commons, and I want to thank all hon. members for their willingness to listen to my remarks. As a mark of appreciation, I might point out that while I have 20 minutes ahead of me I intend to use only about five.
In a somewhat more serious vein, I want to conclude what I said the other day on the question of capital punishment with a reference to one of the aspects of capital punishment which has troubled me the most. I refer to the question of responsibility when it comes to murder, and the matter of justice in the administration of capital punishment. I want to illustrate my concern or the sort of thing that arouses my concern with a story.
One day a woman who was a grandmother called me and asked me to help her grandson. She said: "The boy is 12 years old and he is going to kill somebody. There is something wrong with the boy. He has been abandoned by his father, his mother is working and trying to help out, but the boy has some serious difficulty and I need some help". I spent the better part of the day calling provincial agencies to find out whether I could get some assistance for this woman. I was told by one that they had room for seven disturbed boys in various institutions in that area, that his was the eighth so there was no place for him. They were very sympathetic and understood the problem, but this was one of the difficulties.
I thought to myself that when this boy grows up, and if the fears of this woman are realized, who will be responsible in that case; will it be the boy who becomes a murderer, will it be the mother or will it be society? When that 12 year old boy needed help he could not find it, so surely society has to bear some share of the blame. This is

May 16, 1973
Capital Punishment
the great dilemma. When you read the biography of some of the assassins of United States political figures, one story emerges. One assassin was a seriously disturbed child. The authorities went to the mother and told her that the boy needed psychiatric care. The mother refused to believe them, feeling this could not be true of her son. When the child grew up, he became a murderer. Who was guilty in that particular case; was it the boy, the mother or society? In virtually every case I have been able to trace in respect of a murderer, I have found a history of a sordid childhood or a history of violence of one kind or another. People do not suddenly become murderers as adults.
If we are really serious, and I have no reason to believe that this House is anything else, about protecting society, and in many ways this is what the debate is all about, then we should stop thinking in terms of hanging murderers. We should stop kidding ourselves that this is the way to protect society. This may be the easy and facile way. It may be reassuring to say that a man is guilty, we will put him out of the way and that is the end of it. That is not the end of it because you cannot bring back a life in that way, nor can you prevent a future crime by that means. If we are serious about this matter of protecting society, we must deal with it at another level. We must know more about the causes of murder. We must remove some of the environmental circumstances that create an atmosphere in which this takes place, and we must concentrate much more on providing assistance to young people who are disturbed in order to make sure that society is adequately protected in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the subject which involves us today is as basic as any that this or any parliament will ever face. It involves life and death, the safety of the individual and the orderliness of our society. These are not issues with which the House can deal summarily, and it did not do so in 1967. Nor are they issues which individuals can resolve easily within their consciences. We are called upon to exercise wisdom and judgment and calmness of decision in respect of a subject which summons emotion and evokes often our most basic passions.
That we cannot all agree on this issue is understandable, for we are dealing with justice which is always a fleeting concept, and almost always subjective. George Eliot wrote:
Who shall put his finger on the work of justice, and say "It is there?" Justice is like the Kingdom of God-it is not without us as a fact, it is within us as a great yearning.
I am reminded also of the French poet, Paul Claudel who said:

Justice is masked, not blindfolded and no-one knows who it is. [English]
If Canada be a civilized place, it is that way because of the concern which Canadians have for one another. Canadians take an interest in one another, look out for one another, help one another. We have managed to avoid here many of the hatreds which are troublesome elsewhere. We have retained in Canada the compassion for our neighbour

which in some places has been replaced by indifference, and in others by fear.
This has permitted us to accept many propositions in Canada which are often still argued about elsewhere. We accept the proposition, for instance, that no one should suffer from lack of medical treatment or, treated, suffer from the financial burden of that treatment. We accept the proposition that the aged, having contributed to our society, should be given the opportunity to live with as much dignity and grace as our resources will permit. We accept the proposition that every child should be educated equally, and that the gifted be given the opportunity to fulfil their promise. We accept the proposition that the needy and the handicapped should be assisted by those able to do so.
We also accept the proposition, from which many of my remarks during today's debate will follow, that the wayward should be helped to return to a life that is useful and wholesome. We accept these propositions and willingly bear their cost because we believe they contribute to a better society: One that is open, not authoritative; one that is creative, not stultifying, and one that is understanding, not spiteful.

Underlying all of these characteristics, which make our society so human, is the belief by Canadians that in such a social system they can flourish and pursue their lives free from fear of lawless elements. But without confidence in lawful processes, and in the law enforcement agencies, no community is willing to extend a helping hand to those who have broken the law. The most understanding of persons, in the face of lawless activity, will harden his attitude and will refuse to accommodate changes. Out of fear for his safety, and for the safety of his loved ones, even the most merciful of men becomes unwilling to assist the wayward.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, in this debate of the issue of capital punishment, I suggest that the premise from which we must begin our discussion is the basic one of the safety of Canadians. Our criminal laws, our penal system, our reform programs will be of little value if they do not respect the right of Canadians to live their lives without fear of criminal activity. The attributes of mercy and forgiveness cannot thrive in circumstances of fright and uncertainty. In all our endeavours in this House to remove undue harshness from the criminal law, or to identify and alleviate the underlying social causes of crime, we must take care not to forfeit or endanger the safety of any law-abiding Canadian.
The Bail Reform law, the Parole Act, the various other criminal law amendments introduced in recent years, are all intended to relieve deserving persons from the indiscriminate application of severe sanctions in instances where these are found unnecessary. Those laws were not designed with any thought of trading off the safety of men, women and children in the pursuit of some social experiment. If those laws have been too loosely applied, as appears the case in certain instances, then it is the responsibility of the government to ensure through their administration that errors are not repeated. And as for us, at the federal government level this will be done wherever necessary.
May 16, 1973

f English]
So on the matter of capital punishment-I begin with two premises. The first is my belief that wanton or unnecessary killing is evil. The second is the requirement for self-protection, be it individual, or collective in the form of a society. Consequently, should killing be the only means to ensure survival against aggression-as in the case of self-defence of a human, or the self-defence of a society-then it is allowable. Life and freedom and justice are so valuable that they must be protected against an aggressor by whatever means are absolutely necessary in the circumstances, including the taking of life. The evidence available to us all has satisfied me beyond doubt that capital punishment-killing-is not effective as a deterrent against murder. Therefore, it is not justifiable for use by society as a means of self-defence.
In reality, the question before the House is what contribution to the safety of persons flows from retention or abolition of capital punishment. That is not a new question. It has been asked in the English legal system for hundreds of years. Pollack and Maitland tell us that under the Norman Kings "a wave of religious sentiment had set against capital punishment". And no wonder, for those learned authors recite the forms of punishment then in vogue: death inflicted by hanging, beheading, burning, drowning, stoning, precipitation from rocks; loss of ears, nose, upper lip, hands and feet; flogging and sale into slavery; emasculation and exoculation.
If the question of capital punishment has been asked for centuries, it has been answered in varying degrees for decades. The death penalty for such minor offences as pick-pocketing and petty theft was abandoned in England in the 19th century; in Canada it was abandoned for kidnapping and for rape in 1955. Public executions, once regarded as contributing to the deterrent effect, have not been practised in Canada since 1868. On each of those occasions, I have no doubt that questions were asked about the effectiveness of the penalty as a deterrent to that particular offence, and about the justness of the punishment having regard to the crime.
Capital punishment and abolition both have a long history in our social system and in its historic forebears. Much of what was once regarded as necessary and ordinary, now causes us all to shudder with revulsion at its cruelty and seeming disdain for human life. Yet it is not our function to judge in retrospect the morals or standards of bygone eras. It is for us to assess the necessity or lack of it, and the moral correctness or lack of it, of the death penalty for murder in Canada in 1973.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the statistical and other evidence bearing on this issue which is available to us all. I have weighed it carefully as I am sure have all hon. members. I have concluded to my own satisfaction that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to murder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am aware, however, of the widespread feeling that the present way of administering a sentence of life imprisonment may be inadequate. My mind will
Capital Punishment
remain open, therefore, to whatever arguments may be offered on that aspect of the question, to ensure the protection of the public from the repetition of a major crime of violence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On this point, because of the events of last weekend, I must digress slightly to cover the question of security of our penal institutions. Whatever the jail terms of convicted criminals, society must be able to assume that they will be enforced, and not broken willy-nilly by escape. Our prisons are there to contain unlawful persons. Containment is the primary function. Rehabilitation follows. I urge hon. members not to permit events of the past weekend to colour their views on the issue of capital punishment. Jailbreaks will be dealt with as the inquiries and the Solicitor General recommend. Amendments to other legislation will be viewed on their merits. But today, the issue is capital punishment, a punishment I do not regard to be effective for the only purpose advanced by its proponents, deterrence.
I am not suggesting that these issues are unrelated, or that the events of the weekend should remain unconnected with the subject of this debate. That would not only be impossible, it would probably be undesirable. The provisions of the Criminal Code, the operation of our judicial system, the management of our police forces and parole boards, the security of our penitentiaries are all ingredients of a single, vital process: the administration of criminal justice in Canada. No ingredient in this process is less important than any other. None can be ignored by society; none will be ignored by the government.
The people of Canada, the judiciary of Canada, the police officers of Canada, have every right to insist that criminal offenders, once convicted and imprisoned, remain in prison according to law, and not according to chance. By their very nature reformatories are not pleasant places. Society intended them in the first instance to be secure. And this government intends to ensure that they are secure. I sympathize entirely with the concern expressed in this House and by Canadians generally over prison breaks.
I sympathize, too, with the difficult working conditions faced by many penitentiary guards. Those conditions the government is seeking to alleviate. But I pledge to this House that this will not be done at the risk of further escapes. And I say, too, with all the earnestness at my command that prisoners who have broken jail or who have exploited temporary leave and other humanitarian reforms-and who by doing so have placed these programs in jeopardy for thousands of other prisoners-will be dealt with on recapture with the full severity of the law. Those who mock the desire of Canadians for an orderly, law-abiding community, those who hold in contempt those restraints on human conduct that enable us to live as free men and women, will be shown that society is not only resilient but that it is capable of protecting itself and of meting out whatever punishment is required.
The choice of punishment, however, must be other than vindictive for no society can be vindictive and remain healthy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 16, 1973
Capital Punishment


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to reply to the argument made in the House and elsewhere that the government has somehow been "breaking the law" in commuting death sentences to life imprisonment. I was told, thanks to the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who informed me through our Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), that it had even been stated on the radio currently that the government and myself have said that we would commute every sentence and that, therefore, it mattered not what the law of the land said. I cannot emphasize too strongly, Mr. Speaker, that these commutations are carried out in accordance with the law, not in defiance of it.
Any such alleged statement is, of course, one which I deny completely and one that I certainly never made. But there is such a thing as the royal prerogative of mercy, and it is one of the most civilized of the many prerogatives residing in the sovereign. As is the case with others, this particular prerogative is now exercised on Her Majesty's behalf in Canada by the Governor General in council. The royal prerogative of mercy is part of the law of Canada as, in some form or other, I believe it to be the part of the law of every country I know. Nor is the prerogative subject to the normal provisions of the Canadian criminal law, quite the contrary. The Criminal Code of Canada expressly states that nothing therein "in any manner limits or affects Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy".
Are those who accuse the government of some wrongdoing proposing that parliament take from Her Majesty the prerogative? If so, they should take their responsibility by saying so clearly in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are responsibilities that devolve upon all of us in this House. One is to face issues and discharge our duties with all the wisdom, sincerity and industry that we are capable of bringing to bear upon them. I can assure hon. members that every single case of commutation that has come before the government since I became Prime Minister has been dealt with individually and a decision reached only after exhaustive consideration. There is nothing automatic about commutation in any cabinet of which I have been a member, any more I believe than the right hon. gentleman opposite assures us was the practice in his cabinet. Each case brings with it a heavy responsibility to discharge wisely and justly that part of the law of Canada which provides for mercy.
I believe that by supporting the motion which is now before the House on second reading, we have the opportunity here to act in a way that will not reduce the necessary protection to Canadians from the possibility of violent crime but which will permit Canada to stand with those other nations of the world that have concluded that the calculated taking of a human life, self-defence apart, is not an act which should be countenanced on either an individual or a community basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate today, in

connection with which there is a free vote, and I am not purporting to speak for anybody other than myself. But I do wish to express some views on this question which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has described as one of very basic importance, in fact one of the subjects of the most basic importance that we have to consider. It is perhaps ironical, in view of the basic importance of the subject, that we are discussing it long after the expiration of the measure which was adopted back in 1967 for a trial period. In view of the seriousness of the matter, it is rather difficult to understand why the government would have allowed it to expire automatically without the matter having been dealt with in parliament before its expiration.
What does the bill purport to do? The principle of this bill is not really abolition of the death penalty. What the bill purports to do is to extend the trial period of abolition of the death penalty for some types of murder but to preserve the death penalty in respect of the murder of a police officer or a prison guard.
On the question of the abolition of the death penalty, on the question of the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent, which is certainly the only reason that I would be prepared to consider the penalty, I agree that there is, generally speaking, no statistical proof of the effectiveness of capital punishment as such. I believe there are more important elements in the enforcement of the law, such as the degree of certainty of detection and the degree of certainty of at least a severe penalty for an offence such as this. As I understand it, the concept behind this bill is that we need the death penalty to protect police officers and prison guards from those who have nothing to lose by killing them. That, as I understand, is the rationale of this measure and I am prepared to accept it.
As I said, I see no evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. I think we are all familiar with the work done by Dr. Fattah of the University of Toronto, and his finding that the actual threat of the death penalty to the lives of killers in Canada has not been great in the last 90 years. He also wrote that the increase in criminal homicide in Canada during recent years cannot be attributed to the suspension of capital punishment. All the studies done are unanimous on one point: that nothing in the statistics of murders in Canada gives any conclusions about the effect of the suspension of capital punishment. I understand that the University of Toronto study concludes that it is impossible to tell at this stage what effect the death penalty has had for murders of civilians.
So I say to you, sir, and to the House that I am prepared to support the bill in principle-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -but I have some problems.


An hon. Member:: You are right.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the problems.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My problems are across the floor, really.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have the whip on right now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind these little interruptions. Hon. gentlemen opposite are under a good deal of tension. I think it is healthy that, from time to time, we permit them to relieve those tensions by a few outcrys, and I am happy if I can be of therapeutic value to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In his closing remarks, the Prime Minister dealt with one of my problems. In 1967, the House was asked to deal with a measure which preserved capital punishment in respect of the murder of a police officer or a penitentiary guard. This bill is the same in that regard. I have had the impression, and the Prime Minister addressed himself to this today, that as a matter of policy the government has been commuting all death sentences. In view of that fact, I have had to ask myself whether it is straightforward to put a bill before the House, and seek the approval of that bill, on the assumption that capital punishment would be retained in respect of these types of offences when in fact the punishments contemplated by the bill are not carried out. This has been a problem with me. I say quite frankly, and I emphasize this, that I do not want to go back to the pre-1967 situation. But I have had no desire at all to be involved in what seemed to be- perhaps fraud is too strong a word-an attempt to get parliament to approve of something and then not conform to the will of parliament.
I am not looking for ways to be difficult, Mr. Speaker. I am saying very frankly that I do not want to go back to the previous legislation. I cannot question the sincerity of what the Prime Minister said to me and to the House this afternoon, but if I were the Prime Minister, whatever my reluctance might be with regard to permitting the death sentence to proceed, I should allow the law to be discharged under these circumstances, except under the proper exercise of the prerogative of mercy, which certainly exists, which certainly ought to exist, and which I hope will continue to exist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That would have to be my attitude. The Prime Minister, as I understood him, gave that assurance to the House this afternoon so far as he was concerned. I think that, therefore, I must consider the bill on the basis of that assurance he has given, and that I am justified in interpreting what he said as meaning that this bill is not put before the House in the hope of achieving abolition of capital punishment across the board, so to speak. I assume that this bill is not being put before the House with a view to getting it passed, and then automatically disregarding the view of parliament that capital punishment should be exercised in the event of the murder of police officers and penitentiary guards.
However strongly I may feel about the abolition of capital punishment, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be any part, intentionally or otherwise, of any fraudulent practice towards this House, towards parliament. I, therefore, say to the Prime Minister that I listened to him very earnestly,
Capital Punishment
and I will consider the bill on the basis that the House is being dealt with in a straightforward manner, that the prerogative of mercy will be exercised as such and not in such a way as to frustrate automatically the expressed will of parliament. That is one of my problems with regard to the bill. I realize that this whole subject of capital punishment is laden with emotions, and with moral questions over and above and apart from the practical problem of the state's duty to protect the citizen. I realize that any decision made by parliament is going to be unsatisfactory to a great many Canadians, and that the moral and emotional problems are complicated by the increasing amount of violence that seems to be entering our daily lives.
I realize very well, and I do not say this in any arrogant way, that the views I am expressing may very well differ from the views of the majority of my constituents. I do not want to be pontifical, but I think Edmund Burke was right when he said a Member of Parliament had a duty to exercise his own judgment. It is my responsibility to exercise my judgment and this is what I am doing, not out of any sense of arrogance or superiority with regard to other Canadians, but in the full belief that it is my responsibility to make up my own mind and to exercise my judgment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I am doing so on the basis on which the bill is put before parliament, and that is that the police and penitentiary guards are going to get the kind of protection that the bill envisages. I look to the government to honour that commitment. I also hope that we will see heavy emphasis put upon improved methods of crime prevention and detection, that we accept our responsibilities to provide the police with improved facilities, that we make certain that the courts are fully and adequately manned, and that we provide humane and secure penitentiaries.
I am troubled, too, by the question of the minimum sentence, and by what a life sentence means. As I understand it now, a person serving a life sentence under these conditions may be paroled after ten years. I say simply this: If we attempt to define what should be done at this time, and if we are going to remove capital punishment as a form of punishment, then the Canadian people are entitled to more security than they have today, the Canadian people are entitled to a more adequate substitute for capital punishment than we have today. While I am quite prepared to support this bill at this time, I would hope that the committee would be authorized, and find it possible, to inquire into the broader question which I believe should be dealt with simultaneously and that is the alternative form of security that can be offered to the Canadian people in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With regard to the parole system, I understand that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has said that it is going to be overhauled and re-examined. This has been talked about for some time and it needs to be done, Mr. Speaker.

May 16, 1973
Capital Punishment
I have been expressing my views at an even slower rate perhaps than I do ordinarily. This is a highly emotional subject, and I do not want to engender any bitterness into it. I state my position with respect to capital punishment: I want to see the committee examine the alternatives with a view to reassuring the Canadian people with regard to what life imprisonment really means. While the commutation of all sentences during the lifetime of the last measure certainly lent itself to the interpretation that it was the policy of the government to commute all death sentences.
I am prepared to support this measure on second reading on the basis of the assurances that the Prime Minister has given to me and others here today. I take it from that-and I support this bill with a clear conscience-that the House of Commons is not being asked to support a bill which retains capital punishment in respect of the murder of police officers and penitentiary guards while the government actually pursues a different policy. I am not out to seek blood, Mr. Speaker; I do not mean that. I just mean that I am voting for this bill on the assumption that the government is dealing honestly and openly with the parliament of Canada.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, as has been said by many who have participated in this debate, the argument about capital punishment goes back a long way in human society and it involves an anxious moral question. I remind this House, if the members need reminding, that at the beginning, 100 or 200 years ago and longer than that, people were put to death for what we now consider minor offences, for theft of a loaf of bread, for example. I remind hon. members and the people of Canada that there has been a steady progress in civilized society away from that kind of treatment of offenders and that today in all modern western societies where the death penalty is retained, it is limited to a penalty for murder or for treason. I remind hon. members and the people of Canada that an increasing number of countries in the world have been abolishing the death penalty in their society.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what has been happening over the decades is the progress of civilization in societies like our own. Progress in all directions; progress in the direction of social security; progress in the acceptance of the philosophic and social idea that we are indeed our brother's keepers; progress in the opposition to war unless it is unavoidable for the safety of society; progress in all directions of human behaviour, man to man and collectively, man to the creator. It is a major mark of the response which we have developed in a civilized society for human dignity and human life. I watched the abhorrence of the western world toward Naziism, Mr. Speaker, and I was impressed by the fact that it did not derive merely from an opposition to the social system that Hitlerism represented but it derived mainly from an aversion against the denigration of human dignity and the brutal destruction of human life for which Naziism was responsible.
I therefore make my first point, Mr. Speaker: historically, philosophically and morally, mankind in civilized society has been progressing away from the taking of human life by the state, by individual human beings and on a world scale. Continually and progressively, mankind

has recognized the dignity of the human being and the sacredness of the human life.
That takes me to the second point, Mr. Speaker, which it seems to me every hon. member must place before himself as he considers this question. The second point is that the state is justified in taking human life only if that taking of the human life protects society against a greater evil. This is the moral justification of some wars; it is the moral justification of military or police action against those who are in the act of threatening the security of the state or the lives of its citizens. The question we are asking ourselves during this debate, if we are serious as I am sure all of us are, is simply this: does the death penalty protect society against a greater evil so as to justify the state in taking a human life calculatedly and deliberately? I hope that every member of this House, I hope that every one of my fellow Canadians, that all of us are agreed that the state ought not deliberately to take a human life as an act of vengeance but that it would be justified only as an act of necessity to protect society.
The discussion here as elsewhere on this issue has been bedevilled by emotional reactions and by questioning motives. Mr. Speaker, there are some people who are in favour of the retention of capital punishment who accuse abolitionists of being bleeding hearts, more anxious to protect the criminal than to protect his victim. Some abolitionists accuse retentionists of being bloodless hearts lacking in moral concern. I hasten, before saying anything else, to admit that I well may have been guilty of this kind of attitude, as much as anyone else. Today, I suggest to hon. members adopting positions on both sides of this question that this is an unfortunate approach to the issue. We can discuss it constructively only if all of us assume that all of us and all Canadians are equally concerned about the moral and security problems involved and that those of us who are in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, as I am, are as concerned about the security of society and the state as any other person is, no matter, on which side of this argument he is. I believe that we would get much farther in understanding each other in this country and in arriving at a reasonable, legitimate and decent conclusion if we ceased accusing each other of motives on this anxious, moral question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And on other questions.


David Lewis: against those who have committed the offence of murder-and I hope that if anyone in this House feels this way I will be forgiven for saying this, for I would be less than honest if I did not put this frankly-to see that that kind of attitude of vengeance and retribution is an attitude that belongs to a society of savagery and not to a society of civilization. All religions I have ever read of, all philosophical systems I have ever studied, and all talk about ethics and human morals, stress compassion, mercy and concern for every human being, even the wayward one, as a mark of decency and civilized behaviour. You cannot have collective vengeance and retribution, and compassion and mercy at the same time. You either have one or the other. If you are governed by compassion and by mercy for every human being, you must discard vengeance and retribution, not only as a personal act, but also as an act of the state.
It is true that all through this country there is a great deal of anxiety about this whole problem, a great deal of anxiety about the escapes which have taken place from our penitentiaries. I said yesterday in another debate, and I repeat today, so far as I am concerned, this is a moral and administrative matter. It is the duty of the government and the duty of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to take all steps necessary to rid the system of incompetent and unreliable people, and to make sure that the security of the penitentiaries and the security of the people of Canada is protected by the kind of staff and department that will see to it that these things do not occur in future as frequently as they have occurred in the past. I put it that way because I do not suppose any system will prevent escapes entirely. There will always be some. However, the regular way in which these have occurred must be stopped. Nevertheless, without being presumptuous, I appeal to members of this House and, indeed, to the people of Canada who are so concerned and anxious about this, not to let their anxiety about escapes from penitentiaries, which can be controlled and reduced by adequate administrative measures, affect their thinking on the subject of the state deliberately taking a life.
Next we come to the second argument for the retention of capital punishment, the deterrence argument. We have heard this argument time and again. We have heard the opposite argument time and again. I do not think anyone can say more; at least, I cannot. Having studied the subject for years, as have many other members of the House, because it is not only since becoming a Member of Parliament that I have been concerned about this, having been interested in it as a student, as a lawyer and all through my life, I think it is surely true to say that this at least is the case; There is no argument about the assertion that the statistical evidence does not support the allegation that capital punishment is a deterrent against murder. It may not support the opposite view. Logically speaking, there is no way in which you can support the opposite view.
There is no way in which you can find out how many people failed to commit murder because they thought that if they committed murder they might be executed. As I say, you cannot do that. The only statistical evidence you can have relates to the people who have already committed murder. Therefore, I do not claim that statistics show anything except that there is no correlation between the abolition or the retention of capital punishment and the number of violent crimes. All through history, according
Capital Punishment
to every statistical table I have ever seen, it has been shown that there has been, depending on the general social circumstances of a society, relatively the same rate of violent crime in jurisdictions that retained capital punishment as in jurisdictions that have abolished it. Over the years there has been no difference whatsoever between the rate of violent crime in jurisdictions that have retained capital punishment and jurisdictions that have not. So, I urge on all members this: all statistical evidence shows that there simply is no correlation between the two.
Indeed, some students of penology claim that it is more likely that, in the presence of capital punishment, more people who have committed the crime of homicide or murder are acquitted in court than is the case if there is not the threat of the death penalty. That makes sense to me. This is not merely the evidence arrived at as a result of surveys. Logic, as well, it seems to me supports that assertion. After all, juries in our society are composed of decent men and women and they are as anxious to avoid responsibility for the death of another human being as anyone in this House. That assertion seems logical to me and therefore I accept the result of the surveys and of the statistics, namely, that men and women on juries would hesitate a great deal more about finding someone guilty, if they knew that that finding would result in the death of the accused person, than would be the case if they knew that the accused would be in prison for life or would receive some sentence like that. Therefore I think there is good evidence from statistics and, it seems to me, logic for the proposition that more murderers are likely to get away by being acquitted in the presence of the threat of the death penalty under our kind of system, in which they would need to be convicted by a jury composed of men and women, than would be the case in a situation where the death penalty is not there.
Numerous studies have been made of murderers and people inclined to commit suicide. I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but I am impressed by the fact that in all the reading I have done, in all the reports I have read on this subject, the experts are convinced that the murderer does not take into consideration the consequences of his act at the time of the murder. I do not know a single exception in the studies made by penologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and other experts in this field, though, of course, that may be my fault; exceptions may exist. Surely, this is the main consideration. Those who argue that the death sentence is a deterrent, accept by implication the proposition that a murderer is really a normal human being who says to himself along logical lines: If I commit murder I shall be hanged. He is not that kind of person, according to all the inquiries which have been made. He is not rational at the time of the act of murder, even though he might not, in legal terms, be considered insane as far as events at a trial are concerned.
Every study of which I am aware shows that the majority of murders, 60 or 70 per cent of them, or an even greater percentage than that, are committed among members of a family, among drinking companions, friends who have fallen out, men and women who are normally law-abiding citizens and who are driven by passion or some other uncontrollable emotion to kill someone else. I should like

May 16, 1973
Capital Punishment
to know how anyone thinks these people could be deterred by the threat of capital punishment. Many other murderers have been found through various studies to be psychotic, and I should like to know how they could be deterred by the threat of the death penalty. As far as the hardened criminal is concerned, the person who commits murder in the process of committing some other crime, every study shows he is invariably under the assumption that he will be able to get away with it. Otherwise, he would not have set out on the first crime.
Thus, I say to hon. members and to the people of Canada that the taking of life by the state by way of the death penalty accomplishes nothing as far as the protection of society is concerned, though it degrades the collectivity by having us murder someone else in response to a murder which has been committed. It is true there has been an increase recently in all crimes of violence, but I suggest that murder has not increased in any greater proportion than others and that the answer to an increase in violent crime does not lie in capital punishment or in other severe penalties. It lies in finding a way to overcome the increasing alienation in our society, it lies in improving the quality of life in a climate of growing urbanization, it lies in finding ways to eliminate poverty and deprivation, it lies in taking steps to improve the quality of life for all Canadians. It is in actions of this kind that the solution to violent crimes is to be found, not in violent penalties.
I wish to comment briefly on two further points. Like every other member of this House I am aware that a good many of my own constituents-I doubt from the replies to my questionnaire that it would be a majority-feel that the retention of capital punishment is necessary. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that every one of us has a duty to vote in accordance with our consciences and judgment and not to consider ourselves as merely rubber stamps for our constituents, because that is not representative government but delegated government and our system is a representative system, not a delegate system. We represent our constituents. We do not act as rubber stamps for their ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I would say, I hope without presumption, that as political spokesmen in society we have a duty to give leadership to the people of Canada. It is not new for majorities to have made mistakes-I can think of such lighter matters as elections, for example.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: There have been other occasions upon which majorities in the past have made mistakes, and those of us who are privileged to sit in this House and have access to much more information than our constituents, beside having a duty to consider matters objectively, with reason and careful study, have a duty not only to vote and act in accordance with our consciences but to give leadership to our constituents to rid them of errors which they have been fed by the media or in some other way.
Finally, I want to say this. It has been emphasized that there is to be a free vote. This will be the case in our party. But I am very proud of the fact that almost all the members in our caucus are abolitionists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I am very proud of the fact that our party has, over the years, in conventions both federal and provincial, many times adopted a policy approving the abolition of the death penalty. We, therefore, have a party policy on the issue. But as far as the vote on this bill is concerned, it is a free vote for the members of our caucus as it is for every member in this chamber.
I regret that this bill does not abolish capital punishment completely. I do not accept that there is any acceptable rationale behind the measure we are considering, other than a compromise, making a step in the direction of the abolition of the death penalty. Since this is such a step I intend to vote for it on second reading.
I do not regret that the prerogative of mercy has been exercised. I see no reason why I should not accept the assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that every case is considered on its merits. I hope the government will continue to seek the royal prerogative and address itself to the merits of each case, and I hope the result will be, in each case, commutation rather than the death penalty for the person concerned. Our attitude toward this issue is too important a mark of progress in the civilized behaviour of society for us to fail to make even this step toward the abolition of the death penalty. It is my hope that at the end of the next five years, if this bill does pass, parliament and Canadians generally will be able to accept the total abolition of capital punishment.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Prime Minister a question? I was going to ask him a question at the conclusion of his speech but I wanted to listen to the speaches of the two other leaders before I did so. Would the Prime Minister accept a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I must ask for the opinion of the Prime Minister as to whether he is aggreable. Otherwise, I will give the floor to the next speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree to answer a question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no objection to answering the hon. member here or elsewhere, but if he is entitled to ask me a question, I should like to ask some of the Leader of the Opposition and I am sure other questions would follow. So I do not think the practice is a very good one.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, it is with emotion that I rise today because we are living very serious, very difficult moments. What we are doing now will have great consequences on humanity and the life of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we are told that this is a question of conscience, that every member is free to vote according to his conscience. But there are various kinds of consciences in this House, as I see it. Not many of them are alike. Not many of them really accept their responsibilities, which at times, are huge.

May 10, 1973

Our society is now "mutilated". Some citizens authorize themselves to take away the life of others under all sorts of pretexts, for the sake of vengeance, for a few dollars. Others say: In all conscience, we do not have the right to interfere with the life of criminals. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. members do to protect the Canadian people. I would say, without fear of being mistaken, that generally speaking Canadians want the death penalty retained. Some hon. members say: No, we know better than the people; we are better educated, we are more aware, and in short, we are more ready to compromise. And so, with regard to capital punishment, we will be moderate. But I maintain that the general population demands the retention of capital punishment.
So, faced with this alternative, I do not think we have a right to decide according to what we think, even if we claim to be highly aware. How can a few men be more aware than the whole population? That is the question for me, and I will say right away that we have had the abolition of capital punishment for five years, on a trial basis, as a result of a ruling passed by this House. The experience of this trial period has shown a greater increase in the number of murders and other atrocities than has ever been known before in Canadian history. This has been recently, since we abolished capital punishment.
Moreover, we retained capital punishment for those who had taken the lives of policemen or prison guards. Well, there have been not just two policemen or two prison guards killed, but quite a number of them, and the law has not been observed. What has happened to justice? It has been made into injustice. The law existed all right, and laid down these exceptions, but no notice was taken of them. They were passed over by justice.
A handful of men have taken advantage of certain prerogatives to say: We will respect the law to some extent by keeping capital punishment for those who have the nerve to kill a policeman or a prison guard. But when it has come to carrying out justice, justice has gone by the board. There are your men of justice, your moral beings, who lecture everybody and pose as great saviours of the people, great Canadians. But the laws are not respected. According to me, it would be better not to have any. It is better not to talk about those things at all. When we passed this bill, why did we specify those exceptions? Because we thought we were justified in doing so to some extent. Therefore, capital punishment is lawful. It was recognized and it readily is still.
Capital punishment now protects policemen and prison guards, and that protection should be extended to all members of society, because each of them is as important as a prison guard or a policeman. They are human beings as we are, and as are the other citizens.
In Canada, the number of homicides, according to the 1970 statistics, has increased by 60.4 per cent in comparison with 1962. Thus, the crime rate based on the population has increased by 35.3 per cent during the same period and we are told that the death penalty does not frighten anyone, that it would be advisable to abolish it. We are told that it does not increase the number of murders, the
Capital Punishment
crime rate, when we have some statistics that no one can deny.
The number of murders in 1970 has increased by 213.4 per cent over 1962. Thus, the number of attempted murders based on the population has increased by 180 per cent during the same period and we will be told that it is useless, that nothing can be proved, that it is natural, that the law forbids us to kill certain citizens or murderers.
When we deal with a matter such as the death penalty, we must consider the punishment meted out to a criminal. We find awful the punishment given to a criminal, but he has no consideration for people; he commits some atrocity and we find it normal. It is felt that to be human and social, to have the moral accepted, all this should be allowed at society's expenses.
Men of great value are made to disappear, as we have seen in the province of Quebec, and almost nothing is said about it because all the criminals are now being freed and because of the current law and justice everyone is protesting against this kind of punishment applied to citizens and subsequently eliminated.
We must think of punishment and to inflict it to criminals but we should also consider the reasons leading those criminals to commit violations and of their opinion of their punishment. Therefore, if by reinstating capital punishment we succeed in convincing someone not to commit a crime, death penalty should be reestablished as it will contribute to protect society.
If we have the right to kill several thousand people to protect them from an assailant we also have the right to condemn a criminal to protect society.
The death penalty is a necessity; it is a punishment for criminals, a protection for society and not a vengeance for society as stated by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).
In the same way as a man should protect his life it is also his duty to respect the life of others. It is in that sense that homicide or murder is prohibited by moral law as well as by civil law which must reflect natural law.
It is incumbent on the civil authority to protect citizens by laws and it is its right to enforce the law required by common welfare and the protection of the citizen's life and property.
If police officers have been shot point blank and law is not enforced what is the use of enacting laws, what good is there to be prime minister of a province or of the country? If the laws are not enforced what is the use of this justice which is costing millions of dollars to our fellow citizens? If anything is costly in Canada, it is obviously justice. This is the costliest item for the people and it is always for the sake of great principles of justice that such a thing must be done and that they must spend millions of dollars.
Since the civil authorities must ensure the respect for order in society, they have therefore the right of inflicting punishment and demand repair from those who violate law and order. This is the sanction which completes the law. But can the civil power go so far as to inflict capital punishment?
The political authority has the right to impose capital punishment on those who are guilty of homicide.

May 16, 1973
Capital Punishment
The civil authority has the right to do all that is necessary to serve justice and provide security to citizens. Capital punishment being necessary to provide justice and security to citizens, therefore the civil authority has the right to impose capital punishment and it is its duty to do so.
Punitive justice or justice through revenge demands equality as much as possible between the crime that has been committed and the punishment imposed for such a crime. Now in the case of crimes like homicide, murder, there is no other punishment than capital punishment to create equality between punishment and crime. Therefore, to serve justice, Mr. Speaker, capital punishment is sometimes necessary, which proves the second part of my minor premise.
It is almost impossible to provide for the citizens' security against the acts of certain men without applying the most powerful curbing device that exists against those criminals. Now the most powerful curbing device is capital punishment. Life imprisonment, suggested as a penalty by certain people, is not a curbing device that is strong enough to stop a potential murderer. As a matter of fact, murderers may escape sometimes and thus not serve their sentence. On the other hand, the horrible crime of taking the life of another person is neither sufficiently nor preventively punished through life imprisonment. Capital punishment is a more effective preventive measure since death is the privation of life, the greatest blessing. Capital punishment must be imposed on those who take the life of other people.
Here are some of the objections. It is said that life imprisonment ensures public security and to that, one must answer that life imprisonment ensures security in a certain way, but is life imprisonment sufficient and sufficiently effective? It may be sometimes but it is not always effective. We often had proof of that.
Mr. Speaker, as long as this appendage providing for the hanging of murderers of police officers is not removed, we shall be accomplices, voluntarily or not. Legalized, institutionalized murder and death voluntarily given, either by an individual or by a just society that wants to punish them remains a crime and an even more serious crime when it is committed by individuals who have been able to think about their actions.
We have received hundreds of folders and citizens have been sending us protest letters requesting that capital punishment be maintained. For instance, I have with me a report from the newspaper Le Droit of December 5, 1969, and I quote:
Capital punishment is necessary to protect society.
During this interview Parliament member and lawyer Remi Paul stated the reasons against abolition of capital punishment.
He is one man who speaks against abolition openly and proudly.
I have also with me an article rewritten by a former judge, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who, through newspapers, invited people to write to the federal government and request it not to abolish the death penalty. A lengthy summary has been made of that and I wonder whether the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe will have the courage to rise and repeat what he has been

saying and asking from the population for a few years. I wonder whether he will follow his leader and raise his arm when his leader will raise his, or whether he will assume his true responsibilities.
I have with me another press article which I quote:
Dramatic increase in murders in Quebec since 1961 (C. Wagner)-
-attributed to the abolition of capital punishment.
There is a whole page, Mr. Speaker, which I will not read.
I have also received a letter from the Quebec Federation of Retail Services, addressed as follows:
To all members of the Canadian House of Commons who are from the province of Quebec Dear member of Parliament:
The Quebec Federation of Retail Services, which groups seven professional associations of retailers from various sectors of the retail trade, wishes to inform you that, upon consideration of the problem of the death penalty, our administrative council has decided in favour of its retention.
We have received thousands of letters like that one, and yet it is said that the population knows nothing about it.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe certainly knows something about it.
Other associations have written to me; to quote the Civil Service Association of Canada:
As a member of Parliament, you will be invited during the present session to vote on the matter of the abolition of the death penalty in Canada. The Civil Service Association would not normally concern itself with so controversial a matter of public politics. We would consider that our members prefer to decide about this matter in the manner which the government seems to intend to adopt in Parliament, leaving each person free to make his decision individually.
In this specific case, however, our Association has, as an organization, an important interest in one aspect of the problem. We refer to the abolition of the death penalty for murderers of prison employees or guards during attempts at escape or any other incident in which a victim is legally carrying out his duties.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not read them all. Members of parliament are asked to retain the death penalty, at any cost. We receive any number of letters like that one; all hon. members must have received some.
I quote: "Young conservatives in favour of retention." It is strange to notice that the Progressive Conservatives now accept the proposals of the government for abolishing the death penalty for another five years. It was suspended for five years and that should be good enough to know what happened: statistics are there to prove it; the number of murders increased alarmingly over that period and even though I am no "smart aleck", I do not want to carry things too far either.
Conscientiously, I should greatly prefer that none should have to go through such atrocities but we are here, Mr. Speaker to deal justice, to enlighten the people, to enact legislation protecting the people. They need protection and I believe that on the whole Progressive Conservative hon. members and Liberal members as well are prepared to maintain the elimination of a capital punishment
May 16, 1973

for another trial period of five years, claiming that it is barbarous to take a citizen's life.
In many countries, Mr. Speaker, this would not be tolerated. In several countries there are even no inquiries and bums are done away with, who bring evil and discord into society and the lives of respectable citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I should have much to say, but since others want to participate in the debate I shall say that for our part we shall be voting against Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code.
The Criminal Code exists, Mr. Speaker. It should be amended, but in order to protect people and not to further encourage the atrocities we are now experiencing.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, before we are invited to vote upon the motion for second reading of Bill C-2, I would like to say a few words about this matter which has given rise to many debates and votes for a few years.
I had the opportunity of taking the floor twice in this House, when bills were introduced in 1966 and 1967. In 1967, the House passed a bill which suspended capital punishment, except in cases of murders of police officers or penitentiary guards on duty, for a five-year period. This five-year period was over at the end of 1972 and today, the government found it advisable to introduce in this House a bill that is similar to that which was passed in 1967, thus extending for another five-year period the abolishment of capital punishment, except in cases I referred to earlier.
I intend to say a few words, without passion, without emotion and on my own behalf only. I do not intend to convince anybody, and I do not think that I could succeed in do so. I was told that this was an emotional issue; probably there will not be any more important matter before Parliament for a long time.
I listened carefully today to the passionless and emotionless speech of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I take his word and I am sure of it, when he says that each case was or will be fairly assessed. However, I must admit that it might be more difficult to convince the right hon. Prime Minister about the advisability of capital punishment. I am expressing a personal view but I suggest that the Prime Minister is right when he says that each case must be considered or will be considered in all fairness.
I listened to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) whose speech, I must admit, was very vague. We do not really know what will happen during the third reading of this bill after it has been considered in committee.
As for myself, I intend to inform hon. members of my decision when motions on second and third reading will be put. I plan to vote in favour of this legislation on second reading since I believe with certain exceptions that a bill should be considered thoroughly and on its merit.
When this bill comes back before the House I will make my decision, that is to say that if it is not amended so as to propose the complete abolition of capital punishment I will vote against it. Let me explain. I think that those who
Capital Punishment
heard my speeches in the past know that it is not an emotional issue for me. When I opposed certain bills in the past I explained why I was opposing them and I explained specially that I was concerned with other aspects such as parole, criminal records, rehabilitation of inmates, trials and preliminary inquiries. Some improvements have been brought about since then in the field of criminal records, bails, trials, preliminary inquiries and many other areas.
However, Mr. Speaker, I now consider the problem of abolition or retention as settled. The facts are there to prove it. I do not think that this government-and it is my personal opinion-nor any other government which could be called upon to run this country in the immediate future would ever send anybody to the gallows. So I consider the problem as solved. We had better stop talking about it and be realistic and know what to do after. We must then ensure that inmates are rehabilitated when possible.
Some people talk about revenge and protecting society. I have a lot of respect for those who make such arguments; it is their right to do so and it is not my intention to blame them for it. However, I for one think that there is only one thing that counts, that is what we are going to do with the inmates after their detention. I do not believe in those arguments of deterrence. As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said a moment ago, the statistics in that field are more or less good and we will never know the number of persons who committed or did not commit a murder because there was abolition or not. But one thing is sure: the general public does feel that no one will be hanged either under the present government or under the next governments whatever the party in power. So we must reassure the public once and for all and tell them that abolition is a fact.
And what are we going to do now? Later, for any reason, if Parliament sees fit, it will introduce another legislation and restore capital punishment if needed. We must make up our mind now, once and for all. But to say that they will introduce that legislation to have more statistics, this is a unbelievable joke. Everybody knows that within the next five years, nobody will be sentenced to death. Some may believe it, but I do not. It is not a way to gather statistics.
I have listened with considerable interest to the leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for York South, who had the courage to say this afternoon that he at least was not satisfied with this bill; he saw a compromise in it and he had the courage to say so.
I consider it takes courage to settle the issue once and for all and to abolish capital punishment. Something must be done. For instance, in trying to convince us or the population, as have done some hon. members or other people who do not sit in this House, some persons give the following argument: As a compromise, of course, to try to have this bill passed, which I consider as inefficient, we will now arrange so that those who under this bill are sentenced to death for qualified murder stay in prison 20 years, without getting out and without remission. This is barbarism.
I have studied the problem of penitentiaries and of their inmates, Mr. Speaker, because I have always been interested in this and I think a good many hon. members in this House know it, and I can say, of course, that a good many

May 16, 1973
Capital Punishment
persons who know the problem agree with me that if we let someone in a penitentiary without any hope of getting out for 20 years, he will grow crazy or commit suicide.
I know, Mr. Speaker, the case of people who were sentenced to death and were imprisoned for life, for manslaughter for instance.
I can say that if, after 10 years, a person is not rehabilitated and ready to be sent back to society with the necessary safeguards, he will never be. I think we must have in mind what 10 years in prison can represent. I have never been in jail. But we must imagine what it is like.
I know someone, Mr. Speaker, who has been serving his life sentence for 9 years. I think that this person is now rehabilitated. I can be wrong but I think he is. But it is not in the ninth year that he is rehabilitated; it started as early as the first or second year, because it must be understood that if a person is found guilty, he is in a state of mind that prompts him to live in general in a world which does not facilitate his rehabilitation on the first day of imprisonment.
That person, often after one year or two, comes to realize that it is possible, and he takes the necessary means, with the help of a psychiatrist, to rehabilitate himself. But if he were told tomorrow morning that he has no chance to get out after 10 or 11 years, then he would stop being a case for rehabilitation. I am convinced of that.
When I hear people in this House or elsewhere say, always for the sake of compromise or for other reasons-I say "for the sake of compromise" because I believe that is the reason-that criminals will be imprisoned for 20 years and that the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will amend the bill to let the population know that those people will serve their sentence for 20 years, that it will be impossible for them to come out of prison before that, I think one makes another error, Mr. Speaker. So, in my humble opinion, there will be no more joking.
If the matter were referred to a committee, if a bill advocating the complete abolition of the death penalty were considered, I would be the first to support it. I know that my views on the subject are well known, but those who have read my speeches must realize that I have changed. I do not say that there is no deterrent, but I do not believe in revenge. I believe along with others-and the Prime Minister referred to this this afternoon-that there is a punitive factor and the punishment, it must be admitted after all, can be adequate. What can be done about it? When one drives through a red light, a $20 fine is levied. If someone steals $50, $5,000, or a million he will be punished accordingly. Evidence shows generally that a sentence is somewhat suited to the crime, though mistakes are always possible.
We must admit, and this is quite simplistic,-to be consistent with our opinions-that when a person deliberately kills another, it is said that he who voluntarily kills deserves an adequate punishment, which is death. Let us forget about this and stop talking about this problem. We shall never find a solution. We shall never succeed in convincing 22 million Canadians that abolition or retention is necessary. It is impossible.
If tomorrow morning a three-year old girl is murdered for example, people will be shocked and will say: Let him

hang! But two or three years later, when the accused is found guilty and the decision is made to hang him, then people will say: It is most unfortunate. After all, it will not bring the child back to life.
We shall thus never find a solution, Mr. Speaker. Then, let the government introduce a bill in favour of abolition and with full knowledge of the facts, honestly and sincerely, let us vote on this question.
Then, I would vote for abolition. I said that I would not try to convince anyone; it is the only thing that I can say. I have tried to convince people by saying: That is enough, let us abolish capital punishment and then make sure that prisoners get what they deserve. When we day "what they deserve", it means that when they are in prison, we should take steps to keep them there, and I am not casting reflections on any member in this connection. Let us see to it that those who can be rehabilitated will be and that those who cannot be rehabilitated stay in prison.
In this way, the population will know where it stands and we shall live in a climate of security rather than uncertainty. In fact, this climate of uncertainty exists in the public as well as in penitentiaries, which is demoralizing for everyone and does not help at all to solve the problem. This does not help society either because it is much better protected when we know where we are going and when there is no procrastination, when there is no last minute compromise which often does no credit to those who makes it.
With this, Mr. Speaker, I end my remarks which I had hoped would be shorter and which, I trust, will not have been too painful to listen to.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join some of my colleagues who have said that it is unfortunate that we are required to debate the capital punishment issue at this particular time in this particular parliament. It is unfortunate for a number of reasons. If not the most important, certainly the first reason, is that capital punishment is not the issue that we should be considering. It is but one of the problems that plague our total penal system, as the debate of last night indicated. But in this debate we must restrict ourselves to the issue of capital punishment.
It has been characteristic of this House, during my short career here, that we legislate from one crisis to the next crisis. This is stop gap legislation. We should be addressing ourselves now to the real problems of the country-the economic issues-which include unemployment, inflation, unemployment insurance and income tax. Any one of these problems is more serious than the one that is presently under debate.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code already contains provisions which, although ignored, deal with murder. But we must address ourselves to this most perplexing bill which, if passed, will be a victory for abolitionists and murderers, although it will still permit capital punishment, and which, if defeated, will still be a victory for abolitionists and murderers because, de facto, we have
May 16, 1973

already said goodbye to capital punishment anyway, because the government won't enforce the law.
But, Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It is so confusing that our Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who, on the one hand, say they are abolitionists, on the other hand say that they will support the bill even though it provides for capital punishment.
Much has been said in this debate, and I do not want to be repetitive. At this point I must say that I shall find myself compelled to vote against the government's bill. This is not necessarily because I am overwhelmingly in favour of capital punishment but because the bill does not provide the Canadian people with the protection that I deem necessary. I stress protection because that is my No. 1 concern-the protection of the innocent members of society, people like our wives and children. Abolitionists overlook this most important aspect and express pity for the murderers. They say, "But you cannot bring back a murder victim." I say "we want protection while we are alive".
The abolitionists point to statistics and say that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder, and so it should be abolished. They point to the statistics to support their claim, but we all know that statistics can be used to prove anything that the statistician wants to prove. Let me give you some examples.
Statistics Canada, on January 19 of this year, issued a report revealing that the average number of murders during the years 1961 to 1967 inclusive was 222 per year. During the four years after the temporary ban was instituted the average number of murders was 376 per year, reaching a peak of 422 in 1971. Certainly, these figures show that the suspension of capital punishment was no deterrent to murder. My colleague from Calgary North has reminded us that the deterrent effect can never be measured accurately because we do not know how many people would have committed murder if there had been no death penalty. But I am not worried about whether a murderer fears being put to death. I am worried about protection of the innocent.
The abolitionists say that retentionists want revenge. I am not concerned with revenge. Probably full life, or even 25 years in prison is a punishment worse than death. I am concerned with protection. You will hear it said that imprisonment will provide the protection. I ask for whom? Certainly protection will not be provided for the prison guards or for the public after one of these murderers escapes.
The bill we are asked to pass provides that the killing of a policeman or prison guard is punishable by death, but other premeditated and violent killing is not. Is this the leadership the people deserve from our government?
You probably also hear it said that the courts can err and the wrong man could be executed. Mr. Speaker, the chance of this happening is so remote that it hardly bears consideration. The courts of our land today have so many safeguards, so many checks and balances, that the risk of being wrongfully executed is hardly measurable, certainly not when it is compared with the risks we all take every day when we get out of bed and go into the streets. It could even be described as a non-existent risk. But the
Capital Punishment
abolitionists do not consider the risk of murder to our innocent citizens.
There is another type of protection that bears mention at this time. A close associate of mine, who is a skilled courtroom lawyer, has said that if his wife or child were murdered and the murderer were later released he would search out and kill that murderer. He does not attempt to justify what he would do, and he fully realizes that his action would be reprehensible, but he would be unable to stop himself. He needs protection just as much as his loved ones. If we do not give society the protection it demands, we shall find ourselves returning to the days when the quickest and the strongest ruled, to the old doctrine of might is right. People will ignore the law if the law ignores them.
I have said many things about protection because protection has long been the concern of every member of every society. Society found long ago that some of its members acted in an anti-social way, and that the majority required protection from the few. They established police forces to provide this protection. In this most important debate, the chiefs of all our police forces are urging us to retain capital punishment. Are we to ignore the men who are hired to protect us?
The aims of the abolitionists are admirable-to murderers! Frequently, the abolitionists are people who say they are concerned with helping mankind. But they seem to be obsessed with helping the few-the guilty few-instead of helping the many-the innocent many. It is time these people began to be concerned about preserving the cream and throwing away the scum!
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) today spoke of passion killing. These would be manslaughter charges and not capital murder, anyway. But the hon. member says in so many words that he would let the hired killer remain alive to escape and kill again.
Since my election, I, like the others in this House, have heard hundreds of opinions expressed by constituents and others. We have heard the scriptures quoted by both sides in the debate, but I am convinced that the vast majority of Canadians want a return to capital punishment, though they want it for various reasons. It is true that some are vengeful or have other reasons, but the single, most moving reason is protection, and my direction is clear. I think the innocent citizens expect their elected representatives to give them the protection of the law, and I am opposed to this bill because it does not give the protection demanded.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, first, I should like to agree with the views of the previous speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Clark) regarding why there are many more important topics and issues to be debated here at this time, such as our general economic problems and the drastic rise in food prices. Also, there has been so much said on the subject of capital punishment in the last few days, months and indeed years, in this country and others, that one would suppose there is nothing left to say. It seems to me, however, not only due to my own strong

May 16, 1973
Capital Punishment
feelings, but the personal contact I have had with many people regarding this matter, that no one person has really summed up all the real issues.
Now, I am not going to pretend to be the guiding light as far as a solution is concerned-far from it. I want to merely state, Mr. Speaker, what I, personally, believe is the true feeling and belief of the majority of our society, a society that is not sick or degenerated, but a society trying to live in harmony and peace. Under normal circumstances, it could be called the silent majority, but when it comes to this issue of capital punishment, it is a society far from being silent.
Mr. Speaker, I have stated on numerous occasions to my constituents of High Park-Humber Valley in Toronto, because capital punishment is such an individually emotional issue, that when the vote came up, I would vote on this matter as the majority of my constituents would want me to vote. In that regard, I have recently sent out a questionnaire to my constituents and have had a response of 83 per cent for capital punishment, 12 per cent against, and 5 per cent undecided. Now I can vote on this matter not only as my constituents would want me to, but also as my conscience directs me.
We remember that in April, 1966, an attempt was made to achieve complete abolition, but it was rejected on a free vote in this House. In 1967, the same parliament passed for a five-year trial, a law which was a compromise and which abolished hanging for all but the murderers of prison guards and policemen. But was one man hanged? No. The government has not only made a mockery of the courts, but of their own laws. This law, as we all know, expired at the end of 1972. But murders in Canada continue. I have some statistics, though I really do not want to dwell on statistics as such. One statistic supplied by Statistics Canada shows that from 1961, when the capital murder rate in Canada was one in every 100,000 Canadians, it rose to 2.3 murders in every 100,000 in 1970.
In Great Britain, as we know, capital punishment was abolished in 1965. Four years prior to the bill, 71 murders took place in Great Britain. During the four years after the abolishing of capital punishment there were 161 convictions on murder charges. This figures would have been much higher had the courts not charged dozens of murderers with manslaughter instead. These statistics speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker.
The profound question, then, that immediately faces hon. members in the twenty-ninth parliament is, are we in favour of the death penalty for murder or are we not? It is often contended that too much sympathy is shown the criminals, too little thought given to the victims, to the families and personal communities of which they were members. This contention I would not seek to refute. It's truth is too often only too clear. If it is argued that other considerations are more important, it is not argued that this one is unimportant, or does not deserve more practical weight than it has been given.
It is widely held that a principal aim of the whole system of criminal justice should be reform of the criminal, that the convicted person deserves the right and the opportunity to make a new start in life. That also, is not being contradicted, except by this consideration: that we are concerned here with capital crimes, that what may be

valid for 99 in every 100 criminals is not necessarily valid for the hundredth. Even if every dog were entitled to his bite, the rule would not apply to a mad dog. Therefore, once again we ask ourselves the question-should a man who has wilfully killed another man, himself be killed?
Historically, this question has been asked of those living after the event. The prosecuting attorney pleads it in his implacable argument before the judge and jury. The defense attorney denies it in his impassioned plea for the life of the murderer. The judge juggles the question in his summing up to the jury, and the jury deliberates on it, sometimes in anguish, sometimes in great clarity of mind.
Yet in all that has been written and said on the subject of capital punishment, seldom has anyone questioned what the victim would say about it if only he could. And, after all, equally with his murderer, the victim would have a right to speak in the matter of his own death and its punishment. Supposing the intended victim of a premeditated murder were to know in a flash of insight exactly what was in the mind of his assailant. Suppose everything were equal. Suppose the intended victim had a gun in his hand at the same instant as his murderer approached him with a gun in his hand. What would be the inalienable right of the threatened man? What would you do, if you were the intended victim? Would you simply stand there and allow yourself to be shot through the heart? If so, you would voluntarily relinquish your equality before the law and your right to the love of the land. Would you turn and run? Then, you would be a coward. Or, would you employ equal force to his and shoot him dead?
The trouble is, the rights of the victim are often overlooked in the hurly-burly of the trial of his murderer. All of the attention is fixed on the plight of the man on trial. Safe in their own comfortable homes, remote from the confrontation which took place at the moment of a man's death, people are prone in the intervening months to sympathize with this living man who is, after all, one of them and must merit mercy. They forget that the dead victim received neither sympathy nor mercy. There is generally only one recognized sanction proposed as an alternative to capital punishment for crimes of a capital nature, guaranteed lengthy prison terms. Long prison terms, however, may justly be criticized as being repulsive, as being punishment of the sort condemned in the language of the Constitution of the United States of America as "cruel and unusual". A sensitive society must shrink from the infliction of such prolonged punishment as it should shrink from torture. In most cases, it is not a punishment which fits the crime, but punishment which balances slow psychic death against the sudden killing.
Those who speak or think "humanity" must forget long prison terms; a person who has spent many years behind bars and concrete walls degenerates beyond recognition into a class close to vegetation. Let us become humane by not allowing our laws to let humans become vegetables. There are secondary reasons as well for this position, such as the cost of feeding, clothing and housing men and women whose proved relationship to society has been one of violent antagonism, basic opposition to the values and standards accepted by the community. A large group of fellow citizens should not be subjected to the difficult,
May 16, 1973

dangerous and demeaning task of serving as keepers of the enemies of society, who have behaved like brute beasts.
Now, what really should be considered as a capital crime? Well, in Canada as in other countries there has been at work a steady refinement of definition, a narrowing of meaning, as to the crimes for which capital punishment should be imposed. Much of the process has been good; in part it has been extreme. Some comments should be made about the sorts of considerations which must weigh with parliament and the courts. There is a justifiable distinction, but one which it is very difficult to draw, between the premeditated murder and the act of sudden passion. It is surely reasonable to assume that if a person carried a lethal weapon to the place where he kills, he must have forseen the possibility of using it.
The tendency to regard somewhat leniently the person who commits a crime under the influence of alcohol or drugs is one which it is difficult to justify in the great majority of cases which come before the courts. Even when the use of intoxicants and drugs has not deliberately preceded, as an act of preparation, the commission of the crime, it is clear that in many cases the offender must have been aware of the likely effects of their use. Such a person should be held responsible for his choice and its consequences. One who has made a wrong choice of this sort and killed, has destroyed his own case for leniency on the grounds of possible penitence and reform. How can he be trusted again to have freedom of choice in the world, even after 15 or 20 years?
There has been little discussion of capital crimes other than murder. This is unfortunate, because a comparison of crimes can be helpful in evaluating their seriousness. Hanging for rape had disappeared in Canada before the penalty was removed from the Criminal Code, partly because of the extraordinary difficulty of proving guilt. But, as is the case with other crimes of violence, there is an upward trend in the rate of offences. The justification for retaining the supreme penalty as an alternative is that in some cases of psychopathic murder, the results for the victim are perhaps even more terrible than the results of other kinds of murder. It would be a declaration by society of its code of values, if nothing else, if the capital alternative were restored in the statute.
Sea piracy has been rated a capital offence, and the same reasons now require that air piracy be classified in the same way. The pirate, by sea or air, for the most part operates outside the area of national law and police action, and by violence or threat of violence he takes over the command of a fragile carrier, endangering the safety of passengers and crew. He also, potentially, ranks among the most dangerously anti-socials who commit wholesale murder.
Hard drug pushers, not users, could possibly rate as the worst killers in our society and should come under the capital crimes law. They pick on the weak, the confused, the young, the frustrated,, and they spread a disease worse than cancer, a disease that could not only ruin an empire but, indeed, mankind. The growing cult of violence may make additions to the list of capital crimes desirable. The use of explosives, with their capacity for mass murder,
Capital Punishment
makes ordinary citizens on the street or going about their business more vulnerable to the whims of merciless killers than has been the case in the past.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is more than clear by now that the majority of my constituents and I are totally in favour of bringing back capital punishment as soon as possible in order to save whatever dignity and freedom there is left in our lives and our own society. There are, however, two final points which I should like to make at this time. First, let us be humane by not allowing a human being to rot in jail over a 20 year or more term, as I have stated; and let us civilize ourselves by imposing the death penalty in a more humane fashion than hanging. There are up-to-date medical facilities and drugs that could be utilized without having to make a production of the execution.
Unfortunately, there are in this country still too many people who believe the death penalty for murder is a cruel and inhuman punishment for a man or woman convicted of such a crime. These people, it appears, have no regard for the victim or the victim's family, as I have said. That and the attitude of the federal cabinet during the five year ban which has just expired makes me bristle. We must realize that men and women "hyped" by speed and armed with weapons walk our streets with violence in their minds and murder in their hearts. You and I walk these same streets unarmed, protected only by the men recruited to keep law and order; and when these men give their lives while protecting our lives and our property, who pays? Does the law of the land demand payment? Yes, it does.
Who, then, should have the right to abrogate that law? The federal cabinet, in an aberration for which there is no sensible reason and which cannot be justified, does and has exercised that right repeatedly. It is time to re-examine this masochistic trait. We teach people that the age of maturity is 18. If a person, after he or she reaches that age, chooses to operate outside the mainstream of society and is convicted of killing a man who maintains the law of the land, you cannot justify commutation. You are doing an injustice to those who live within the law and to those who maintain it. A killer has no right to inflict his presence on this society after he has been sentenced to death for murder. For if he lives, he is living proof that society has no desire to protect itself or protect those hired to protect lives and property. To let him live makes a mockery of the law, makes a mockery of those who enacted the legislation and of those who elected the representatives who passed the legislation.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved as I participate in the debate on Bill C-2 calling for a five-year extension of the abolishment of capital punishment. The matter is one of great import, since it relates directly to man's greatest possession, which is life.
Because of the sacred nature of human life I believe legislation should reflect this in reality by applying the maximum penalty to those who deliberately violate the principle.
We live within a society and I believe we all agree that this society should reach a very high level of civilization and that our laws should contribute to achieving this goal

May 16, 1973
Capital Punishment
by ensuring a maximum of security for members of this society. People are entitled to normal protection, and it is up to the government to provide it. That is why we should pass legislation to ensure public security and also to punish those who jeopardize the liberty and security of others.
The many escapes from our prisons and penitentiaries do not foster a feeling of security among the people. It is the government's responsibility, therefore, to ensure the security of members of society by enacting legislation to increase their feeling of being protected against law-breakers.
We live in a century when each and every one, in his own way, proclaims the right to be free. Freedom is not only for the individual, but for his neighbours. Therefore, whoever takes his neighbour's life harms the other in his life, in his right to live. And in our modern society the tendency is to treat criminals just as though taking one's neighbour's life were not a crime.
When we consult our voters on the matter of the abolition of capital punishment, we see that many of them are worried about the rise in crime in this country, of mass escapes, of parole and sentences that are commuted by the executive, all of which goes to reduce the public's confidence in the judiciary.
The government must therefore provide better protection, so as to create a feeling of security among the population, a feeling which is becoming dangerously rare nowadays. Every day in newspapers and magazines and on radio and television, people are being literally flooded with news of the possible adoption of all kinds of measures to make things easier for criminals, and they might well wonder if criminals really exist, and if society is really protected.
Young people should be better informed about what the police force really is; they should be taught that a policeman is first and foremost the citizens' friend and not a scourge, that his job is sometimes unrewarding, that it is his duty to ensure individual safety, to which end he must enforce the law.
When the Criminal Code was amended to abolish the death penalty, with two exceptions, it was for a trial period of five years. During the trial period, a number of policemen and prison guards were murdered, and certain people were accused, given a fair trial, found guilty and condemned to death. However, how many of those found guilty have been executed?
I have here a reply that was given in the House to a question that I had put on the order paper, which shows clearly that the executive changes sentences passed by the judiciary, rendering inoperative a law whose implementation we are now asked to extend for another five-year period.
The question and the answer can be found in Hansard for March 6, 1972, page 535. I quote:
1.	(a) How many death sentences were imposed by the courts from January 1, 1967 to December 15, 1971 (b) how many sentences were executed (c) how many sentences were commuted?

Here is the answer from the hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):
1.	(a) Thirteen, (b) None; (c) Eleven.
So, 11 times out of 13 the government changed the sentence of the court. Here is the second part of the question:
2.	For what crime was each of these persons sentenced to death?
Here is the answer:
2.	Murder, in each case.
Here is the third part of the question:
3.	(a) What are the names of those sentenced to death who have received a commutation ...
Then follows the list and I will not bother to enumerate those persons. The dates of commutations through orders in council are the following: January 4 1968, eight orders in council allowing eight commutations of sentences. The cabinet is proceeding in series. The three others bear different dates.
Canadian have the right to expect that the law be obeyed and that the crime be punished according to penalties provided in the law.
Any normal human being is upset when he hears of a murder, that the life of a human being has been taken out of malice. This is why I understand the feeling of horror that moves the majority of Canadians to want that a crime as horrifying as capital murder be punished.
I understand that the human justice process is not absolute and that we could always make a mistake. This is not only the case for charges under the Criminal Code but also under the Civil Code, yet they continue to apply penalties provided under the Civil Code.
After a just trial, Mr. Speaker, when all known means to find the truth have been used and an accused has been convicted of having taken the life of his fellow citizen, is there really a compensation measure more just than capital punishment?
Let us take as an example the case of an individual who deliberately makes a device to explode a bomb in a public place, and by the way causes the death of one or several persons and then, it is demonstrated beyond all doubt that he is the criminal. Can we, in all conscience, allow this crime to go unpunished? What would then say the children of a mother who would find death in such circumstances?
I feel that it is just that capital punishement be maintained in the case of the murder of a policemen or a prison guard. The life of a mother or a father should be just as valuable because, as far as the mother is concerned, she is the gardien and the educator of her children, and as far as the father is concerned, no matter what his profession, he is the bread winner for his wife and children.
Why one law for the rich and another for the poor? Is the life of the bank clerk, the working man, the road employee not as useful to his family?
Let us be logical and to be so, the partisans of the abolition of the death penalty should avoid suggesting that some reservations should be made. They should demand the abolition of the death penalty for treachery and crimes committed under the National Defence Act.
May 16, 1973

Those crimes are nevertheless subject to the death penalty, because they are crimes against the state which is lifeless. If it is fair to protect state representatives, why not protect the life of people who make up the state?
Some hon. members who approve the abolition of the death penalty have referred to judicial errors. However, we all know that hanging applies to capital murders only, when there is no shadow of a doubt that the accused is really guilty.
If the minister is convinced that the maintenance of the death penalty for the murder of police officers and prison guards will have a deterrent effect, that penalty should logically have a deterrent effect in other cases.
I am convinced that it is essential to protect the life of police officers and prison guards by maintaining the death penalty. Therefore, it would be proper to protect the life of young girls threatened with murder and assault. Is there a difference between the murder of a police officer during a bank hold-up and that of a young girl victim of a rape by a sexual deviate?
Who was not astounded and indignant when we learned last fall the murder of two gamekeepers in Quebec? I had known one of them for many years: he was a model employee and father and a honest citizen.
Of what right have the killers of these people availed themselves to act this way? Even though we live in a society which prides itself for being progressive, can we really let such crimes go unpunished? Would that really be showing advanced civic-mindedness to leave injustice and violence without any punishment?
The state is in some way responsible for the alarming crime increase in Canada by letting movie theatres and television stations show several times a day to millions of easily influenced people pictures in which men and women are being stabbed, shot, strangled, poisoned, drowned or handled roughly in all sorts of manners. The state should be concerned with the sacred nature of life and deal severely with the lack of respect for life shown by telecasts and movies that have such an influence on young Canadians.
As representatives of the people in this house, we have some very serious responsibilities and must discharge them to the best of our judgment. I for one, that is what I want to do, even if I do respect the opinions of my colleagues. However, I must also take into account the will of the majority of the people I represent.
We must not only have penal laws, but must above all create a social climate favoring a better understanding of the individuals that make up society. There should be more justice in the sharing of ressources, in order to allow each and everyone to satisfy his vital needs.
Finally, it would also be desirable to emphasize our rehabilitation programs for inmates. The entire society should also be better disposed towards them, once they are released, so they do not feel rejected, and such an attitude would help prevent relapse.
I think also that our laws should be more generous in the matter of compensation for the victims of those who have broken the law, which, in my opinion, would be a proof of generosity; it would contribute towards making
Capital Punishment
the masses more aware of the need for doing more in the way of rehabilitating those who have had the misfortune of erring.
We wonder whether the death penalty is a deterrent; yet, I am convinced that the amendment to the Criminal Code authorizing the use of the breathlizer gave good results. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the holder of a driving licence who wants to keep it has had to be much more careful about the use of alcoholic beverages in the last few years than previously, which proves that the measure has had the expected results, that is, that people are more careful.
The same reasoning can apply with regard to the demerit point system adopted in Quebec. I have repeatedly noticed that drivers are more careful and respectful of the law. That is why I see preventive measures in those sanctions.
As I see it, the best solution to the problem of capital punishment, the most democratic one, would be to hold a referendum. I hope some day the government will take the necessary steps to introduce a legislation authorizing one. We would then have the population participate in a decision in which it is interested.
As for now, Mr. Speaker, I have to make my own decision as a member of this House. I will do so very freely and will, quite objectively, vote against Bill C-2.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I want to say, through you, to all hon. members that the subject which we are debating has been one that has caused me a great amount of concern for a number of years. I think I speak for all other hon. members when I say that the anguish with which I have at times in the past approached this question convinces me that the vast majority of my fellow men, who are probably rational and sensitive creatures, have also approached the question with a certain degree of anguish. No matter what I am going to say in the next few minutes, I want to assure all hon. members that I commence these remarks with the profoundest regard for the position taken by other members in this House, even though I may differ with some of them.
I believe the first point that I must make is that this is not an abolition bill. This bill is a bill to hang the murderers of policemen and prison guards. It may at best be called a partial abolition bill, but it is not an abolition bill. I think this point has to be made for two reasons. I have received a great deal of correspondence on the whole subject. Those who are for abolition have written to me in the belief that this is an abolition bill. I notice-I must be fair about this-that I have had fewer of those letters lately.
It is because so many people have gone into this whole issue over the last year on the assumption that the issue would be abolition or retention that there is still in the country a degree of confusion. It is hard to disagree with my position that this is not an abolition bill. If that is so, then one must ask oneself where is the logic in advancing the arguments that have been most eloquently advanced

May 16, 1973
Capital Punishment
in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, and yet not apply them in the two areas where the bill still provides for the taking of the life of the transgressor.
The other evening, on Monday night, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) spoke in this debate. No member who was in this House could doubt the sincerity of his remarks, least of all myself. But when he finished I asked, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he would allow a question, to which he graciously consented. For the record in this debate and in this speech of mine, I want to read an extract from Hansard for May 14, page 3739. This was my question:
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister because I did not hear all of his speech, but I wonder if he would be good enough to answer a question which I think troubles a number of us who are very sympathetic to much of what he has said. If one is advocating the abolition of capital punishment on the grounds that the minister has stated-and other hon. members have spoken along the same line-where is the logical distinction between hanging a frightened man who runs out of a bank and shoots a policeman, and not hanging a man who shoots the prime minister, or who may engage in the diabolical business of killing people for the underground.
I meant "underworld".
I would be interested to hear the minister's views on this particular problem.
The minister answered in this way:
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that question. I think the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) will appreciate from my remarks that I did not attempt to distinguish in any logical way why one particular type of murder rather than another should have capital punishment attached to it.
I quote that because what else could the Minister of Justice say? There is, in my view, no logical distinction. It has been said: "Well, the bill has to be the way it is, otherwise we would never get it through the House of Commons; we would have to continue the law as it became at the end of the year and have capital and non-capital offences". I am led to understand that this was the same argument that was put up five years ago. I was not a member five years ago, but I did wonder then at the logic of it. I have not been persuaded in the intervening years that what I regarded as illogical a few years ago has become logical with the passage of time.
I listened with great interest this afternoon to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He advanced, again in an eloquent way, his personal feelings about the death penalty. I respect what the Prime Minister said. He takes the view-many people take this view-that to have the death penalty is, in itself, something that ought to be abhorrent to a sensitive and civilized community. I know there are others who do not agree, but I respect that position. If that is so, how then can one escape the logical next step, which is that it is just as wrong on a moral basis-this was really the basis on which the Prime Minister put his remarks-to hang a frightened young man who shoots a police officer as he runs out of a bank? In case anybody misunderstand me, I do not justify what the boy does because he is frightened, but there is such inconsistency in hanging that young man and not hanging people who have done and are likely to do more diabolical things that I think it confounds the public's acceptance of the basic logic of what we are doing.

I have heard hon. members here say that it is proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent. I have heard other hon. members say they believe it is. I am more inclined to believe that statistics prove nothing about capital punishment. An intelligent editorial in The Globe and Mail of November 30, 1970 headed in those exact words "Statistics prove nothing about capital punishment", pretty well sums up my own feeling. In that article there is a reference to a study by the University of Toronto Centre of Criminology. Let me quote from the editorial:
The study, written by Barbara Schloss and N. A. Giesbrecht, concentrates on the 10-year period ending with 1970 and concludes that it is impossible to tell at this stage what effect abolition of the death penalty for murderers of civilians has had. It also concludes that it is impossible to define trends in the murder of police officers and prison guards.
The study may be right, but I have not seen anything that convinces me there is statistical proof for the proposition that capital punishment is a deterrent or vice versa. I happen to think it is a deterrent but I concede as I say that I cannot find proof one way or the other. It may well be that what is a deterrent for me may not be a deterrent for somebody else. I also note that capital punishment may not be a deterrent to all people in every circumstance. If we accept the argument put forward by those who have been speaking in favour of the bill, that deterrent is not a reason for applying capital punishment because capital punishment is not a deterrent in itself. Again, I ask where is the logic for hanging the boy who runs out of a bank and shoots a policeman?
We think of the killing of a prison guard as something which must be heinous, and perhaps planned. The person is waiting at the corner to throttle the guard. I put it to you that it could easily happen under very different circumstances. It could happen in a prison riot where, in the panic and confusion of the moment, some foolish man hits a guard too hard across the back of the head, not meaning to kill him. Perhaps he meant only to grip him or tie him up, but still death can result. The proponents of this bill would then hang that person. Again, I do not see the logic of this, because if hanging is no deterrent, and this is what is said, why hang him?
There is a basic problem when you put before the people a law which does not make sense, and I think I have alluded to that. When you put before the public a law which is intricately linked with other laws which, taken altogether, govern an area of activity, and taken together do not seem to make very much sense, then you begin to get into real trouble because you begin to become incredible as a law maker. The public do not take very long to decide that.
When I say what I am going to say now, I mean no personal slight to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) who has a very difficult task on his hands and who is doing everything he can to deal with a very difficult situation. In view of the remarks made last night by hon. members during another debate, I certainly think that most of us wish him well and want to help him in this job. So, this is no criticism of the Solicitor General. The fact of the matter is that these collateral laws controlling bail reform, parole, tickets of leave and the whole question of
May 16, 1973

what is and what is not life imprisonment, are laws that do not enjoy the confidence of the public at this time. It is because of this that the illogicality of the bill before us becomes, in my view, even more alarming.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to be a few more minutes and I wonder if I might call it six o'clock.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Six o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Was that the request of the hon. member, that we call it six o'clock, or did he want to go beyond six o'clock?


John Allen Fraser: I prefer to go beyond and finish, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: How much time have you left?


John Allen Fraser: A couple of minutes, I think.	.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would agree to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that I will not see the clock in order to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Mr. Foster:: Could the hon. member indicate how long he is going to be?


John Allen Fraser: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest another five or six minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Allen Fraser: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I extend my appreciation to my colleagues in the House for allowing me to continue.
Because of the basic illogicality of this bill, I now have to ask myself what I am to do as a member here voting according to his conscience. I do not believe that voting according to your conscience means that you should wander into the House of Commons, ignore everything you have seen, heard or been told by other people and suddenly apply some kind of star-struck wisdom from on high. I think what we do in this House when we vote according to our conscience depends to a great degree on how much attention we pay to what we hear outside this House. In many ridings the indication is that the majority of our citizens are in favour of retention of capital punishment. I am not certain what the feeling is in my own riding, although I have received 4,000 answers but I have not gone through them all. The feeling is probably very much along that line.
Capital Punishment
On the other hand, I probably have had the same experience as other members who have received letters in equal numbers from those who are for capital punishment and those who are against. Those letters have contained quotes from Scriptures and pleas to the effect that I vote according to my conscience. That is the dilemma most of us face.
I have for many years as a practicing lawyer advocated the complete abolition of capital punishment on the ground that, because our great system is made up of human beings and is by definition fallible, there is always the potential for error. There are other arguments for the abolition of capital punishment, but in my view at least that argument is completely irrefutable on any basis. We know that even if our Canadian judicial system has never made a mistake yet, it undoubtedly will because anything which is subject to human frailty will err sooner or later. So I would prefer that capital punishment be abolished entirely.
During the campaign I took the position when asked about this issue that I would prefer the abolition of capital punishment, but that I was not prepared to vote for an extension of the present system because I thought the law was basically illogical and other legislative areas were showing in practice to be deficient in protecting the security of the public. I recognize that in taking the position I do I may return to my riding pleasing no one. There must come a time I suppose in any member's parliamentary life when he must take that position whether he does it wittingly or unwittingly. Perhaps it is just as well that I am forced to take that position early in my parliamentary life.
I wish to close on this note. I would ask all hon. members to think carefully about how illogical this bill is, and to ask themselves why there is not something more logical presented to us. The government of the day has the power to place in front of Parliament a bill that would take these things into account. I must say it seems to me that in the early stages when this bill was being put together somebody from the government side did not adequately consider just what was being placed before the House. I do not think I have an obligation, no matter what my personal preference may be, to vote in favour of legislation which I believe to be fundamentally unsound and which does not appear to be logical, which draws distinctions which do not support morality but rather confound it.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 6.06 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 17, 1973