1976-07-06

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, July 5, consideration of Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, as reported (with amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motions No. 10 (Mr. Fortin), No. 11 (Mr. Reynolds).
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta raised a point of order about the allocation of time to speakers on report stage motions, it being within the Standing Orders that the mover of a motion is entitled to 40 minutes. Since there are groupings of motions which in fact reduced the possibility of speeches on separate motions, the difficulty which remains is this: should the mover of a motion which has been filed in time be deprived of his right to make a 40 minute speech within the standing orders just because it has been grouped with other motions?
I would be pleased to listen to contrary views but I must say I cannot see how the Chair can deprive the mover of a motion of his right to make a 40 minute speech simply because motions have been grouped for the purposes of discussions and voting. I think it would be an unfair extension of the rule to say that the mover should be deprived of his 40 minutes because his motion has been grouped in that way. Further, it would be extremely difficult for the Chair to decide which motion had been moved first, or which mover should, so to speak, have priority.
Thus it would seem fair to say that any mover of a motion, whether it be debated alone or in common with others, ought to be entitled to all that is coming to him, at least in terms of time allocation under the Standing Order, although I am sure it is not the hope of all that maximum advantage will be taken of that opportunity by every speaker.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to agree wholeheartedly with what you have just said. I might mention one further point. Under Standing Order 75, the Chair is given a great deal of latitude when it comes to grouping motions which are to be considered. I would not want this discretion to be impaired by the feeling that certain groupings should, perhaps, not be made in order to preserve the rights of individual movers to their 40 minutes.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement you have made is fair. I do not see there is any problem having heard your ruling.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker since what we are discussing involves the use of time I shall avoid using too much of it at this point. Furthermore, since there seems to be agreement with the position the Chair has taken, I find I am a voice crying in the wilderness. Nevertheless I should like to express unhappiness at the way things are going.
[DOT] (mo)
Let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker. There are 16 members of this party. Supposing we have an issue on which we feel very strongly and all 16 of us put down the same amendment. Would all 16 of us have the right to speak for 40 minutes? It seems to me that concomitant with the right of the chair to group motions for debate in order to save time should be the right of the chair to say that only one mover will have 40 minutes. However, I have stated my opposition. I realize that opinion seems to be the other way, but I just wanted to enter my view.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: On behalf of our party, the Social Credit Party of Canada, we are quite pleased with your ruling that each mover is entitled to use, in accordance with Standing Order 75, 40 minutes to make a speech. In reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who said that he is somewhat frustrated in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I must say that in other cases, when his party is carrying on the fight, he surely speaks in a different way.
However, I would like to remind him that there is a difference at the present time. If all the NDP members wanted to introduce the same motion, it would certainly be new tactics or a collusion among the members of that party. I will humbly point out, Mr. Speaker, that there is no collusion between the Progressive Conservative Party and the Social Credit Party of Canada. It is merely coincidence if some motions are repeated and consequently I feel that the Progressive Conservative and Social Credit members enjoy the same privilege. This is why I am very pleased with your very wise ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In respect of the point of view raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think a brief comment is warranted. The ruling of the Chair last week with respect to motions to delete was, of course, different in a very fundamental way from the ruling with respect to motions to amend. Motions to
95570-52)4

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
amend were held to a strict line and ruled out of order on the basis of their contravention of the principle of the bill. There was an argument that the Chair could and should have done the same thing with motions to delete, but a result of doing the same thing in respect of motions to delete would, in my opinion, be. to deprive a private member of this House of a very important right to a counterbalancing power from that which takes place in standing committee. I do not think it was ever intended that the only time the House can be put to a count on the clause of a bill is when clause by clause analysis of the bill takes place in standing committee. A private member has the right to do this here by way of a motion to delete. I think that is a separate, independent and very important right, and it is the basis of the differentiation between the two.
With respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the quickest way to persuade the Chair that that right ought to be interfered with would be for 16 members of the same caucus to put down the same motion. Indeed, if report stage motions to delete or any report stage motions do become at any future time the subject of abuse in that sense, it may not be within the power of the Chair to take that right away, but certainly the attitude of the Chair would have to change, and likely the attitude of the procedure committee as well.
In any case, so long as we are now dealing with what appears to be a conscientious use of report stage motions, in respect of the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I would think the situation that he has described would be somewhat different. In the present context it seems to me impossible to expect the Chair to choose between two movers of the same motion acting independently and deprive one of them of the right to an extra 20 minutes. Again, I hope all hon. members will be conscientious in the advantage that they take of that rule.


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, now that you have ruled that I can take 40 minutes I do not intend to take that time. However, I must say that I am a little shocked at the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that we might be trying to delay the House. As the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) has said, there is no collusion between our parties or between him and me in regard to these two motions. We just happened to agree and placed them on the order paper. I am rather shocked that such an hon. member would do anything to inhibit the free speech of the members of the House, or even suggest such. If you refer to Hansard you will find that in the past had not members of his party, such as Frank Howard, delayed this House with the divorce legislation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest that the hon. member return to a discussion of the terms of this bill.


John Douglas Reynolds: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that we should get back to the bill, but hon. members took 20 minutes of the House's time talking on a point of order. I think that one of the points in this bill that should be brought out relates to comparing clause 3 of the present legislation with clause 3 of the proposed legislation which

we are now debating. Subsection 75(2) of the act at present reads as follows:
Every one who commits piracy while in or out of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life, but if while committing or attempting to commit piracy he murders or attempts to murder another person or does any act that is likely to endanger the life of another person he shall be sentenced to death.
Clause 3 of this bill provides as follows:
Subsection 75(2) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) Every one who commits piracy while in or out of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life."
What concerns me about these provisions is that now the penalty is going to be the same for someone who hijacks an aeroplane, whether he or she attempts to murder or does murder. There is no deterrent at all for anybody-


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The Solicitor General is rising on a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I should make clear that the section under discussion does not relate to hijacking but to piracy. Piracy relates to the piracy of ships. Subsection 75(2)-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


William Warren Allmand: Read the Code. Section 76 is the hijacking of aircraft section and we are not dealing with that in this bill at all. The section being amended by the hon. member relates to the piracy of ships, and that is all that is under discussion, not the hijacking of aircraft.


John Douglas Reynolds: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister is using legal terms in talking about the difference between piracy and hijacking. The point I am making is that if somebody took a ship by means of piracy, it is the same sort of thing as hijacking. Under the present law, if the person who takes the ship by piracy kills somebody or attempts to kill somebody, he is going to pay the supreme penalty. Under the law that the Solicitor General is putting forward, if he kills everybody on the ship he is going to pay the same penalty as if he is caught and just walks off the ship. I think that kind of law is dangerous and it is why I think this section should be changed.
We have been talking about deterrence, and many times during the committee hearings the Solicitor General tried to show that Professor Isaac Ehrlich's studies on economics were not relevant. He quoted other people in committee who had said that everything that Professor Ehrlich had said was not relevant. I came across an article written by Michael T. Malloy headline "Punishment is a deterrent to crime; so say economists whose data seemingly refute reform the criminal theories".
What I think we should be arguing here is whether this provision of the bill constitutes a deterrent. It is a very important part of the bill. I should like to put some of this article on record because it contradicts some of the points made by the Solicitor General in committee. Mr. Malloy also refers to some very well known economists who support Dr. Ehrlich's theories. Mr. Malloy says:
July 6, 1976

One of the reasons we stoppped hanging, gassing, and electrocuting murderers in the United States was that the experts said it did no good. In study after study, they found no connection between a state's use of capital punishment and the rate at which its citizens were murdererd. The death penalty had already fallen into disuse when the Supreme Court struck down most capital punishment laws as unconstitutional in 1972.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, this decision was reversed a short while ago. He continues:
Even though the deterrent effect of the death penalty was not a major issue in that ruling, at least five of the nine justices took note of the scholarly evidence in their written opinions. The best studies, wrote Justice Thurgood Marshall, "demonstrate that there is no correlation between the murder rate and the presence or absence of the capital sanction."
Now a new breed of experts has come along with studies that challenge this and other beliefs about crime and punishment. If their findings become accepted by judges, politicians, and voters, they could shift the emphasis of our legal system from trying to reform criminals to deliberately punishing them.
Prof. Isaac Ehrlich of the University of Chicago has challenged the conventional wisdom about capital punishment. Using the economists' arcane techniques of econometrics, he seems to have demonstrated that the death penalty does work: His analysis suggests that seven or eight innocent lives are saved with every execution.
Ehrlich's analysis could affect the fates of hundreds of death-row prisoners, because the Supreme Court is expected to rule this year on whether all capital-punishment laws are unconstitutional.
As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court has made that ruling and has held that they are constitutional under certain conditions.
The article continues:
His study was so striking that even before it was published last year, the Justice Department submitted a typescript copy to the Court along with its brief in favour of the death penalty.
That is the point I think we should talk about. The United States Justice Department is in favour of capital punishment because the studies have shown there is a deterrent effect. I think in this clause especially we should be talking about deterrence.
To continue:
Erhlich's work on the death penalty may be ignored by the Court or discredited by other scholars. But other yound economists are bringing their computers and equations to the study of robbery, burglary, and crime in general. Poaching in a field that was long dominated by psychologists and sociologists, they approach it from a substantially different point of view.
"The standard criminologist has been living in a dream world for at least 150 years," says Prof. Gordon Tullock of Virginia Polytechnic Institute. "They've thought that the cause of crime is not the economic return sought by some people, but an illness or some sort of disease. Eighty per cent of the people who seriously think about crime think about punishment as a deterrent-except for the sociologists, and they wrote all the books."
Some of the books state flatly that punishment does not deter crime. More say there is no evidence that it does. This belief has changed the official mission of the criminal-justice system. Parole, probation, and the wideshpread use of indeterminate sentences (0 to 20 years for the same kind of crime) are largely based on the goal of reform rather than punishment. Even prisons are officially defined as "correctional" institutions and "reformatories."
"Economists tend to believe that crime, far from being the result of sickness or mental disorder, in most cases is simply a business-oriented economic activity which is undertaken for much the same reasons as other types of economic activity," Tullock and David Meiselman wrote in the preface to The Economics of Crime and Punishment.
Capital Punishment
"To reduce the frequency of crime, economists generally recommend we raise the costs of crime. It would be difficult to find a more revolutionary departure from the conventional wisdom."
"We postulate that people only decide to enter crime if they expect it to pay," says Prof. Gary S. Becker of the University of Chicago, who helped pioneer the application of econometrics to crime in the late '60s. "Whether, in fact, it does pay is more difficult to get numbers on; there have been studies indicating it does pay.
"Much of my work has been on the question of deterrence. I think we have reasonably strong evidence that people are deterred from crime (by the prospect of punishment). It is not committed only by sick persons who can't help it. The assertion has been made until now that criminals are not deterred. What evidence there is goes the other way."
"When imprisonment is more certain and more severe, those states that have more punishment tend to have less crime," says Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie-Mellon University, who heads a National Academy of Sciences panel that is examining all the evidence on deterrence. "That's what the statistics show. That's what everyone finds."
Blumstein is not convinced, however, that the connection that economists find between crime and punishment proves that punishment deters crime. He says the same figures could just as well show that crime deters punishment because out-of-hand crime rates overwhelm police and courts and prisons, making criminals less likely to be caught, convicted, or jailed.
There's a more obvious reason to challenge the economists. Remember that they start by assuming that people don't commit crimes unless the benefits outweigh the costs, and that therefore punishment should deter crime. Isn't it questionable when their econometric answers confirm their assumptions?
No, they reply, that's the way econometrics works. The practitioner starts with a set of assumptions, turns them into equations, and assembles the equations into a mathematical model. If his model works when it is fed known data from the past, then it is probably a fair approximation of the real world. If it doesn't, he goes back to the drawing board. Erhlich's model was fed murder and execution data from 1933 through 1967, and it seemed to work best when its equations were consistent with an estimate that one death sentence deterred seven or eight murders.
Mr. Erhlich's work has been backed up by some very strong professionals in this field. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has presented arguments before the committee which I do not think have convinced many of us, yet the people who back up Dr. Erhlich's work are well respected in the fields of both economics and crime.
I suggest that in respect of this clause of the bill dealing with piracy we must think about deterring. I think there can be a deterrent in this area when you are thinking of a man who has pirated a ship and is holding hostages. If the penalty is the same as if he had murdered a few people this leaves those hostages in very great difficulty. Perhaps the individual might think that if he gets rid of all the evidence he would have a much better chance of getting away. I hope those listening to this debate will think about this very seriously. This clause is another very much like clause 2 which members of this House, even abolitionists, should consider very seriously supporting in order to protect those people who may be caught in this very serious situation.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to say a few words on motions Nos. 10 and 11 that have been grouped because they are dealing with the same clause, since it is the only opportunity available to us to show our opposition to Bill C-84 to abolish completely capital punishment. I also congratulate my hon. colleague from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin)

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
who moved motion No. 10 on June 28, 1976, which reads as follows:
That Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended by deleting Clause 3.
And I quote section 3 in the former act which reads as follows:
*'(2) Every one who commits piracy while in or out of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life, but if while committing or attempting to commit piracy he murders or attempts to murder another person or does any act that is likely to endanger the life of another person he shall be sentenced to death."
And here is what is provided in clause 3 as proposed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand):
"(2) Every one who commits piracy while in or out of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life."
Mr. Speaker, we can see the trick used by the minister probably to minimize the impact of his amendment. He completely puts aside what was essential in the previous bill, namely the condition that someone kills while attempting to commit piracy. The minister uses only the first part of the present bill, with which we all agree, to remove the part that is now controversial. It reminds me of the second reading vote which he regarded as an acceptance of his bill.
Mr. Speaker, there is a limit to talking nonsense. Everyone knows full well that the vote was merely intended to refer Bill C-84 to the standing committee of the House for detailed study, and mainly to call in witnesses. Indeed, it often happens that hon. members vote for a bill on second reading to refer it to committee and, when they are not satisfied with that study, those same hon. members vote against the bill on third reading.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are simply disgusted with the government's refusal to call in Witnesses before the committee. We had intended to call in many witnesses but the minister simply refused to have it that way. He told us we had no need of that. That is why we brought in 14 amendments which you accepted, Mr. Speaker. All those amendments are intended to allow us to do in this House what we were unable to do in committee, because of the dictatorship of this government.
Mr. Speaker, I feel this must open the eyes of the population. Indeed the people are very much awake, and we now know that 90 per cent of them are against the action of the minister, are in fact in favour of keeping the death penalty.
Needless to say, I support the amendment on piracy.
A while ago I heard the Solicitor General call one of my colleagues back to order again with regard to the subject of piracy, saying that he was merely referring to the pirates of old, the old sea pirates. I think it might be wise to ask ourselves what piracy is today. Today, we are no longer living as people did 2,000 ago. In days of yore, a pirate was defined as an adventurer who combed the seas in search of brigandage. But with the years, we have come to call a pirate any man who grows rich through plunder. That is the modern definition of a pirate. Today, he may be a banker and nowadays in our sophisticated and mechanised society the most dangerous pirates do not operate either on the sea or on land but in the air. They are what we

normally and logically call air pirates and I was about to include among them all public transportation pirates who use the powerful weapon of human hostages to reach their goals. The reasons for all that piracy are many but I shall mention only the main ones. First of all the lust for money which involves sacrificing even human lives to get millions. Second, the release of some prisoners who are friends of the pirates, third piracy for national and ideological issues. Piracy may also be used to upset governments. To try to upset the government to protest against the establishment is also a kind of piracy which endangers human life and may even require murder.
Right now, we are going through a period of high crime rate and over the last 15 years we have witnessed all possible crimes in modern piracy. Scarcely one week elapses without the newspapers reporting a plane hold up by well armed and well trained terrorists, hostages taking a high official being kidnapped to fulfill political ends, and so forth. And what about kidnappings as they happened in the last few years, even in our small regions where sordid murders took place, following seclusions to get a few thousands dollars? I still remember the sad autumn in Quebec when minister Laporte was executed by a gang of terrorists, after being kidnapped and secluded for a long time. Even buses filled with schoolboys were used as hostages by bandits to get to their ends.
We see so many kidnappings and crimes increasing at the same pace as the law is flouted because responsible people became irresponsible, wishing to abolish the only punishment that might clean up our society from all these crooks, who are multiplying every time they win a battle over law and order forces. As far as I am concerned, I say that pirates are winners when they manage to get everything they want from some country's authorities and even having themselves flown into a country of their own choice at public expense after disturbing peace and often committing the worst assassinations.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder when the government, instead of acting hypocritically as it does today, will wake up and come to support police forces and all prison guards who are clamouring for government action, for more rigid legislation, first to be protected and then to protect the entire population. Far from doing this, we are letting everything go. One of these days we are going to wake up in the most complete anarchy. The present minister will probably not be here any more. He will have run away, but the people will face the consequences of his action today. In the face of all this, the minister has nothing better to do than proposing life imprisonment for misfits in clause 3 of his bill C-84. But what does life imprisonment mean to the minister? This is a question we have to ask ourselves now because we cannot trust what he says. We judge man according to his actions because he must indeed be judged so. Past actions stand as evidence of things to come and the past is not good at all. Here is the evidence for this. Over the years, although he had promised to impose capital punishment on all those who would kill police officers and prison guards, what has he done? Nothing at all, Mr. Speaker. Since then, many police officers have been killed by the bandits they were trying to arrest, and never did the present minister have the courage to live up to the promise he had made here in the House. Are we doing to trust him again when he suggests life imprisonment for acts of
July 6, 1976

piracy? In my opinion, when the minister says "life imprisonment", he may mean, depending on his whim, 25 years, or 10 years, or even 5 years.
The Solicitor General should cease making meaningless promises which he never keeps. For, if this clause is not eliminated, air pirates-and God knows we hear of many of them every day, people who take over airplanes and keep hundreds of passengers as hostages-will continue to multiply, because they will know they can count on the laws of this country to protect them. Society is so insecure today that a great many people dare not travel by plane, for fear of meeting a new group of bandits. And yet, everybody rejoice when military authorities carry out some daring action, such as the successful one by the Israeli forces, even at the possible cost of innocent lives. Let us suppose for a moment that these pirates had succeeded in their blackmail attempt, the main purpose of which was to obtain the liberation of their partners held behind bars; there would now be eight more heroes among these air pirates. And the fear among the public would be eight times greater, and so would be the fear within the country. After all this killing, these acts of piracy, the minister cannot help crying over the fate of the killers, but what has he done and what is he doing for the victims of these hired killers? Nothing, less than nothing.
They do not even mention their names. Whereas those victims will be handicapped for the rest of their lives, our noble murderers will have an easy time in other countries or comfortably accommodated in our detention centres at the expense of all Canadian workers. Some will wait for parole which the minister, as ever, will grant them generously, while others will watch for an escape opportunity to get out and commit other heinous crimes or even murders since they do not have anything to fear any more in this respect.
I have always held the principle that the most efficient way to clear out weeds is to get rid of them. It is the same for society, Mr. Speaker. I am not wondering whether capital punishment is a means or the best deterrent to prevent other crimes. I say that the best way to prevent other crimes is to do away with criminals. Contrary to life imprisonment, capital punishment prevents any escape and all law abiding citizens can live peacefully.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the two motions now before us which deal with the matter of piracy which is now found in sections 75 and 76 of the Criminal Code. First, I should like to challenge the comment of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) that somehow or other skyjacking is not piracy under the existing law. I find that very surprising and I think it is another example of the Solicitor General perhaps not even understanding the Criminal Code which he has been called upon to administer.
The motion that we have before us proposes that clause 3 of Bill C-84 be deleted. Clause 3 simply refers to subsection (2) of section 75 of the Criminal Code. To make this debate relevant I think it is necessary, first of all, to look at subsection (1) of section 75. Subsection (1) states: "Everyone commits piracy who does any act that by the laws of
Capital Punishment
nations is piracy". In short, what we must do to define piracy-whether or not the Solicitor General likes it-is to find out what the law of the nation says is piracy.
If I may, I should like to go through the history of piracy to show what happened in the Harvard draft which, was when first introduced, proposed sanctions for various forms of piracy as defined in the Harvard draft, the Geneva convention and right down to the Montreal convention. Then, I would like to refer hon. members to the treaty signed between the United States and the Republic of Cuba dealing specifically with skyjacking.
Before I speak on that, however, I should like to draw hon. members' attention and, particularly the attention of the Solicitor General, to other sections in the Criminal Code. We are now dealing with subsection (2) of section 75. Section 76 of the Criminal Code sets out various piratical acts, as they are called. Skyjacking in 1972 was referred to specifically, not in a separate section under the Criminal Code, but in subsections under section 76 dealing with piracy. I am referring to section 76.1, 76.2, and 76.3. I suggest that that was a very natural section for the government to amend when it wanted to have more severe penalties with regard to skyjacking because they knew that under the laws of nations skyjacking is an integral part of piracy. So where else would you amend the Criminal Code but simply under the piracy sections?
The reason I raise this point is that I think we must then read section 75 and all of 76, including the skyjacking provisions, to see their impact if the Solicitor General and the government get their wish in the amendment they are now proposing to Bill C-84. In short, they will put Canada in the position of being the most hospitable nation for skyjackers in this area of the world. In 1974, the United States Congress passed a law dealing specifically with piracy in the air, as it was called, and specifically providing for the death penalty in cases where any plane from the United States is involved. As I have said, Cuba has a treaty with the United States dealing with the question of air piracy, and as we know, Cuba is a retentionist nation. Russia, Japan, Ireland, St. Pierre and Miquelon are all retentionist. In fact, every nation around Canada is a retentionist nation, and if the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) make piracy an offence punishable only by imprisonment for life, that will mean we are the most hospitable nation in this part of the world for those who would seize planes for whatever purpose.
In support of what I am saying I refer hon. members first to the Harvard Draft, which was prepared in the early 1950's. It was a draft prepared in anticipation of the Geneva Convention, and again I emphasize that I am trying to look for exactly what the law of nations is as referred to in section 75(1) with regard to piracy. In the Harvard draft under the title "Piracy"-and I emphasize that; there was no equivocation-various definitions which were used in their proposed convention were set out. Item 5 states:
The term "ship" means any water craft or air-craft of whatever size.
It goes on to mention, for example, that a ship may retain its national character although it has become a pirate ship, and that the retention or loss of national

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
character is determined by the law of the state from which it was derived. In short, it is only a draft. I simply draw hon. members' attention to the fact that in the initial draft before the Geneva Convention there was no question that piracy was something which involved not only ships on the high seas but also aircraft in the skies.
I have here the Convention of the High Seas signed in April, 1958-by Canada, incidentally-known as the Geneva Convention. It states:
All states shall cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any state.
Article 15 states:
Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence, detention or any act... committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or private aircraft, and directed (a) On the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (b) Against a ship, aircraft persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
It goes on to mention the various things which were to be included in that Geneva Convention. I re-emphasize that Canada signed that.
A refinement of the Geneva Convention was the Tokyo Convention in 1969, again signed by Canada. Incidentally, when I say that these conventions were signed, I think it is very interesting because these conventions have been signed by Canada right up to recent times, and who signs right beside us? The Republic of China. We saw fit to sign conventions dealing with piracy along with the Republic of China, but for some odd reason we are now told that in terms of Olympic sport the same Republic of China has no business using that name in Montreal. I mention that because surely that is another example of the inconsistency of this government.
Let me again go through the various conventions. On December 12, 1969 the United Nations General Assembly dealt with this question and set out that there should be severe penalties for such things as skyjacking, which comes under the general definition of piracy. The Hague Convention of 1970 was signed in December of that year and states:
Each Contracting State undertakes to make the offence punishable by severe penalties.
In that case they were referring to the offence of piracy of aircraft, or skyjacking, whichever term hon. members prefer.
The Montreal Convention was, I suppose, the last main convention signed by various states of the world touching on this subject. That convention was signed in September, 1971 and came into force in January, 1973. It specifically set out that there should be severe penalties for the kind of thing to which we are now referring, and I re-emphasize that it simply highlighted the fact that the whole question of skyjacking is simply part of an over-all international approach to attempt to halt piracy.
With that background I would now like to discuss the response of the United States. The United States as well as Canada signed the Montreal, the Hague, Tokyo and Geneva Conventions. What have the Americans decided to do with regard to air piracy? I refer hon. members to the anti-hijacking act of 1974 which provides under the head-

ing "Aircraft Piracy Outside Special Aircraft Jurisdiction of the United States" the following:
Whoever aboard an aircraft in flight outside the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States commits 'an offense' as defined in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft. ..
That is the longer name for the Montreal Convention.
... and is afterward found in the United States shall be punished-
(A)	by imprisonment for not less than 20 years; or
(B)	if the death of another person results from the commission or
attempted commission of the offense, by death or by imprisonment
for life.
That was passed in 1974 by the Congress of the United States, and I suggest that it is comparable to the section the government now proposed to delete from the Criminal Code of Canada. The following is the government's wording as it now stands in the Criminal Code:
Every one who commits piracy while in or out of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life, but if while committing or attempting to commit piracy he murders or attempts to murder another person or does any act that is likely to endanger the life of another person he shall be sentenced to death.
If the Criminal Code is left intact with regard to aircraft piracy or piracy on the high seas, then a law exists which is comparable to the law passed in 1974 by the Congress of the United States, I suggest in answer to the conventions the Americans signed along with Canada at Montreal, the Hague, Tokyo and Geneva.
Is it not strange that our biggest neighbour passed a law as recently as 1974 to put teeth into what they call their aircraft piracy law in the form of the death penalty while we in Canada have that provision in our Criminal Code and choose, if we follow the pattern set by the government, to delete that provision? Even if all hon. members in this House were abolitionists, surely they would not be acting responsibly if they expected Canada to become the only totally abolitionist nation in this part of the world with respect to aircraft piracy. Let us think of what will happen if this section is deleted, as the government proposes. It will mean that a person who has taken over an aircraft might deliberately direct that aircraft to be flown to Canada because he will know that there is no death penalty here.
If this section is deleted, he could execute everyone on that aircraft, and the law of the land will say that the worst penalty he will have to pay will be imprisonment for life. Is that really what even abolitionists are willing to live with? I can see some argument that if the United States, Russia, Ireland or any other country was abolitionist as far as air piracy is concerned, there would not be that kind of pressure put on Canada where we might end up with an air piracy that has nothing to do with us except that the pirates know this is a safe haven; that even if people die as a result of it, the maximum penalty the government could enforce is life imprisonment. I think that is the crux of the two motions now before us. Do we, as members, want to go that far, bearing in mind that, like it or not, this is a retentionist world, and the nations around us have chosen to say that air piracy is an offence and if death occurs as a result, the death penalty may be prescribed?
July 6, 1976

I could read various other sections of the act passed by the United States Congress which deal with this question. Section 104 states:
(1) Whoever commits or attempts to commit aircraft piracy, as herein defined, shall be punished-
"(A) by imprisonment for not less than 20 years; or "(B) if the death of another person results from the commission or attempted commission of the offence, by death or by imprisonment for life."
Again, under the heading "Procedure in respect of penalty for aircraft piracy", it reads:
(c) (1) A person shall be subjected to the penalty of death for any offence prohibited by section 902(i) or 902(n) of this act only if a hearing is held in accordance with this subsection.
It goes on to express many jury provisions, and that type of thing, which would apply in the case of someone who was being tried on charge of aircraft piracy. I raise this point because I think it is important to refute what I would suggest was the misrepresentation of the Solicitor General that somehow skyjacking is not piracy. Our own law is clear, Mr. Speaker. Subsection 1 of section 75 of the Criminal Code is not going to be changed. It makes it very clear. It reads:
Every one commits piracy who does any act that, by the law of nations, is piracy-
Note that, Mr. Speaker, "by the law of nations". I believe the Solicitor General owes it to this House to explain what he understands to be the law of nations as far as piracy is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have cited the various conventions where this question has been dealt with. I have shown the history in some 20 years of how the various nations have interpreted and defined piracy. I think it is now up to the Solicitor General to tell this House why he believes piracy does not include skyjacking. Certainly, there is no definition in the Criminal Code that he can rely upon that would automatically say that in respect of the law of nations, piracy somehow means something different in Canada from what it means in the other nations of the world. Bearing this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I think those who have already expressed, much more ably than I have, the terror of aircraft piracy have a good point. Surely, in our rush to amend, to become an abolitionist nation, we should hesitate and look at what is happening in some other nations.
I believe, and I think I am correct, that somehow this government has become obsessed with waiting to be one of the first nations in the world to become totally abolitionist. The world is not ready for that, Mr. Speaker. The people of Canada are not ready for that. I think even the government agrees that about 80 per cent of the Canadian people believe we should retain the death penalty for at least some crimes. I think if you were to ask the people of Canada-and I would challenge the government to have a plebiscite on this-if they think the death penalty should be retained with respect to air piracy, or piracy generally, well over 80 per cent of the people would say yes.


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is why I ask that all members of the House, regardless of their personal feelings, accept the world as it is. It is a retentionist world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me a few additional minutes. I will sum up by saying that I can understand abolitionist members in this House stating that they believe, in conscience, that we should do away with the death penalty. I ask them also to consider whether it is wise to do away with the death penalty with respect to an offence such as piracy, bearing in mind that piracy is not something that will occur only within the boundaries of Canada but has an international relationship. Piracy occurs on the high seas or in the air, under no direct sovereign control. Is it right that we should allow Canadians, through our Criminal Code amendments, to get out of step with the rest of the world so that Canada may become a haven for those who commit air piracy? I believe the majority of Canadians-80 per cent or more- would say no. I think those in this House who would support the government with regard to abolition for all, in the sense of ordinary crime, would stop at the crime of air piracy.
That is what is before us today, Mr. Speaker. I sincerely hope that those who up to this point have rather generally supported the government will say, on the question of air piracy, "I call a halt. I think the death penalty should be retained."


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) have argued that section 75 of the Criminal Code, which deals with piracy, also covers air hijacking or air piracy. I have said it does not, because in 1972 this House passed legislation dealing specifically with aircraft hijacking. Section 76.1 of the Criminal Code deals with the hijacking of aircraft, section 76.2 deals with endangering the safety of aircraft in flight and rendering aircraft incapable of flying, and section 76.3 deals with carrying offensive weapons or explosive substances on aircraft or putting them on aircraft. Section 75 does not deal with air piracy, because we have that very specific and particular section following it which deals with the very subject. This amendment was passed in 1972 by this House in response to the air piracy and air hijacking question at that time, following international discussion.
I have consulted the Department of Justice and am told that because we have specific sections dealing with air hijacking, these prevail over the general sections and that is the general interpretation of the law. When we passed these sections in 1972 we provided that the penalty for aircraft hijacking, endangering aircraft or pirating aircraft would be life imprisonment. I can understand some hon. members who believe in capital punishment wishing to change the penalty to death. But they would have to

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
propose amendments to sections 76.1, 76.2 and 76.3 of the Criminal Code. This cannot be done simply by moving a motion to strike out clause 3 of Bill C-84.
A charge was last laid under section 75 of the Criminal Code, the section we are now discussing, in 1872, in Victoria, British Columbia. Four individuals charged under that section were sentenced to death, but their sentences were commuted. That was the last time a charge under section 75, which deals with piracy involving ships, was laid in Canada.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Some countries have changed all this.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member suggests that some countries are applying the law relating to piracy at sea to air piracy. This would have been the case in Canada if we had not passed in 1972 specific amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with aircraft hijacking and if we had signed the convention referred to. If it were not for these provisions, the old sections on piracy would apply to air piracy as well. I am informed by the Department of Justice that we have specific provisions dealing with air hijacking, or air piracy, which are not in section 75. I am referring to section 76, the heading above which is "Offences relating to aircraft." Offences relating to aircraft are covered under the provisions of that section and not by section 75. As I say, I can appreciate some hon. members wishing to make death the penalty for air hijacking. But to achieve their purpose they would have to move amendments to section 76 and following sections of the Criminal Code.
In this bill we are merely removing the death penalty with respect to piracy involving ships, in order to be consistent with other things we are doing. Some hon. members may disagree with this, and I respect their position. I merely say that one cannot deal with the question of capital punishment for air piracy or air hijacking by amending section 75 of the Criminal Code. One would have to amend section 76 and sections following. As I have said, the last time anyone was charged under section 75 was in 1872.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The allotted time of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has expired. He may ask a question only with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand)? Bearing in mind that Section 75(1) of the Criminal Code reads, "Every one commits piracy who does any act that, by the law of nations, is piracy," will the Solicitor General indicate why he does not believe that one can include, under the law of nations, aircraft piracy under the heading of piracy, bearing in mind the terms of the Geneva convention to which we are party and the various other conventions emanating from that convention?

As I understand it, skyjacking at present is an offence included under the general heading of piracy. I should think a strong argument could be made, if the section is left the way it is, for a skyjacker to be charged under section 75 or under the broad heading of piracy. I say that since the law of nations has made it clear that piracy includes aircraft piracy as well as piracy involving ships on the high seas. Does the Solicitor General feel that the law of nations does not include, under piracy, aircraft piracy?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am advised-and I sought legal advice on the point-that if we had not in 1972 introduced specific provisions with respect to aircraft hijacking and offences with respect to aircraft, the hon. member's contention would prevail. We would look to the usage definition, to international custom, and so on, or we might even examine treaties to see how piracy, under section 75, might be defined. However, in Canada parliament makes the laws of the country and the laws of parliament prevail over any treaty or international usage. In this case, the particular sections which parliament has passed prevail. If we had not introduced those sections, piracy could have been interpreted, according to the legal opinion I have been given, in the way the hon. member suggests.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct one last question to the Solicitor General? Section 75 of the Criminal Code covers the occurrence of death during piracy. Is it not reasonable to say that when that happens, the ultimate offence has been committed? If you commit the offence of aircraft piracy and death occurs, you may be punished with death. On the other hand, subsections dealing with skyjacking do not refer to the situation in which death occurs. They simply say that if you make off with an aircraft, you can be sent to prison for life. Surely there is a sharp distinction to be drawn between the situation contemplated under section 75, where provision is made for the death penalty if death occurs, and the situation contemplated in section 76, where there is no suggestion of what the penalty shall be if death occurs.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, I am advised that anyone who causes the death of an individual on an aircraft, either deliberately or otherwise, through negligence or some act which endangers the aircraft, can be charged with murder or any substantive offence related to murder. We have checked with the Department of Justice and have learned that eight charges have been laid in Canada for aircraft hijacking since the introduction of the relevant sections in 1972.
In addition, we also amended the Aeronautics Act in 1972. I do not have those provisions before me at present. Those provisions were passed as a result of the international conferences referred to by the hon. member. Nations which signed those agreements were obligated or responsible for doing something serious about aircraft hijacking and terrorism involving aircraft. Some countries, like the United States, introduced provisions providing for the death penalty. In Canada we introduced provisions which provide for life imprisonment.
To be fair to the hon. members although I mentioned a legal opinion concerning section 75, I must confess that I
July 6, 1976

do not think it has been tested in the courts, mainly because so few charges have been laid under section 75. In other words, I do not think anyone has laid a charge under section 75, with respect to aircraft piracy, which has been challenged and tested in the courts. But the opinion is that because we have such specific sections in Canada, they cover that specific issue.


Mr. Horner:: The minister has defeated his own
argument.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on clauses 10 and 11 of the bill. Last night I spoke on the treason clause; this morning I wish to speak on the piracy aspect of the bill. I was most interested to hear the exchange between two competent lawyers. I hope that the Department of the Solicitor General will enlighten us about the matter which has been raised in argument. I should like the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to bring forward necessary amendments to the Criminal Code and reintroduce the death penalty for skyjacking. That move would simplify matters.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: May I put on record some figures relating to skyjacking attempts since January, 1975. Altogether there were 277 successful attempts and a total of 452 attempts. These figures show that we face a serious problem with regard to skyjacking and that such piracy is still taking place. We all know of incidents which took place in the last two weeks. One attempt was made last night. To remind hon. members, especially abolitionists, what happens when a plane is skyjacked I shall read part of a news report headlined, "Two killed, 10 hurt in Iraqi hijacking." The report says:
The pilot of an Iraqi Airlines domestic flight felt a hard object on his temple and heard a click.
"I'll blow your brains out if you don't immediately fly out of Iraq," said a man who had suddenly appeared in the cockpit.
Just imagine if that had happened to the Solicitor General's brother or to some other relative of his. How would he have liked it? How would he feel if any of his relatives were in such a position?
We should be given complete protection against these individuals and there should be swift justice in dealing with the characters who are putting guns to pilots' heads, instead of finding ways to pamper them. The intruder, wielding a pistol, was one of a trio of anti-Iraqi Kurdish hijackers aboard a Boeing 737 carrying 85 passengers and seven crew members on a flight from Baghdad to the northern town of Mosul. The pilot flew immediately to Tehran airport, ignored a refusal to land, skimmed over fire engines blocking runways, and almost flipped the plane as he brought it down on uneven, muddy ground beyond a landing strip. The first thing the hijackers did was to order $5 million ransom and the release of 85 Kurdish prisoners held in Iraq. They threatened to blow up the plane, with all aboard, if these demands were refused.
This is how the drama ended. Soon after, a shoot-out between the gunmen and Iraqi security officers on the
Capital Punishment
aircraft resulted in the death of a female passenger and one of the hijackers. Ten other persons were injured. As bullets whizzed, passengers tumbled out of the plane through an emergency exit. The two remaining hijackers jumped out of another door to surrender to Iranian authorities when they ran out of ammunition. How fortunate that they had run out of ammunition! Many people find it hard to get over incidents such as this. A lot of them are affected for the rest of their lives. This is an aspect which should be given consideration, rather than the fate of the hijackers. If it were known that swift justice would face these people, if they had realized they would be sent before a firing squad or to a gas chamber, I am sure many of them would have had second thoughts.
There was another case recently which was reported in the press under the headline, "Hijacked jet takes to air after guerrillas kill 36". The news agency reported the affair as follows:
Arab terrorists who killed at least 36 people at Rome and Athens airports began a search for a haven in the Middle East today in their hijacked West German jet liner.
After a night of terror at the Athens airport during which they are reported to have murdered four hostages, the gunmen took off with 12 hostages in the Boeing 737.
The Lebanese government refused to let them land in Beirut and they put down in Damascus, the Syrian capital.
Twenty-four hours earlier at Rome's Leonardo da Vinci airport the guerrillas had killed 30 people in a fire-bomb and machine-gun attack, the bloodiest Arab commando strike yet.
This is what is happening. This is why I hope the Solicitor General will bring in necessary amendments to the Criminal Code to enable the supreme penalty to be imposed on hijackers. In some cases these people are being treated far too leniently. Some of them have even been getting day passes. One man who hijacked a Pacific Western Airlines' plane and demanded $2 million for its safety has been placed on a pre-release program from Riverview Hospital by a provincial cabinet. I hope we are not releasing any of the other skyjackers, if there are any in custody. They should be kept behind locked doors at all times, not given weekend passes.
Here is a further instance of the danger we are encountering almost daily. I have before me a news agency story headed, "Ransom demand for jet hostages-free 53 prisoners". This is what we read:
Kampala, Uganda-Palestinian extremists have demanded the release of 53 "freedom fighters" imprisoned in Israel and four other countries in exchange for 256 hostages and a hijacked French airliner. They said severe penalties would follow if demands were not met.
France immediately said it would not give in to the guerrillas who commandeered an Air France airbus Sunday over Greece during a flight from Tel Aviv to Paris. Israel, with 40 prisoners on the list and an estimated 100 citizens being held hostage, said it has to consult. Top officials in Israel, which since 1968 has steadfastly refused to yield to terrorist demands, said they hold France responsible for the passengers.
Here is another case in which 36 people were murdered by terrorists in a hijacking. Such things happen regularly and the situation presents a growing menace. The cost of additional security measures in astronomical. For instance, the United States has had to spend more than $5 billion on extra security at airports, including the searching of passengers to ascertain whether they are carrying guns or knives.

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
The hon. for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) mentioned earlier the position taken by Cuba. Castro is giving every indication of being fed up to the teeth with criminal types who arrive in that country aboard commandeered U.S. aircraft. On November 15 he offered to negotiate a broad agreement which would halt the hijacking of U.S. planes to Cuba. The U.S. accepted and said talks would soon begin. The White House and Congress, after sparring over the details of a tough, new anti-hijacking law, now appear to be close to agreement. This measure would create a new federal police force to keep potential hijackers off U.S. airliners.
I understand that a strong anti-hijacking law narrowly missed passage as Congress hurried to adjourn last October. At that time most differences between Congress and the White House had been ironed out. It is now predicted that approval could come soon. Hon. members will have noted the creation of a new federal police force to deal with hijackers. This is an indication of the extreme steps which have become necessary for the protection of passengers. The cost, as I say, is astronomical. It is another important reason why we should impose the supreme penalty on skyjackers, to let them know we mean busi-nesss. It is true that many of these incidents have taken place in other parts of the world, but we should not forget that there are often Canadian passengers aboard these planes. In the recent case where the Israeli commando troops released the hostages, there were five Canadians among the passengers.
When President Nixon was in office, after the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled against the death penalty for many crimes he said he hoped the ruling did not apply to skyjacking. That ruling has, of course, been changed and the supreme penalty is applicable to skyjackers in most states. As part of the measures which have been taken to deal with hijackers, Canada and the United States have entered into certain informal agreements. Officials responsible for aircraft safety in both countries realize, as never before, that the two countries share one piece of airspace and that it is time to set up a procedure for handling transborder airplane piracy. It is too bad there is not in Canada the same penalty for hijackers as there is in the United States.
In closing, may I express the hope that the Solicitor General will reconsider his position and consult the Department of Justice in order to bring in necessary amendments to the Criminal Code to impose the supreme penalty on hijackers.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will of course yield the floor to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and I will resume right after.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on the motion, and I appreciate the co-operation of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) in allowing me to speak at this time. I am not going into the discussion whether the proposed amendment dealing specifically with piracy also involves the more critical

crime of hijacking in the air which, as several members have outlined, is one of the great problems facing our civilized community at this time.
I think it can be argued, as the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) did argue, that the crime of piracy does embrace hijacking. But rather than get into the legal aspects of that problem, I would just re-emphasize that any attempt to remove capital punishment from crimes of piracy, acts of treason or, to put it in a separate category, the crime of hijacking, is contributing to the breakdown of law and order in the civilized world. I listened to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) explaining a moment ago that this subject really is not very important since the last trial for piracy-


William Warren Allmand: The last conviction.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -the last conviction for piracy was in 1876, I believe was the date. So that for those who have their minds set against capital punishment there is not much danger of our carrying out the ultimate penalty for the specific crime of piracy.
What I want to debate this afternoon is the principle involved in the government's attempt to delete, as it has in a rather subtle way, the death penalty as punishment for a very serious and heinous crime. It is interesting to note that as the government of Canada, and the governments of some other countries as well, have lessened the impact of the death penalty on what we used to call capital crimes, the process of the breakdown of law and order has proceeded apace. In this country, statistics before us show that in 1967, when the subject was first debated in the House of Commons in a free vote, the vote for abolition was 105 and the vote for retention was 70. When the next vote came in 1973, the abolitionist vote was 119, to 106. The two groups were coming closer together.
In the most recent vote in the House just a couple of weeks ago, the verdict expressed by hon. members was 133 for abolition and 125 for retention. There will be two more retentionist votes, at least, when the third reading vote comes along. I will be voting for retention on the basis I put forward when I first entered this debate some weeks ago, namely, that there is an urgent need for dividing the crime of murder into the two categories of first-degree murder and second-degree murder.
I suggest that the statistical trend demonstrated by the changing vote moving more and more toward a retentionist position, is the result of an increasing wave of permissiveness in Canada, North America and Europe during the last decade or so. There has been an Increasing breakdown of law and order. Statistics for murder have doubled.
Furthermore, as the debate for abolition has gone forward, Mr. Speaker, statistics for attempted murder have not only doubled but quadrupled and a wave of violent crime, such as rape and similar acts of violence, has gone on apace, so much so that today it is one of the urgent concerns of social scientists, as expressed in some of the books heading the lists of popular publications dealing with the crime of rape. It is obvious that when the state takes a permissive attitude toward horrendous crimes of that kind, it is aiding and abetting the ultimate breakdown of law and order.
July 6, 1976

I feel sure that there would be a much larger retentionist vote but for the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet. They had to remove themselves from the principle of the free vote, which is supposed to be at the basis of this debate, and use absolute cabinet solidarity and extreme coercion to hold some of their concerned backbenchers in line. Otherwise, I am sure the vote that took place some two weeks ago would have been quite different.
I congratulate those who are carrying on this debate, even though it means sitting extra time into the summer months, because I am sure that as members opposite and some members on this side contemplate what is involved here in terms of fundamental law and order issues they, too, will change their vote when we come to the final vote on third reading.
The government itself has now become concerned at the trend toward permissiveness. It is now engaging in a tradeoff operation with its Bill C-83. It is attempting to substitute for the death penalty for deliberate, premeditated, horrendous kinds of homicide such as would be perpetrated by an act of piracy or hijacking, a mandatory life sentence for those offenders found guilty of such crimes. But as I pointed out when I spoke for the first time in this debate, this is a snare and a delusion because the government is trying to have the best of all possible worlds. The government is trying to face in two directions at once. It is emphasizing a rehabilitative and reformative posture in our penal institutions, and at the same time trading off the death penalty for a mandatory life sentence, which would make it impossible for our penal institutions to have any element of reform or rehabilitation.
This is also working against the recommendations of the law reform committee which this government appointed to consider and recommend reforms to our penal system. That committee suggests that penal institutions-largely based on statistics of increasing repetition and recidivism-have failed utterly in becoming institutions of reform and rehabilitation. The committee's recommendation to the government is that sentences for criminal activity of all kinds be reduced, rather than expanded. Notwithstanding this recommendation which is already before the government, the government is proposing a mandatory life sentence which would be a living death much harsher than the death penalty itself.
To anyone who has been abroad in recent weeks it is interesting to hear the reaction of people in other countries regarding the debate taking place on peace, order and good government, that is, Bill C-83, and this bill, C-84. With tongue in cheek they ask Canadians why Canada is begin-ing to sound more and more like a banana republic regarding law and order measures. If we remove the absolute penalty for the crime of treason, the ultimate crime against the state, and if we remove the death penalty for the crime of piracy or hijacking as the government is proposing to do, we are leaving ourselves wide open to all the terror and violence that is proliferating in the world today. No wonder Canadians travelling abroad are being asked why we are moving away from the reputation as the true north, strong and free, to a Canada which acts more like a banana republic.
Capital Punishment
In view of the crime which took place in the past week and its spectacular denouement at the airport in Uganda over the weekend, if the government persists in this doctrinaire approach-and it is doctrinaire because it is an approach not related to any facts or statistics or anything that might be based on reality-and in removing the power of the state to deal decisively with violent crime on an international scale, then instead of being known as the banana republic of North America we will become known as the Uganda of North America. We will be leaving ourselves wide open to the rising incidence of crime that is causing so much concern around the world today.
I would urge hon. members, as they contemplate this amendment, to consider that it provides them, particularly backbenchers on the government side who are of two minds, to express their concerns. They are concerned over the breakdown in law and order and the increasing trend toward immorality. This amendment does provide them with that opportunity, and I trust they will have the courage of their convictions and support it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I rise on the issue of capital punishment, for it has been on the order paper quite a few times since I have had the honour to represent the residents of Bellechasse in the House.
However, in previous debates I wanted to express my views objectively on this serious issue and I must say that until now I found no valid reason to change my mind on the matter. This being said, I must sincerely admit that the whole Canadian nation is watching with much interest and attention the debates being held in the House on Bill C-84, which proposes many amendments to the Criminal Code. All members will certainly agree with me that the House is under pressure as all Canadians are, for this is a very serious topic and we must take all the possible steps and use all the possible means to avoid any mistake which would be detrimental to an individual who, by mistake or by profession, would have committed the serious crime of taking the life of another person.
Mr. Speaker, while the news media seem less interested in this matter at this time, the fact remains that public attention is still focused on the proceedings at the report stage and in the proposed amendments to Bill C-84. Everyone is concerned about the real meaning to be considered when it comes to evaluating the responsibilities of an individual within Canadian society.
What are the responsibilities of an individual towards another? What must invite him to respect the rights of another, specifically his right to live as an individual? At the family level, what are the responsibilities of the head of the family? On what grounds can an individual take the life of the head of a family-man or woman-who bears responsibilities for the children both parents wanted to have and who had met their responsibilities and done their duties during the normal course of their life?
At the municipal level, what are our responsibilities? As many members in this House, I had the opportunity once in my life to play a role at the municipal level and all those who have worked in municipal politics did so because they were dedicated to society and although they were some-

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
time criticized and even threatened they still accepted to take their responsibilities and the same applies at the provincial level. All hon. members, all ministers, all provincial officials have responsibilities which they must fulfill but, as far as we are specifically concerned today, it is our duty as members of the Canadian Parliament to represent the population in the highest authority that exists in our country, I mean the Canadian Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) proposed an amendment to Bill C-84, which I have the honour of supporting. I want to defend it objectively, to explain why we were prompted to move this amendment and I want to ask my colleagues of the House to adopt it so that, in the future, the Canadian population can say to me: Here is a Parliament which has fulfilled its responsibilities. The members have adopted a bill providing for penalties against those who do not want to respect the lives of their fellow beings and who do not want to abide by the true code of liberty and of respect for the lives of their fellow beings.
Mr. Speaker, clause 3 of Bill C-84 says:
"(2) Every one who commits piracy while in or out of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life."
It does not say that the court must condemn this person to life imprisonment but rather:
... is liable to imprisonment for life."
Consequently, before the court, if that person has been guilty of an act of piracy, if the court decides to condemn him to life imprisonment, if, of course, he is found guilty, he must serve his sentence.
We must maintain the current law which the legislators before us passed after considerable thought, in other words maintain the status quo as concerns subsection 75(2) of the existing legislation which reads as follows:
Every one who commits piracy while in or out of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life-
And it goes on because we know that the legislators at that time surely knew that some other acts were added to that which is studied in the subsection. And so it goes:
-but if while committing or attempting to commit piracy he murders or attempts to murder another person or does any act that is likely to endanger the life of another person-
... and the law says ...
... he shall be sentenced to death.
I suppose that the legislators who sat in this House and enacted the law I just quoted were intelligent and responsible people. If at that time those persons seriously assumed their responsibilities and if they included that provision in the Criminal Code it was to ensure the greatest security of the Canadian people against criminals whose vocation is to deny the rights of other citizens, particularly their right to life.
Mr. Speaker, this is why my colleague the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and I decided to ask the House to maintain the status quo and I urge the Solicitor General to give a second thought to the wording of Bill C-84 relating precisely to that question of piracy.

In the Larousse dictionary to which I referred this morning, I checked the meaning of the word "piracy". I understand that the Larousse dictionary is not published every year. I understand that the people responsible for defining the words in the French language thought that the idea of piracy applied particularly to sea transportation because at that time, the other means of transport had not yet been invented. Those responsible for defining the words dealt only with navigation. We can read the following:
Pirate: Adventurer who practices brigandage on the high seas.
Here is a second idea:
Any man who gets rich through pillage or robbery.
These days, we know that there are thousands of such pirates who get rich through legal or illegal pillage, and who get rich through legal or illegal robbery. I have often had the opportunity in the House to denounce the legalized pillage allowed by our statutes through which certain organizations can rob individuals, society, the whole population of Canada, by the means which are placed at their disposal. Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that it is one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a very important question.
Considering the refusal of the government to reassess the whole dairy policy announced in April last which creates insuperable difficulties for dairy producers throughout the country; considering the unavoidable disappearance of a substantial number of those producers who have let it known that they intend to get rid of their herds for the above-mentioned reasons, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):
That this House unanimously recommend to the minister responsible the immediate removal of the penalty of $8.60 on overproduction and a reduction of $1 a hundredweight on the amount now withheld from producers for the export of powdered milk.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?
July 6, 1976


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to put forward a motion about a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since under Standing Order 2(3) June 24 and July 1 are days when the House shall not meet, and that when those days fall on a Thursday the members have to be present in the House on the following Friday, the day after these public holidays, which prevent them from being in their constituency for the celebration of those holidays, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras):
That the House agree to amend Standing Order 2(3) by adding the following:
When the holidays of June 24 and July 1 fall on a Thursday, the
House shall not meet on June 25 and July 2.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the hon. member's motion. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the unanimous consent of the House is required to put the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the House is giving unanimous consent, I will put the motion. Seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras), the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) moves that:
When the holidays of June 24 and July 1 fall on a Thursday, the House shall not meet on June 25 and July 2.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the May, 1970 city of Montreal bid to host the 1976 summer Olympic Games was presented to and accepted by the International Olympic Committee and endorsed by all levels of government including the government of Canada, and that this bid assured the IOC and thereby the international sporting community that, and I quote from the bid
Mail Service
itself: "All necessary entry permits will be available to delegations from all the national Olympic committees," and whereby the same government now has made it abundantly clear that it is not prepared to respect that agreement, it has therefore become evident that in retrospect the government has in fact double-crossed the city of Montreal-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a motion to propose pursuant to Standing Order 43, he could perhaps put it forward.


Otto John Jelinek: -so that further embarrassment will not be caused-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a motion to propose perhaps he would do so.


Otto John Jelinek: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):
That this House instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to convey his apologies on behalf of the Liberal administration to the city of Montreal, to the province of Quebec, and at the same time for the sake of not only the Olympic ideal but more importantly for Canada's pride, follow the conditions as outlined in the original Olympic bid as presented by the city of Montreal.


An hon. Member:: Would it be in both official languages?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to ask for the unanimous consent of the House pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the importance of mail delivery in a country as vast as Canada, and since western Canadian companies have been disallowed bids by the Department of Supply and Services because it takes longer than seven days for air mail from Vancouver to arrive in Ottawa, and because mail from Great Britain marked "special handling" with postage paid in the Canadian equivalent of $1.50 is held up in Montreal and now takes up to 14 days to arrive in Vancouver where it used to take two to three days, and because first class mail paid in the orient is now held up and handled as fourth class mail upon arrival in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That this House order an immediate investigation of mail delays and order that any person employed in the Post Office who obstructs efficent delivery of mail be fired.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented to the House only with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 6, 1976
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There was some difficulty earlier about the functioning of the translation equipment and it is being looked into at the moment. I do not know whether hon. members would want to begin the question period while it is being looked into or whether it would be better to wait until it is functioning.


Some hon. Members:: Wait.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HAIDA EAGLE DANCERS
Mr. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, while we are waiting I should like to draw hon. members' attention to the presence in the gallery of the Haida Eagle Dancers of the Queen Charlotte Islands in British Columbia who will be Canada's representatives at Bad Segeberg, Germany, at the Aboriginal Cultural Festival to be held there next week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I can indicate to the House that there will be a delay of only a moment before the commencement of the question period. We have found the cause of the difficulty and we hope it will be cured in a moment or two. The question period would have begun at ten minutes past two, and I will take that into account when we start the question period.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it is about the government's conduct with regard to the International Olympic Committee which, I wish to add, does not raise questions about Canada's policy towards China, but about our integrity as the host for the 1976 Olympics. When the government recognized the People's Republic of China in 1971, did the government immediately and formally advise the IOC that according to Canada's normal regulations Taiwanese atheletes could not attend the Montreal Olympics as representatives of the Republic of China and that the then existing position of the IOC would have to be changed?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question as to whether we communicated immediately with the International Olympic Committee as to the status that

would occur when Canada had decided to recognize the People's Republic of China. What I did say yesterday, and what I repeat today, is that we had recognized well over a year ago that a problem existed and we communicated with the IOC more than a year ago. We are continuing, and are ready to continue, discussions with Lord Killanin and his officers in order to resolve this difficulty so that the games can go forward and Taiwanese athletes can compete in the games.


Otto John Jelinek: It is very difficult to comprehend why it has taken the government even the five or six years that it has taken before making their application to the Olympics. Since Lord Killanin told the Department of External Affairs in April of last year that as far as he could see there would not be a change in the China situation, I should like to ask the minister why the government at that time did not tell him that it would consider the extraordinary step of refusing entry to Taiwanese athletes if the AIC policy was not changed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have, as I indicated yesterday, been awaiting action from the International Olympic Committee, the body in which the problem basically resides, to resolve this difficulty. However, when that was not forthcoming we took our own responsibilities and indicated to the International Olympic Committee that we were not prepared to admit athletes to Canada who would present themselves as representatives of the Republic of China, because we recognize the People's Republic of China and we are not under this guise proposing to import into our foreign policy a two-China policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OLYMPIC GAMES
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister may I direct my final supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister? Since it can now be taken for granted that the government has reneged on the original Olympic bid by the city of Montreal which would have allowed free entry into Canada to all or any delegations belonging to the IOC, in short, because it is evident that the government does not support this bid in accordance with its undertakings and assurances-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Since, after all, the hon. member is asking his final supplementary question, perhaps he will put it and keep it short?


Otto John Jelinek: -Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister to explain to this House why the government consequently presented this parliament with legislation supporting the Games while allowing parliament to believe it supported the Montreal bid all along?
July 6, 1976


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I deny the premise of the question. The government has never reneged on any undertakings on this score.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fraser:: Oh, yes you have. You reneged on the fundamental undertaking to allow athletes in as recognized by the IOC.


INQUIRY WHETHER AUTHORITIES REFUSED ADMISSION TO ACCREDITED TAIWANESE ATHLETES
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
According to our information, accreditation cards were issued in the name of Taiwanese athletes by COJO. These cards had been approved by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and indicated that these athletes were known as the Republic of China's representatives. In such circumstances, how can the minister refuse today Canadian entry to these men; further, was he aware of the fact that the Department of Manpower and Immigration had accepted such cards enabling these athletes to represent the Republic of China to the Olympic Games of 1976?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we will not refuse the admission of those athletes to Canada if they come forward as representatives of Taiwan. We are quite prepared to follow the precedent-and have so proposed-set in 1960 in the case of Italy when, at the request of the International Olympic Committee, athletes from Taiwan competed in those games as representatives of Taiwan. In those circumstances we would be quite happy to admit those athletes to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Considering the problems and concern this whole situation represents for organizers both at the international level and at the Montreal level, can the minister tell us whether he will be able to take a final decision on this matter to avoid aggravation of the problem? On account of all concerned it is important to settle this matter and ensure the orderly progress of the Olympic Games in Montreal.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no question about any lack of decision. The Canadian government has made a decision on this question.


An hon. Member:: It was the wrong decision.
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO EXCLUDE TAIWANESE FROM OLYMPIC GAMES
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another supplementary. If I understand the minister's answer correctly, it seems clear that the government does not intend to change its mind. In view of Mr. Killa-nin's statements according to which the representatives of some countries have expressed the desire to refrain from attending the games, which might prevent these Olympiads from taking place, it seems clear that some countries wish to support Taiwan. In the circumstances, is the minister prepared to state that he will not change his mind, even if this meant the cancellation of the games?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the solution lies in the extreme course the hon. member is suggesting.


John Allen Fraser: Answer the question.

[DOT] (M20)


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare but I notice he has just stepped out of the chamber; I will direct it to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On July 9, three federal cabinet ministers and five Ontario cabinet ministers are meeting to discuss the mercury pollution on the White Dog and Grassy Narrows Indian reserves. Can the minister explain why no Indian representatives have been invited to this conference although major decisions may be made there affecting the lives of native people?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Chief George Manuel has obviously been in touch with the hon. member as he has been with a number of my colleagues. We have been considering this matter. I might say, though, that I have been up to Grassy Narrows and met with the chiefs, and that at some point the governments concerned have to get together to make decisions. Consultation up to a certain point is good, but the right to make decisions must rest with the governments.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Having regard to the seriousness of the situation at Grassy Narrows, many of the Indians having lost their livelihood and some of them having shown symptoms of Minamata disease, will the minister assure us that representatives from the bands in Northwestern Ontario and from the National Indian Brotherhood will be invited to the meetings as full participants?

July 6, 1976
Oral Questions


J. Judd Buchanan: I have indicated to the hon. member that we will consider that matter.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising from his statement that Ontario should ban sport fishing in the polluted English-Wabigoon river system. Will the minister assure the House that should he fail to get Ontario to agree to his proposal he will exert federal authority to bring about this result by declaring the area a water management control zone under the Canada Water Act?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this question is not within my departmental jurisdiction.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
Following the request by prison guards to provide supermaximal security institutions to hold the most dangerous convicts, especially those under death sentence, does the minister intend to respond to this request and, if so, when?


William Warren Allmand: This question is now under study, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
In view of the seriousness of the situation and the concern expressed by police organizations as well as the association of prison guards, could the minister give the House the assurance that the study now being made on the matter will be done as quickly as possible to further reassure the people in charge of supervising those categories of prisoners?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I hope to give a reply to their suggestions before third reading of the bill.


ALLEGED LOSS AS RESULT OF SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-POSSIBILITY OF SELLING ANOTHER REACTOR TO ARGENTINA
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and arises from a statement by Dr. Carlos

Castro Madero, head of the Argentine National Atomic Energy Commission that the new contract for the Candu Cordoba reactor will still entail the loss of a substantial sum of money by Canada. Will the minister confirm or deny Dr. Madero's figures which show that the Canadian Crown corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, stands to lose $24.5 million on this deal?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I am not in a position to confirm or deny those figures. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands last week I indicated that renegotiation of the contract was virtually complete and that the documents had been prepared for signature. I can tell the hon. member there has been a great deal of very hard bargaining and that the arrangements under the original contract, which did not provide sufficiently for the effects of inflation in the two countries, have been very substantially improved.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that either the minister's own or AECL's commercial ineptitude has resulted in a situation where the Canadian people will have to pay out $25 million on a reactor deal that is highly questionable on moral grounds, will the hon. gentleman indicate whether Dr. Madero has been told, as reported, by Canadian officials that once the economic situation in Argentina stabilizes, Argentina will have no trouble obtaining from us yet another reactor?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, without in any way accepting the preamble to the hon. member's question, let me say that there have been no undertakings on the part of the Canadian government or officers of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to offer a second reactor to the Argentinians.
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I put my final supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the statement by Dr. Castro Madero of the Argentine national atomic energy commission that Argentina is studying the possible acquisition of a fuel reprocessing plant, a technology unnecessary for the operation of CANDU reactors, will the minister say whether he has made or intends to make representations to the Argentine government to ensure that spent fuel from the CANDU reactor is not reprocessed into pure plutonium?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the present safeguards agreement with Argentina would preclude that possibility.
July 6, 1976


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it relates to the critical situation facing the beef producers of Ontario, particularly in southwestern Ontario. May I ask the minister whether agreement has been reached between Canada, Australia and New Zealand to remove the price differential which has destroyed the beef producers' competitive position and in many instances forced them out of business; and if there has been agreement reached, would the minister table the contents of that agreement in the House?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no formal agreement at this time, but I think it would be presumptuous of us to suggest that the kind of beef coming from Australia and New Zealand, which is being used for processing and for hamburger meat, competes with the high quality beef that is produced in southwestern Ontario.


John Robert Holmes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding that inadequate answer, would the minister indicate whether he will be announcing in the immediate future a new mechanism regarding import quotas which will ensure the future stability of the cattle industry? Is the minister prepared to do that rather than let the industry die, as he did with the sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will also recognize that there has been a change of heart on the part of some of the beef producers, even those in southwestern Ontario, regarding government intervention and how much we should intervene in the beef industry. I am prepared to move so long as I am sure I have the backing of the entire beef industry of Canada. There are still some reservations on the part of the official organization for the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the western stock producers and Saskatchewan stock producers associations. I am going to meet a group of western Ontario beef producers in my constituency office in Windsor this Saturday.
With regard to the Australia-New Zealand meat problem, I think we are about to find a solution to it. Again, this is a world problem with which we are confronted. Australia and New Zealand are trading partners of ours. I have some reservations about whether they have lived up to what they said they would do last February; I think a lot of people are concerned about what they are doing. For instance, they are selling meat in Canada much cheaper than they are in the United States and we are not happy about that. If the hon. member, or the official spokesman for his party, have some suggestion regarding what we should do with the Australians and New Zealanders, I should like to hear it.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can the minister tell the House what the government intends to do to help the people of Comoros Islands in view of the urgent situation in which they find themselves since their independence, and also because of the interest several of my colleagues have expressed in this serious matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I missed the earlier part of the question but I am advised that the hon. member has asked about possible assistance to the Comoros. Representations have been made by a number of hon. members of the House to provide assistance to the Comoros particularly in the field of medical assistance. I wish to advise my hon. friends that I have approved a grant which will be distributed through appropriate non-governmental organizations that will provide much needed medical health assistance to these islands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INFORMATION PROVIDED OLYMPIC COMMITTEE CONCERNING REGULATIONS GOVERNING ADMISSION OF ATHLETES
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday the minister quoted a letter of November 28, 1969, as proof that Canada placed conditions on its Olympic bid, and I quote:
I would like to assure you that all parties representing the National Olympic Committees and national sports federations recognized by the IOC will be free to enter Canada pursuant to the normal regulations. I should be pleased to provide any further information respecting these regulations should you desire it.
Did the IOC request any further information regarding these regulations and, if so, were these regulations provided to the IOC before the games were awarded, or at anytime?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the record to see whether a request was made by the IOC for an analysis or interpretation of the normal regulations. Certainly, at an appropriate point Canada did volunteer to the International Olympic Committee its understanding of what conditions would determine the admission of athletes from Taiwan to the games. Just at the end of May, that interpretation was made very explicit.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a further question as he seems to be mixing regulations with conditions, and I do not think that goes unnoticed. Since Mainland China was not recognized by Canada until October, 1970, after the games were awarded to us in May 1970, how could those regulations referred to in that letter

July 6, 1976
Oral Questions
have indicated to the IOC that Canada would take the position it is now taking regarding athletes from Taiwan? How can the minister use that letter and its mention of "normal regulations" as an excuse for a complete breach of undertakings given by both the winter bid and the summer bid?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there has been no breach of understanding or breach of commitment. I think that has been made clear by the Acting Prime Minister. I presume it ought to be clear to any of us that, notwithstanding any undertaking to a private organization, no matter how respectful, such as the International Olympic Committee, no state would relinquish its sovereign rights to determine those who enter its boundaries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Obviously in any circumstances any sovereign country retains that authority, and obviously the words "normal regulations" would apply to that rather obvious conclusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PROPERLY ACCREDITED ATHLETES WILL BE ADMITTED FOR OLYMPIC GAMES
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think it is pretty clear we are not debating the right of the government to try to change the position of the IOC, but whether it is moral and appropriate in the circumstances for the government to use its leverage as host to accomplish that end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: In light of the government's lack of candor on this matter, which can only be interpreted as blackmail and eleventh hour bad faith, will the government consider now restoring our good name and the country's good name by assuring the House that it will not use its visa powers to prevent any athletes coming to the games who are duly accredited and meet the personal, if not political, regulations of the government? Can he give that assurance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the good name of Canada is being affected in this incident this will arise from irresponsible comments made-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The record speaks for itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It is the irresponsible record of the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What I have said, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat, is that Canada is quite prepared to admit the athletes from Taiwan. Canada is quite prepared to follow the formula that was formerly approved by the Interna-

tional Olympic Committee when it insisted that athletes participating in Italy enter that country as representatives of Taiwan. I would ask the House why that formula, which was used in the past with the approval of the International Olympic Committee, is not appropriate as a solution to this problem?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the problem with this government arises because it wants to speak out of both sides of its mouth at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I think we hit a responsive cord.


REASON ADMISSION OF TAIWANESE ATHLETES WILL AFFECT
Walter David Baker: Since the government has claimed that the admission of the PLO observers to the Habitat conference by ministerial permit has in no way changed the government's fundamental position that the PLO should not have been recognized by the United Nations, because we were hosting a UN conference according to its rules and not our foreign policy, will the Prime Minister explain why the government now feels Canada's foreign policy would be jeopardized unless the IOC changes its rules? The government cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. gentleman, I fail to see any similarity between the situation we confront and the admission of the PLO as observers to Habitat, a group that we have not in any circumstances accorded, and another group from whom we have withdrawn, official recognition. That is quite a separate matter from the present situation in which are involved the policies of the government to extend recognition to the People's Republic of China as the sole and legal government of China. We do not propose in these particular circumstances to adopt solutions that would compromise the well established practice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of the foreign minister of the Netherlands, His Excellency Max Van der Stoel, in his capacity as President of the Council of the European Communities, and Sir Christopher Soames, Vice President of the Commission of the European Communities. Both these gentlemen are in Ottawa at the present time to participate in the signing ceremonies for the frame-
July 6, 1976

work agreement for commercial and economic co-operation between Canada and the European Communities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, as a representative of one auto producing area to another, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question about the drought circumstances faced by the recently established dairy and livestock industry of northwestern Ontario. Could the minister tell the House whether he has been approached by the Government of Ontario with regard to a cost-sharing agreement in which the Government of Ontario would put up $25 per ton if the federal government would put up $25 a ton as a subsidy to bring in hay from Manitoba to help out these hard-pressed farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Minister of Agriculture from the Province of Ontario last week. We discussed this and no decision has been made at this time.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the situation is a very pressing one indeed for many people who are on the margin of existence in the industry there now, which as the minister well knows has just been established in the last few years, could he tell us when a decision will be reached on this, hopefully it will be a positive one, and what in addition does the federal government plan to do to help these hard-pressed farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Manpower and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in charge of the Post Office have made this representation to me on behalf of the producers and the farmers in that area, as have some of the farm organizations. In the past, as always, we have responded to realistic requests and we are considering this request on its merit at this time.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport having to do with the application of freight rates to various rapeseed processing plants in western Canada and specifically one of Canada's newest rapeseed crushing plants, United Oil Seed Products in Lloydminster which has been placed in a highly uncompetitive position relative to other processors which the officials suggest will jeopardize their company to the extent of $3 million as a result
Oral Questions
of the application of the freight rates and the withdrawal by the railway companies of the CTC interim decision on freight rates that was applied in June of 1973. I wonder if the minister could advise the House what action he is taking on this very important matter, if any. Has he met with the CTC, has he discussed the matter with the railways, and can he advise the House whether any action is being taken to seek redress for this particular company?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member somewhat misstated the situation. The railways quoted freight rates, as I understand it, for the plant to which he referred on the basis of their ordinary price setting which were the way they have applied rates to other plants prior to 1970 when the first appeal was heard against those rates. By 1976, this resulted in a far higher rate than was in effect for the plants with frozen rates. The order which was eventually passed by the Governor in Council and which directed the CTC not to allow a rate higher than the compensatory rates is to be applied to the new plant as well according to my understanding by communication from the railway. Therefore at such time as the new rates are ascertained by the CTC, there should be a similar basis for the rate setting on the existing plants, previously existing plants, and on any new plants.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, since the new rate that was provided for by the Order in Council to which the minister referred will not take effect until after the Snave-ly Commission has completed its study, and in view of the fact that United Oil Seed Products has made a specific request to the Canadian Transport Commission to be joined to the interim decision of June 1973, could I ask the minister if he is aware of this action and what specific steps he will take personally to intervene in this question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the hon. member's view that those rates will not take effect until after the Snavely Commission has reported except in a very technical sense. I understand from the last information I had from the CTC that they may have the rates ready for promulgation by the end of July. I have not had a recent report from the CTC to change that date in the past several weeks but I will check with them again as to whether that date still holds.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. In light of the fact that tremendous changes have been made in the AHOP program of 1976 as compared to the AHOP program of 1975, with particular reference to co-operative building thus creating a hardship for those on low incomes who would like to build under the co-operative housing program pioneered by the extension department of St. Francis Xavier University, would the minister check into the situation immediately and ascertain if corrective action can be taken to bring it back to what it was so that the people on low incomes can participate.

July 6, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, they serve somewhat different purposes. I am pleased to advise my hon. friend that my parliamentary secretary and one of my staff are in Cape Breton at this moment looking at this very problem because we want to continue to serve the people in Cape Breton as we do the rest of the country to the best of our ability.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his reply. He must have a mystic sense of power. In view of the fact that in 1976 there were 1,100 families in Nova Scotia who submitted their names for co-operative selfhelp housing to the Nova Scotia Housing Commission and when the new regulations were explained to them 90 per cent of those interested were unable to participate, would the minister make his postponed trip to Cape Breton as soon as possible to discuss this serious problem further with officials of the extension department and others interested in housing for low income families. That is the question. Now, when he gets a report will he do his utmost to correct the situation whereby now one must be making $12,000 a year before he can get into the program.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Well, Mr. Speaker, naturally my parliamentary secretary and my staff, the people who are there together with the CMHC people, are looking into this with a view to serving the client's needs; it might not be for that specific program, but certainly to see that the low-income people who are our highest priority have access to proper housing and co-operative housing which I happen to favour.



PROGRAM FOR VETERANS SUBMITTED BY NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is another segment of veterans in the province of Newfoundland who have been trying to help veterans obtain approval for veterans housing because of their low income, I wonder if the minister would indicate if any progress has been made with regard to the program the provincial command of the Canadian Legion has submitted, and when they will receive a reply concerning the funding of that program.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at this study done by the Newfoundland-Labrador Command of the Canadian Legion with great interest. It has extreme potential for all veterans in all parts of Canada, but especially Newfoundland. It is one of those things which, in terms of priorities and spending limitations, we look at with a view to the over-all requirements in respect of the housing budget for lower income people generally. I would like to repeat that the proposals are interesting and are being studied. I would not want to build false expectations because of budget limitations at this time, but it is the sort of program that I would hope to move on when funds are available.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister consider approaching the USSR authorities under the Protocol on Consultations to try to iron out the practical problems faced by Canadians in arranging visits from relatives in the USSR and in the matter of family reunions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I would be happy to follow up that question. As the hon. member may recall, when the Prime Minister met with Mr. Brezhnev a procedure was put into place by which there would be consultations between the two governments, particularly with regard to reunification of families. I will obviously take the hon. member's representations to heart and see what can be done under the protocol to accelerate these cases.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that an in-depth study of the government's fiasco in the Lockheed dealings was made by Mr. Pitfield from the Prime Minister's office, and will the Prime Minister say that the study concluded regarding the expenditure of $16 million for which there was no value received. Perhaps he would be good enough at the same time to state whether it absolved Mr. Stopforth of responsibility, and is he going to table this report?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are several areas of the question which appear to confuse the facts. Mr. Pitfield is in the Privy Council Office, not the Prime Minister's office. The study in depth which the hon. member terms a fiasco has not been made by the Secretary to the cabinet. It is a subject which has been examined by the cabinet itself and of course by the ministers more directly involved. On the issue of Mr. Stopforth, I understand he has taken legal action outside this House and it is not appropriate for me to comment on that.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Peter Colwell Bawden: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the reported lawsuit by Mr. Stopforth against the minister, will the minister say whether he intends to contest this lawsuit?
July 6, 1976


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is asking for a legal opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Ask your seat mate.


An hon. Member:: It was rough justice to put you two fellows together.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The answer will come at the proper time in the normal fashion.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: My question is for the Solicitor General. Could he elaborate on the possible charges of fraud involving the Bank of Montreal and its dealings with Arvee Cedar Mills of Salmo, B.C., and has the RCMP who are currently investigating this case given the minister an indication that there may be other cases involving the Bank of Montreal and its relationship to small business in British Columbia?


William Warren Allmand: The RCMP is involved in this investigation but only in an assisting role. The principal investigating police force is the Nelson B.C. police force. I requested further information about the investigation, and that is yet to be received.


Robert Hylton Brisco: My supplementary question to the minister is to inquire whether he has had the opportunity to consult the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and be informed by the department that it is examining another case if not of illegal then at least of improper, scandalous, or unscrupulous behaviour by the Bank of Montreal in its dealings with small businesses, particularly with reference to the case in the Windermere Valley of Fairmont, B.C.


William Warren Allmand: I have not been in touch personally with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I do not know whether officers of the RCMP have. I will check that as well.



INDUSTRY


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my question, directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, arises from a statement by M. D. Friedman, a member of the Canadian Textile Importers Association and President of Transcontinental Sales Inc. a firm engaged in imports, who expressed concern regarding imported winter clothing from Asian countries as a result of the government's import policy. Will the minister tell
Oral Questions
the House if he intends to review this policy regarding imported Asian winter clothing and if so, what step does he intend to announce in the House in this regard?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I have not seen the comments to which the hon. member refers. I can tell him that a number of sectors are now being examined, as indeed is the case on a continuing basis. I announced some changes in import quotas recently and I expect I will be making a statement with regard to polyester yarn, for example, within a matter of a few days. But I will look at the statement and perhaps may be able to give a more detailed response at that time.



PENSIONS FOR TEXTILE WORKERS WITH MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS SERVICE

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Considering that the House already passed legislation which enables people with more than 25 years of employment in the textile industry to receive retirement benefits, and that this legislation does not seem to be implemented most of the time because of employers, is the minister prepared to tell the House whether he intends to review this legislation to enable those who earned their living in the textile industry to benefit from a retirement plan or from relocation in the labour force?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Well, Mr. Speaker, that particular program is still in effect. I gather from what the hon. member has said that he would like to see some changes in it. I have not heard any representations along those lines. I do not know that applications are still being received for people under this transitional program, but if he has some specific ideas, I would be glad to look at them with a view to making changes.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday the minister acknowledged that 27 refugees of Chilean origin have sought refuge in the Canadian embassy in Argentina and are being considered for admission to Canada. In this connection a news statement was published a few days ago which attributed to spokesmen of the Department of External Affairs the view that it might take up to six months to service these applications. My question is whether it would be possible to do something to expedite this process as the people in question are in fear of their lives. Also, I should like to ask the minister if he would not collaborate with his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and consider sending a spe-

July 6, 1976
Oral Questions
cial team to check on these cases and to expedite their applications.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Intensive discussions are presently taking place between my officials and the officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration with a view to reaching some solution in this matter. As the hon. member knows from my answer yesterday, we have been in contact with the government of Argentina and we have been assured of their co-operation in reaching some solution, so the matter is being looked into.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: One part of my question was not answered. I was wondering if the Secretary of State was considering, along with his colleague, sending a special team to Buenos Aires to expedite this as quickly as possible. If these are genuine refugees, there is no reason why they should be forced to stay there for six to eight months and go through the normal processes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not foresee under any circumstances that the processing period would require six to eight months, but the matter of establishing entry requirements and deciding whether these persons are refugees is a matter exclusively for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   NEWS REPORT OF REVENUES ACCRUING TO PROVINCES UNDER FEDERAL PROPOSAL-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In view of the feature article in the Globe and Mail concerning revenues the federal government would turn over to the provinces in the present negotiations, can the Prime Minister say whether this report was given to the media before the conference and whether the provisions are substantially as detailed in the article?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not
read the article, but I will take note of the question.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the tragic death last week of little Jeanne Doove in Mission, British Columbia, and in view of the fact that the man charged with her death, Gary Francis Marcoux, had been sentenced for rape in 1971 but was released because of the provisions of statutory remission, would the minister consider amending Bill C-83 so as to prohibit any remission earned or otherwise, in the case of dangerous sexual offenders?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the present law does not provide any remission for dangerous sexual offenders. The individual in question was not classified as a dangerous sexual offender but had received a sentence for rape.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Is that all?


William Warren Allmand: Hon. members do not seem to know the distinction between provisions of the law dealing with dangerous sexual offenders and other provisions in the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Under rape provisions in the Criminal Code, a man can be sent to prison for life but a dangerous sexual offender can get an indeterminate sentence with no day parole or temporary absence or remission. With respect to the question, Bill C-83 does provide for the abolition of statutory remission.


Alexander Bell Patterson: If Mr. Marcoux was under mandatory supervision, how was he able to perpetrate this dastardly murder? In other words, what does mandatory supervision in such case really mean?


William Warren Allmand: Supervision means that he must report on a periodic basis to a parole officer or probation officer and that he is subject to certain conditions. In the peace-and security program we have proposed that the supervision time be doubled, and if the House would facilitate the passage of that bill we could correct some of these things.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Could the minister please inform the House whether some weeks ago at Dorchester penitentiary some seven sticks of dynamite and a small cache of arms were found which were relatable to the prisoners Hutchison and Ambrose, who were convicted of the killing of two police officers in Moncton?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to consult with the penitentiary authorities on that question. There was an incident a few weeks ago, but I cannot recall the exact details.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Is the Solicitor General aware of, or can he find out and report to the House, the details of the escape plot uncovered by officials which was being planned for the escape of the prisoners Hutchison and Ambrose?
July 6, 1976


William Warren Allmand: There was evidence that some inmates at that institution were planning an escape for Hutchison and Ambrose, but the plot was found out and quashed.



MILLHAVEN-DATE OF TABLING HANSEN REPORT ON GASSINGS AND BEATINGS

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. On June 15 the minister told the House that he would have the Hansen report on the Millhaven gassings and beatings ready for tabling before July 1. In view of the fact that it is now July 6, would the minister let us know if he is now in a position to table this report or when the next promised date will be?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I believe the report is ready for tabling and could be tabled before the end of this week.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell the House when he will be announcing changes in the federal dairy policy to provide some relief for farmers who are seriously affected by it, and can he confirm that members of his staff told Ontario government officials that the cause of the delay in making an announcement is the result of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board vetoed such changes and the Minister of Agriculture is now appealing that decision to the full cabinet?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member got his information, but I made an announcement after the NFU appeared last week and made new submissions to me as the Minister of Agriculture. These submissions would take some time to be considered. We are discussing them. This is a very important decision, and I have always said that if the provinces want me to run the whole dairy policy, they should vest in me that authority, and I will run it for them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: If they were to accept their responsibility and shoulder the responsibility for the terrible and inadequate way the quotas are being run within the provinces, we would not have the problem we have.


Henry Perrin Beatty: When the minister is successful in getting these changes accepted by the cabinet, will he give the assurance that any changes to be announced will be announced in the House of Commons and not delayed until after the House is in recess, which appears to be the present policy?


Eugene Whelan: I can no more give the hon. member that assurance than he can tell me when the vote on capital punishment will be taken.
House of Commons



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of Mrs. Tsanga, Minister of Social Affairs of Cameroons, on official duty in Canada.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On June 30, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi said that I had been making statements about a statement which he is supposed to have made about my being guilty of paying the farmers too much money for milk, and that this was the problem I was facing. I refer to Hansard of April 14, page 12807-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the information the minister has for the House would be most interesting and would provoke a great exchange between the two hon. members; but, while all are anxious to hear it, it does not constitute the substance of a point of order. This would have to be done during debate on some other occasion or in some other way.


Eugene Whelan: Then I rise on a question of privilege, because what the hon. member stated, whether he intended it or not, has damaged in some manner or form-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has received no notice of any intention to raise a question of privilege. Any matter between the two hon. members is a subject of disagreement which all, I am sure, hope will surface at a very early date.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the debate between 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock this morning there was a lengthy exchange between the Solicitor General and the hon. member for York-Simcoe with respect to the amendment dealing with the question of piracy and air piracy. At that time the minister was referring to a legal opinion he received from the Department of Justice. It is obvious that there is some question on this matter, and I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to file or to table that opinion, because he indicated it was not completely clear in his mind in the event that the matter had not been tried. I wonder if he might consider doing that.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the opinion which I received was received by telephone and not in writing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which has to do with the return filed in answer to a written question which appears in yesterday's Hansard. The question is number-
15074

July 6, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Simcoe North also has a point of order related to questions. Perhaps the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar could wait until questions are called later in the day.


AIR TRANSPORT
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, copies of a letter to Mr. Demers, of l'Association des Gens de l'air du Quebec, from myself, and a letter received under today's date addressed to me from the three commissioners appointed recently to investigate the air traffic control matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the text of the framework agreement for commercial and economic co-operation between Canada and the European Economic Community, signed July 6, 1976.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,614, 5,116, 5,200, 5,201, 5,304, 5,479, 5,493, 5,560, 5,639, 5,692, 5,699, 5,700 to 5,707 inclusive, 5,714, 5,733, 5,771 and 5,802.


Mr. Whiteway: 1.	What is the (a) estimated purchase cost for a Leopard Mark II Tank (b) cost to retro-fit the present Centurion Tanks?
2.	What is the average time taken to change an engine in a (a) Leopard Mark II Tank (b) Centurion Mark II Tank in the (i) shop (ii) field?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) The cost of the Leopard II Tank is not known as it is still in the prototype stage, (b) The estimated costs of retrofitting the Centurion Tank can not be disclosed until negotiations with the German Government and the Kraus-Maffei Company in Germany for the purchase of new tanks have been concluded.

2. (a) (i) and (ii). The Leopard Mark II is still in the prototype stage and therefore no operating specifications are known, (b) (i) 45 man hours; (ii) 62 man hours.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many (a) Officers (b) Privates (c) NCOs (d) WOs are there in each rank in the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	Is any move being made to stop the automatic promotion from (a) private to corporal (b) 2nd Lieutenant to 1st Lieutenant (c) Lieutenant to Captain?
3.	How many civilians in the Department of National Defence are paid (a) Colonel's wages or better (b) more than a Lieutenant's wages, but less than a Colonel's?
4.	How many graduates from the service colleges entered the regular service in the Armed Forces in each year 1960 to 1975?
5.	Of the service college graduates who entered the regular service in 1960, how many were still in the Armed Forces, by entry year, in 1965, and each subsequent year to date?
6.	(a) How many officers were commissioned from the ranks in 1960 and each subsequent year to 1975 (b) how many remained in the regular service until they had (i) 30 years of service or more (ii) reached their compulsory release age?
7.	(a) How many civilians entered the regular Armed Forces as officers directly in 1960 and each subsequent year (b) how many were still in, by entry year, in 1965 and each subsequent year?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. As of March 31, 1976: (a) 14,890; (b) Ptes- 17,506, Cpl*-18,254, Total-35,760; (c) Sgt-9,703, MCpl- 10,823, Total-20,526; (d) CWO-797, MWO-2,160, WO- 4,261, Total-7,218.
*Since 1966 promotion to the rank of corporal has reflected competence in a trade and length of service. This rank does not carry command or supervisory responsibilities.
2.	(a) No. (b) No. (c) Yes. Effective January 1, 1979 promotion to the rank of captain in all general service officer classifications will become competitive. A similar policy for specialist officers is under study.
3.	(a) 158; (b) 4,783.
Year	Number of Regular Officer Graduates
1960	146
1961	129
1962	138
1963	138
1964	182
1965	191
1966	170
1967	172
1968	198
1969	163
1970	172
1971	175
1972	143
1973	183
1974	234
1975	234
July 6, 1976

5. Accurate figures prior to 1965 are not available. The figures from 1965 to the present are listed below:
Graduation	Number of	StillYear	Graduates	Serving1965	191	881966	170	781967	172	871968	198	1111969	163	1021970	172	1241971	175	1591972	143	1351973	183	1791974	234	2261975	234	232l	Number	Year	Commissioned	1960	144	1961	206	1962	254	1963	238	1964	180	1965	302	1966	403	1967	382	1968	115	1969	268	1970	213	1971	168	1972	139	1973	148	1974	186	1975	182	(b)	These figures are not readily available and would entail searching manually the records of each officer commissioned from the ranks since 1960, approximately 3,500 files. The cost of this research is beyond the approved resources of the Department.
7. Due to changes in record systems during the forces integration phase, and the many changes affected by unification, enlistment data prior to 1968 is not available without extensive research. The table below gives the data on officers, still serving who entered the forces directly from a civilian status since 1968 and the number of direct entry officers since 1968.
Entry	Still Serving as of
Year	Total	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	19751968	164	154	123	112	105	102	92	83	771969	302	252	177	157	146	133	122	1081970	193	171	126	113	104	85	791971	281	246	206	174	159	1431972	286	253	201	167	1551973	342	301	232	1821974	414	346	2651975	336	276
Order Paper Questions POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Have postal clerks in approximately five post offices in Montreal recently refused to speak English on certain occasions to Englishspeaking customers and, if so (a) has or will the Post Office Department conduct an investigation of any of the incidents and will the results be made public (b) what are the designations and addresses of the post offices involved (c) have there been incidents where specific clerks speak English one day and claim the next day to have no knowledge of the language?
2.	What specific action has or will the government take to enforce the Official Languages Act so that English-speaking persons in Montreal will be served by all post offices in their own language?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. The Department is aware that English speaking customers have occasionally been denied service in English at a number of Post Offices in the area of Metropolitan Montreal, (a) The department has conducted, and will conduct, investigations whenever a complaint is received concerning inadequate public service. Results of such investigations are made known to the complainant and, as appropriate, to agencies such as the Commissioner of Official Languages, (b) Complaints have been received concerning inadequate service in English at the following Montreal Post Offices: Postal Station B, 1250 University; Postal Station H, 1970 St. Catherine West; Place d'Armes, 155 St. James West; St. Laurent, 1495 De l'Eglise, St. Laurent; Victoria, 4895 Sherbrooke Street West, (c) Members of the public have stated that the same employee(s) have spoken English on occasion and have not on others.
2.	The Department ensures that employees who will serve the public are trained prior to assuming wicket duties. Part of this training emphasizes the employees' duties and responsibilities vis-a-vis the official languages. Where appropriate, language training is given. The great majority of postal clerks understand and honour their obligations for providing service to the public. When infractions occur, personal letters are sent to the individuals) concerned reminding them of their responsibilities. If further infractions occur after an employee has received such a letter, the Department would consider taking all administrative measures necessary to ensure the application of the Official Languages Act.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware of a statement attributed to Mr. Marcel Perreault, President of the Montreal Local of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, that Montreal postal workers are determined to support the principle that French be the working language of Quebec's post offices?
2.	What immediate steps has or will the government take to guarantee the rights of Quebec English-speaking persons to be served in their own language at all post offices designated bilingual within the Province?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. Yes, the Department is aware of a statement attributed to Mr. Marcel Perreault that postal workers are determined to support the principle that
95 5 70-5 3Vi

July 6, 1976
Order Paper Questions
French be the working language of Quebec's Post Offices. As a matter of fact, French has always been, and remains, the working language within most Post Offices in Quebec. Bilingual skills are required primarily for positions where public contact may occur in accordance with Section 4(A) of the Parliamentary Resolutions of June 29, 1973.
2. A Post Office is not designated bilingual. Some, or all, of the public contact positions within a Post Office may be designated bilingual depending upon the clientele served as determined empirically. The duties and responsibilities of employees who are bilingual to serve the public either in English or in French are made clear prior to assuming wicket duties. See also reply to Question 5,200, Part 2.


Mr. McKinnon: What was the cost (a) per annum (b) per serviceman of pre-release counselling and preparation for the serviceman's transition to civilian life in (i) 1973 (ii) 1974 (iii) 1975?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) (i) $78,032; (ii) 75,357; (iii) 59,767. (b) (i) $34.27; (ii) 37.14; (iii) 36.78.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence set up a planning section or any other type of unit, section or project office to carry out planning and procurement of the 20 new ships, announced by the Minister and, if so, how many (a) servicemen (b) civilians are so employed?
2.	What is the amount of money allocated for this purpose for the fiscal year 1976-77?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. No. Although no specific announcement about procurement of 20 new ships has been made planning studies for ship replacement continue to be carried out by Department staff as part of their regular duties, (a) and
(b)	Not applicable.
2. Nil.


Mr. Forrestall: Does the government have any plans to further contract out work to private firms at the government dockyard in Halifax and, if so, what specific plans does it have in this regard for the fiscal years 1976-77 and 1977-78?


James Armstrong Richardson: The dockyard in Halifax, has had occasion to contract some work to private firms. It is expected that the need for such outside assistance will continue but there are no plans to increase the proportion of work to be contracted out in 1976/77 and 1977/78.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Have all positions and employees of the Communications Security Establishment of the Department of National Defence been excluded from the operation of all the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act effective April 1, 1975 and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How many persons are affected?
3.	How many persons have been so exempted each year since 1968?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Yes. To enable the employees to maintain the same terms and conditions of employment which they had prior to the transfer of the Establishment, to the Department of National Defence on 1 April, 1975.
2.	Six hundred.
3.	1968-585; 1969-589; 1970-567; 1971-562; 1972-580; 1973-589; 1974-579; 1975-602.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What was the total strength of the Canadian Airborn Regiment as of (a) January 1, 1975 (b) January 1, 1976?
2.	In what location is the Regiment stationed, and what plans, if any, have been formulated for its future strength and location?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (a) 976; (b) 909.
2. The regiment is stationed at Griesbach Barracks, Edmonton, Alberta. There is a sub unit of the regiment stationed in Baden, West Germany. No final plans have been formulated, but as part of the Defence Structure Review currently in progress, several options are being considered for the deployment of the land forces. Some of these options could involve changes to the Canadian Airborne Regiment.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the purpose of requiring one person in each household to be designated "head of house" for the 1976 Census?
2.	What criteria were used in determining who was to be designated as the "head of house" in a household?
3.	Does Statistics Canada intend to abolish this procedure on the grounds that it is archaic and unnecessary?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. The purpose of requiring one person in each household to be designated as "head of household" in the 1976 Census, is to provide a statistical reference point to enable compilation of information on families and their constituents. Without such a reference point the production of census statistics on the composition of Canadian families would be impossible.
2.	Following an analysis of the 1971 census information, Statistics Canada changed the head of household concept from a male head only to a male or female head of household. Who is to be designated head in 1976 is a matter of choice to be decided by the members of each household.
3.	Statistics Canada does not consider the term head of household to be archaic and unnecessary. In accordance
July 6, 1976

with the usual practices of the bureau, the results of the current census will be analysed before determining the format of questions in future censuses.


Mr. Epp: 1.	How many mail boxes at the Post Office in Pine Falls, Manitoba (a) are presently in place (b) are held by (i) private individuals (ii) government (iii) businesses (c) are used by (i) 2 families (ii) 3 families (iii) 4 or more families (d) have been requested by (i) individuals (ii) businesses?
2.	How many (a) individuals (b) businesses now receive their mail over the counter, referred to as general delivery?
3.	What is the present waiting period for (a) individuals (b) businesses to receive a post office box at the Pine Falls Post Office?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. (a) 573; (b) (i) 537; (ii) 3; (iii) 33; (c) (i) 15; (ii) 6; (iii) 8; (d) (i) 25; (ii) 2.
2.	(a) 157; (b) 4.
3.	(a) Two months; (b) One month.


Mr. Epp: 1.	How many mail boxes at the Post Office in Ste. Anne, Manitoba (a) are presently in place (b) are held by (i) private individuals (ii) government (iii) businesses (c) are used by (i) 2 families (ii) 3 families (iii) 4 or more families (d) have been requested by (i) individuals (ii) businesses?
2.	How many (a) individuals (b) businesses now receive their mail over the counter, referred to as general delivery?
3.	What is the present waiting period for (a) individuals (b) businesses to receive a post office box at the Ste. Anne Post Office?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. (a) 459; (b) (i) 324; (ii) 7; (iii) 35; (c) (i) 27; (ii) 5; (iii) 4; (d) (i) Nil; (ii) Nil.
2.	(a) 64; (b) 4.
3.	(a) Nil; (b) Nil.


Mr. Epp: 1.	How many mail boxes at the Post Office in Steinbach, Manitoba (a) are presently in place (b) are held by (i) private individuals (ii) government (iii) businesses (c) are used by (i) 2 families (ii) 3 families (iii) 4 or more families (d) have been requested by (i) individuals (ii) businesses?
2.	How many (a) individuals (b) businesses now receive their mail over the counter, referred to as general delivery?
3.	What is the present waiting period for (a) individuals (b) businesses to receive a post office box at the Steinbach Post Office?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. (a) 2,029; (b) (i) 1,871; (ii) 12; (iii) 146;
(c)	(i) 242; (ii) 33; (iii) 16; (d) (i) 242; (ii) 5.
2.	(a) 136; (b) 5.
3.	(a) Two years; (b) One year.
Order Paper Questions POST OFFICE-BEAUSEJOUR, MANITOBA


Mr. Epp: 1.	How many mail boxes at the Post Office in Beausejour, Manitoba (a) are presently in place (b) are held by (i) private individuals (ii) government (iii) businesses (c) are used by (i) 2 families (ii) 3 families (iii) 4 or more families (d) have been requested by (i) individuals (ii) businesses?
2.	How many (a) individuals (b) businesses now receive their mail over the counter, referred to as general delivery?
3.	What is the present waiting period for (a) individuals (b) businesses to receive a post office box at the Beausejour Post Office?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. (a) 1,209; (b) (i) 996; (ii) 11; (iii) 109;
(c)	(i) 67; (ii) 11; (iii) 2; (d) (i) Nil; (ii) Nil.
2.	(a) 88; (b) 3.
3.	(a) Nil; (b) Nil.


Mr. Epp: 1.	How many mail boxes at the Post Office in St. Malo, Manitoba (a) are presently in place (b) are held by (i) private individuals (ii) government (iii) businesses (c) are used by (i) 2 families (ii) 3 families (iii) 4 or more families (d) have been requested by (i) individuals (ii) businesses?
2.	How many (a) individuals (b) businesses now receive their mail over the counter, referred to as general delivery?
3.	What is the present waiting period for (a) individuals (b) businesses to receive a post office box at the St. Malo Post Office?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. (a) 182; (b) (i) 156; (ii) Nil; (iii) 26; (c) (i) 27; (ii) 3; (iii) 3; (d) (i) 38; (ii) 4.
2.	(a) 68; (b) 2.
3.	(a) Two years; (b) One year.


Mr. Epp: 1.	How many mail boxes at the Post Office in St. Pierre, Manitoba (a) are presently in place (b) are held by (i) private individuals (ii) government (iii) businesses (c) are used by (i) 2 families (ii) 3 families (iii) 4 or more families (d) have been requested by (i) individuals (ii) businesses?
2.	How many (a) individuals (b) businesses now receive their mail over the counter, referred to as general delivery?
3.	What is the present waiting period for (a) individuals (b) businesses to receive a post office box at the St. Pierre Post Office?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. (a) 412; (b)(i) 320; (ii) 7; (iii) 54; (c) (i) 29; (ii) Nil; (iii) 2; (d) (i) Nil; (ii) Nil.
2.	(a) 24; (b) 2.
3.	(a) Nil; (b) Nil.


Mr. Epp: 1. How many mail boxes at the Post Office in Dugald, Manitoba (a) are presently in place (b) are held by (i) private individuals (ii) government (iii) businesses (c) are used by (i) 2 families (ii) 3 families (iii) 4 or more families (d) have been requested by (i) individuals (ii) businesses?

July 6, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	How many (a) individuals (b) businesses now receive their mail over the counter, referred to as general delivery?
3.	What is the present waiting period for (a) individuals (b) businesses to receive a post office box at the Dugald Post Office?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. (a) 108; (b) (i) 93; (ii) 2; (iii) 10; (c) (i) 4; (ii) Nil; (iii) Nil; (d) (i) Nil; (ii) 2.
2.	(a) 64; (b) 5.
3.	(a) Nil; (b) Nil.


Mr. Epp: 1.	How many mail boxes at the Post Office in Oakbank, Manitoba (a) are presently in place (b) are held by (i) private individuals (ii) government (iii) businesses (c) are used by (i) 2 families (ii) 3 families (iii) 4 or more families (d) have been requested by (i) individuals (ii) businesses?
2.	How many (a) individuals (b) businesses now receive their mail over the counter, referred to as general delivery?
3.	What is the present waiting period for (a) individuals (b) businesses to receive a post office box at the Oakbank Post Office?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. There are no mail boxes at the Oakbank Post Office.
2.	(a) 186; (b) 14.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Epp: 1.	How many mail boxes at the Post Office in Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba (a) are presently in place (b) are held by (i) private individuals (ii) government (iii) businesses (c) are used by (i) 2 families (ii) 3 families (iii) 4 or more families (d) have been requested by (i) individuals (ii) businesses?
2.	How many (a) individuals (b) businesses now receive their mail over the counter, referred to as general delivery?
3.	What is the present waiting period for (a) individuals (b) businesses to receive a post office box at the Lac du Bonnet Post Office?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1. (a) 851; (b) (i) 674; (ii) 11; (iii) 133; (c) (i) 120; (ii) 25; (iii) 2; (d) (i) Nil; (ii) Nil.
2.	(a) 96; (b) 6.
3.	(a) Nil; (b) Nil.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence commissioned any war artists to do any portraits or landscapes of the Royal Canadian Regiment or the Royal 22nd Regiment, while on duty in Cyprus and, if so (a) who was hired (b) what was the cost?
2.	Is the Department planning to do the same for the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry presently in Cyprus?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. No, the Department of National Defence provides assistance to Canadian artists to paint or draw the activities of the Canadian Armed Forces in their peacetime roles both in Canada and abroad under a program called

the Canadian Armed Forces Civilian Artists Program (CAFCAP). Under this program the artist is provided with transport, and rations and quarters at Canadian Forces establishments in exchange for four or more works chosen from those created during their assignment, (a) and (b). From 1968 to 1975 four artists have participated in this program in Cyprus.
2. For fiscal year 1976/77 no artists have requested an assignment to Cyprus.


Mr. Blais: For the years (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975, by quarter, what were the total number of take-offs and landings for (i) scheduled aircraft (ii) non-scheduled aircraft at North Bay Airport?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The following table contains statistics on scheduled, non-scheduled, and other commercial aircraft movements at North Bay Airport. These data are presented on a quarterly basis for the years 1973, 1974, and 1975. The tabulated data represents the numbers of takeoffs plus landings. On a quarterly basis, there is a negligible difference between the number of take-offs and landings. Therefore, the numbers presented can be divided by two to obtain either take-offs or landings. Please note that non-scheduled refers to charter operations by aircraft having a gross take-off weight of 18,000 pounds or more. Charter operations by aircraft having a gross take-off weight less than 18,000 pounds are in the other commercial category.
NORTH BAY AIRPORT Itinerant Aircraft Movements Quarterly Take-Offs and Landings by Scheduled and Non-Scheduled Air Carriers
1973	Scheduled	Non- Scheduled	Other Commercial1st quarter	781	4	2,3352nd quarter	912	4	1,6233rd quarter	988	11	1,6924th quarter	1,231	8	1,249Total	3,912	27	6,8991974	1st quarter	967	-	7932nd quarter	971	34	1,2983rd quarter	1,374	17	1,2714th quarter	934	17	971Total	4,246	68	4,3331975	1st quarter	917	6	1,8592nd quarter	1,119	3	2,4883rd quarter	1,379	67	2,4214th quarter	1,547	17	3,122Total	4,962	93	9,890Note: Totals	may differ slightly	from published annual	numbers due	to adjustments in	monthly figures for the	
annual publications.
July 6, 1976


Mr. Paproski: 1.	What was the number of immigrants from (a) Poland (b) Hungary (c) Czechoslovakia (d) Ukraine (e) East Germany (f) West Germany in the year (i) 1974 (ii) 1975?
2.	What was the number of applications rejected from each country in the year (a) 1974 (b) 1975?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.
	1974	1975
(a)	945	809(b)	383	301(c)	77	107(d)	Statistics are maintained by countries of last permanent residence. Since the Ukraine is a part of the U.S.S.R., no separate statistics are available for immigration from the Ukraine.(e)	17	12(f)	3,619	3,4692.	1974	1975(a)	169	360(b)	62	113(c)	17	33(d)	Statistics are maintained by countries of last permanent residence. Since the Ukraine is a part of the U.S.S.R., no separate statistics are available for immigration from the Ukraine.(e)	3	3(f)	1927	2,003


Mr. Marshall: How many World War I veterans who are still living were prisoners of war?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Records of this type of information are not kept.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 5,709 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Marshall: 1.	In what locations are the stations for the Canadian Coast Guard specialized fleet?
2.	What is the size of the ship's complement for the following Coast Guard vessels, the (a) ten offshore cutters (b) 33 foot hovercraft (c) six 40 foot shore-based launches (d) nine 15 foot inflatable inshore rescue boats (e) fourteen 44 foot shore-based lifeboats?
3.	In what locations are the thirty-three helicopters, which respond to marine emergency calls, based?
4.	What is the type and capability of each of the sixty-five vessels which perform a secondary search and rescue role and in what locations are they based?
Return tabled.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is not the appropriate time to raise this point of order, but I want to refer to the reply given by the Solicitor General to questions of mine, Nos. 4,255 to 4,355 inclusive. The answer given by the Solicitor General is that apparently he does not have sufficient staff and it would take considerable time to answer the questions I raised. I think this is a castigation of the way his department is operating. If they do not have the information I requested, which is not complicated-it dealt with mutilations, attempted escapes and attempted suicides, matters which the Department of the Solicitor General and the Penitentiary Service ought to have readily available-I suggest to Your Honour that the questions should remain on the order paper as at least a testament of the incompetence of the Solicitor General.


William Warren Allmand: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, in answering that question yesterday, at page 15013 of Hansard I pointed out that while that information may be available, it is not in our computer system. To get the information for the hon. member we would have to look through 30,000 files, some active and some dormant. This would take several months' work by a large group of officers. We felt that in this instance we do not have the staff or the funds available to provide answers to such questions.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring your attention to a question I asked at page 3625 of Hansard for February 25, 1975, when Your Honour replied regarding the answering of starred questions in a given length of time. Your Honour indicated that the question could be left unanswered ad infinitum, at the discretion of the minister.
The purpose of starred questions, as I understand it and as the system has developed by custom over the years, is to inhibit lengthy questions with a preamble, to put them on the order paper and star them. Another purpose is to give the minister time to prepare a more complete answer than he could on the spur of the moment and, hopefully, improve the answer. This was my understanding and my reason, over the months that have elapsed since February 25, 1975, for writing to the President of the Privy Council and speaking to him on three occasions. I also felt it would give protection to the Speaker since he stated, quite cor-

July 6, 1976
Order Paper Questions
rectly, that he has no authority over starred questions as to when, if ever, they should be answered.
I also want to add that when I was ruled out of order on an oral question in a previous parliament, a former Speaker told me that my question was too long, that he was trying to contain the length of questions and answers so as to get to as many members as possible, and therefore my question should be starred and put on the order paper and it would be answered within a few days. This is, and has been, my understanding of the status of starred questions.
In the mother of parliaments a starred question is answered within two full days. In Canada it appears we are a bit unorthodox. Originally, as I understand it, only written questions were admissible by the Standing Orders and had to appear on the order paper. Then the asking of oral questions became customary on the basis of extreme urgency, and this has now become firmly established. As a matter of fact, Sir Herbert Williams probably asked about
4,000	questions during his parliamentary career, and described questions asked in the House as perhaps one of the most powerful instruments of democracy.
Nothing could more weaken the control of parliament over the executive than the abolition or curtailment of the right of a member of parliament to ask a question in the House of Commons. It is my contention that starred questions, by custom, should be given their useful place between oral questions and written questions.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for the indulgence in listening to my plea to retain a useful tool in the armament of democracy and to strengthen the hand of every member of parliament by placing starred questions in the place in which custom has already placed them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reinforce what has been said so well by my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North. In the past it has been recognized and accepted by all sides that starred questions had a high degree of urgency. I notice that some on the order paper are simple ones that have been there since April. They are not particularly embarrassing. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal has one which asks what the regulations are concerning spouses accompanying officers to functions in an officers' mess. This question was asked early in May, and it is still outstanding.
I do not think any question that goes on the order paper with a star should take more than a week or ten days to answer. Certainly, with today's communications, there is no excuse for delay. Any question with a star, which has a privileged position and asks that the parliamentary secretary or the minister concerned should read the answer aloud, should be, by courtesy, answered within a working week. If it appears on Monday, it should be read aloud by the following Monday.
I would hope the Chair would assist the House in seeing that the regulation is enforced, not by order, but there is not inconsiderable moral suasion available to the Chair-a matter about which I know something.
(Mr. Rynard.]


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, questions are starred simply in order to obtain an oral reply. There is no indication in the star itself that the matter ought to be answered with any greater urgency than any other question on the order paper. Your Honour has always held, as have your predecessors, that questions ought to be placed on the order paper if they are not of such an urgent nature as to be asked during the oral question period at the beginning of each day's sitting.
If my hon. friends have some precedents that they want to communicate to me, I would be glad to hear them. I listened with interest to the intervention of the hon. member for Edmonton West. I am not aware of any precedent of Your Honour or your predecessors to the effect that starred questions ought to be answered with more celerity than questions on the order paper that are not starred. I am ready, as my hon. friend has indicated, to be instructed by members with more experience, and I would welcome any assistance he can offer. Of course, I did not hear that assistance in his intervention before Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter raised by the hon. member for Simcoe North has been raised before, as he indicated, and he had the conversations alluded to in his remarks today with the hon. President of the Privy Council concerning this matter. I think it is clear that in the past there has certainly been that impression among some hon. members, even if it was never enshrined, and it certainly has never been enshrined in the customs of the House, which are equally as important as our Standing Orders. If that has not been the custom or practice of the House, it certainly has been the impression in the minds of a good many members that it was so.
A cursory examination of the precedents verifies there is no regulatory force behind the notion that there should be a time limit with respect to answering starred questions. However, since we have the oral question period in which we attempt to accommodate questions which are sufficiently urgent to warrant exposure during that time, since ordinary questions on the order paper can be answered within a greater period of time, and since we have starred questions which demand an oral answer, there is support for the idea that the urgency of the starred question which must be answered orally lies between that of oral questions and questions on the order paper. But there is no indication in the precedents or practices of this House that that has ever been formalized.
It is hoped that some understanding can be reached with respect to starred questions. It might be urged that the procedure committee should examine this question in the course of its re-examination of the procedures of the House. Members who have participated in such discussions on previous occasions are distinguished members of that committee. It would be helpful if the committee could examine this matter specifically to see whether some recommendation could be made to allow a clearer understanding to be reached about the degree of urgency which might be attached to starred questions.
I have asked a study to be undertaken in my office to determine with greater clarity the exact experience of the House in the recent past. When the study is complete,
July 6, 1976

perhaps I can supply copies of it to members of the procedure committee and others who are interested, to see whether it might form the basis of suggestions to be made by that committee.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think what has been said effectively closes the matter. I suggest to the President of the Privy Council that it would be helpful if he would consider the position of the government with respect to starred questions before the committee deals with the matter. Perhaps on an experimental basis we could institute a temporary, voluntary system with respect to how starred questions are to be dealt with in future.
I was rising on another point of order to do with a practice which has developed concerning the recognition by members of this House, other than yourself, of distinguished visitors to Canada who may be in one of the galleries of the House. I am not suggesting that distinguished visitors to our country who are in our galleries ought not to be recognized, but I say to you, sir, that we do those visitors a great disservice and discourtesy if, as was the case with the group from the European parliament today, they are recognized by someone other than yourself during a controversial portion of the question period. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs thought it would be appropriate to recognize our distinguished visitors during the question period.
To the extent that this occurred during the parliamentary struggle known as the question period when some matters hit close to the bone, I am prepared to accept it, but I suggest it was bad manners. It is bad manners for parliament and improper on the part of all of us to allow this situation to continue. Sir, if official visitors to this House are to be recognized, you, and only you, as the first commoner of this House, ought to call the attention of members and to the public generally, through the press, to the presence in the gallery of distinguished visitors to our country.
I think it is extremely important that recognition on such occasions should not be regarded as legitimate government recognition, or legitimate opposition recognition, but as parliamentary recognition. If the visitors are so distinguished that they ought to be recognized, then you, and only you, sir, ought to do the recognizing. That course, I suggest, would be more conducive to order and decorum in this House and to the proper operation of the question period. I repeat, if the visitors are so distinguished, if the delegation is so prestigious as to warrant recognition by this House, you, sir, as the first commoner, ought to recognize our visitors on behalf of all members of the House of Commons. I ask Your Honour to take that matter into consideration.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter into the discussion as to who should be the appropriate member of this House to recognize distinguished visitors. I ought to point out that my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, introduced our distinguished visitors from the European economic mission and council today as he did, because for some reason the minister and Sir Christopher Soames were placed in the diplomatic gallery and he was unable to recognize them from that place. Only
Capital Punishment
after they went to the gallery facing him was he able to introduce them. I know it is not like him to want to introduce distinguished visitors on a note of controversy, but he did it in what seemed to him the only time available.


Walter David Baker: Thank you. The minister has reinforced my point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are several dimensions to the problem raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. In fairness, I ought to say that I have attempted to follow a rigid guideline with respect to people recognized by the Chair. There have been requests on what seem to become more frequent occasions for recognition by counterparts of ministers. Some visitors have counterparts in our cabinet and for that reason there seems to be a temptation for their counterparts in the Canadian ministry to recognize them.
This raises two problems alluded to by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton: first, that some visitors are recognized by members of the House other than the Chair; second, that a minister's recognition of someone in the gallery could be interpreted as recognition conferred by the government, as opposed to recognition conferred by parliament.
I would appreciate the collaboration of House leaders in order to clarify this matter. I would be prepared to take it upon myself to do whatever recognizing is to be done, if it is understood, within flexible limits, how that matter should be handled. Perhaps that could well be left for future discussion. The point was most interesting and well taken.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened with great interest to the exchange which just took place, and I felt the explanation you gave the House was most worthy. What concerns me is that your call just now for the cooperation of House leaders apparently went unnoticed by the government House leader, who was busily occupied discussing another matter with another member during the entire time Your Honour was speaking. I suggest that the government House leader should read today's Hansard tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: Sick!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, as reported
15082
[Stage Direction]
July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
(with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, just before the lunch recess, I was presenting arguments explaining why I support the motion of my colleague the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).
Before, if I may do so, I would like to thank the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) for supporting the motion which I presented at the opening of this sitting and I would also like to thank all hon. members of the House who supported it unanimously, in order to clarify once for all the days of sitting of Parliament when it comes to St. John the Baptist Day or Dominion Day. I thank you all very much.
Mr. Speaker, as amendment No. 10 deals with clause 3 of Bill C-84 and as it concerns piracy, I have been a little bit surprised when I heard the Solicitor General who, apparently, wants to have us understand that, in the spirit of the bill, the word "piracy" applies especially to air piracy. However, it is not referred to at all as the bill simply says "piracy". As my colleague from Lotbiniere explained very clearly yesterday when he took part in the debate, there are other acts of piracy just as criminal as air piracy and which, to my mind, should have the same consequences for those who commit them.
When we read the history of our country or the history of the world, we remember those novels about piracy on the seas, when people would join the crew of a ship to seize it, to sail it away from its destination and to take hold of its cargo to make a fortune. Nowadays, there is a new form of piracy. During these last few years, we have experienced many aircraft hijackings which claimed many victims. All nations in the world concerned about the protection of air passengers were shocked by hostage takings and sometimes by killings of innocent victims. Mr. Speaker, I remember and I think all hon. members also remember this kind of piracy which was the subject of international conference discussions on air piracy to find ways to stem this epidemic of crimes.
Everyone will recall that parliamentarians of various countries advocated very severe penalties for criminals who hijacked planes away from their destination and kept a number of passengers as hostages to gain personal benefits.
Mr. Speaker, this kind of hijacking is still going on. Although we in Canada never had the misfortune of being in such a situation, it does not mean that in the coming months or years such a situation will not occur. Therefore, if we really want to cooperate with the other countries of the world to prevent this kind of hijacking, severe penalties must be provided to prevent criminals from hijacking airplanes and committing such reprehensible acts as we witnessed in the past, either through newspapers, television or radio, where many victims were held during hours and even days under the threat of armed criminals who thought they could really come out of it with a sentence of only a few years.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge my colleagues to retain in the statutes this section 75(a) of the Criminal Code, in order that criminals contemplating such acts be

prevented or at least deterred from going ahead for fear of the death penalty.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call upon all hon. members to express themselves freely on this amendment. We hear about a free vote. I happen to believe in free votes, Mr. Speaker, because ever since I came to this House I have been voting freely, and I would like all hon. members to do so. However, I am a little surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the fact that the ministers are not free as well to vote as they choose. Yet, if I understand well the constitution of Canada and our parliamentary procedures, I believe-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He cannot carry on without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and all my colleagues as well. I will just complete my thought on this matter. Before being a minister, a member of this House is above all a member of parliament, and it is as such that we are called upon to vote for or against a bill.
That is why I am surprised that cabinet members seem to be obliged to vote specifically for the bill and in proof of this, I shall quote from an article in La Presse dated February 12, 1976. And if the thinking reported here is not that of the Solicitor General, I would like him to clarify the matter so that the public will not be under the impression that a free vote in the House implies some hypocrisy but something quite concrete. This was reported in La Presse:
According to the principle of cabinet solidarity, cabinet members are bound to support the government bill designed to do away with capital punishment at the time of the free vote on the matter.
In answer to questions put to him outside the House, the Solicitor General of Canada, Mr. Allmand, explained that because the bill he will table in the House on February 24 is a government bill, the ministers will not be free to vote for or against its passage.
If they are against, Mr. Allmand went on to say, they will have to leave the cabinet...


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am quite willing to cooperate with the hon. member who has requested the unanimous consent of the House to conclude his speech, but I must point out to him that we are now on motions Nos. 10 and 11 which deal specifically with clause 3 of the bill before us and concern piracy more particularly. I realize that the hon. member deal with the subject in general terms and that his remarks might apply to the amendment as well as to the bill itself. I trust that he will at least refer once in a while to the amendment before the House so as not to misuse the time unanimously allotted to him by other members.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, your very kind remarks on a point of order lead me to think this: I have a feeling I was not going far enough in trying to explain my thoughts. I believe I am respecting the spirit of the Standing Orders of the House because clause 3 of the bill is precisely designed to amend a section of the Criminal Code which stipulates in fact that whoever is guilty of piracy must be condemned to death. As we are discussing the
July 6, 1976

death penalty and as in addition we have been told we would vote freely, I am wondering why hon. members of the House are not allowed the privilege of expressing themselves freely. To my mind, whether one is Solicitor General, Prime Minister or minister, one is first of all an hon. member. I would like this point to be explained to me because, if we do not proceed in that fashion, the rules of the game are changed, and the tenth amendment to Bill C-84, as moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), specifically concerns the death penalty. Since the vote is to be free on the death penalty, I would like that vote to be free for all hon. members. Otherwise, I shall never believe again in "a free vote in the House of Commons".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my intervention at this time will not be as lengthy as some in the past. I find in clause 3 an amending section dealing with the subject of piracy and a distinction is drawn in section 75(2) of the Criminal Code. Not only does that section speak of committing an act of piracy within or without Canada, but it goes further and provides that if an individual or individuals, while committing piracy or attempting to commit piracy, murders or attempts to murder or does any act likely to endanger the life of another person, then the wrongdoer shall be sentenced to death. In the present bill provision is only made for a person who commits piracy while in or without Canada; there is nothing about attempted piracy.
I suppose the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) might answer, "Oh well, we would lay a charge, in the ordinary course of events, either of murder or attempted murder". But what are we to do in this day and age about the modern version of an act of piracy of the kind we saw last week and two announced even this morning? I suppose Canadians will say that these things happen in other lands. One might almost expect those high moralists who talk of the abolition of capital punishment to say that such acts are committed in barbaric or less civilized lands. I say nonsense, Mr. Speaker. It is just as conceivable to have an aircraft hijacked in Greece, Israel, France or Germany. The United States had a rash of hijackings and we have had a couple, and I think we may yet see further attempts at hijacking or actual hijacking of aircraft into or out of Canada take place.
When hijackings occur, people do get murdered. These people are not only security agents but passengers. I would want a much more valid explanation than the one I have been able to cull from these amendments in Bill C-84 or from the testimony of the Solicitor General's officials before the justice and legal affairs committee. Simply to say that piracy will merit a life sentence does not satisfy me. Clause 5 of the bill repeals section 218 of the Criminal Code and substitutes the following;
(2) For the purposes of Part XX, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by this section is a minimum punishment.
I gather from the popular impression that this minimum punishment is 25 years. It is hard to determine whether there will be an application for parole permitted at the end of 25 years or whether it will be at the end of 18 years; I
Capital Punishment
rather suspect it will be the latter. I think, as I said last night, that in this modern day it is far crueller to consign a man or woman to the Bastille, as they were in the eighteenth century in France, to be put away, forgotten, pigeonholed as just another file that the Solicitor General's department will occasionally examine in a raw of other files.
One has to undergo incarceration or restriction of liberty to know what it is like. I hate to be subjective about this, because somehow I feel that subjectivity may not be the best attitude to take in arriving at a judgment in such matters as these. However, one is conditioned by one's circumstances, and I can assure hon. members that nearly three years of very severe restriction of my freedom during World War II, knowing of those who had to suffer solitary confinement for real or imagined wrongs against the captive power, did much to the morale of prisoners of war.
If there is no hope, and release from prison is 25 years down the road, then, notwithstanding the relative comforts of the modern-day prison compared to the Bastille, this is an invitation by society to the individual to remove or do away with himself. Certainly, there will be no hope of rehabilitation because that person will in the normal course of events reach middle or old age, if he should survive the sentence of 25 years at all. As I say, why not park them all in a mausoleum right away because they will become as the living dead.
There are a few people who are sentenced now to terms of 25 years hard labour, although very rarely, who have the propect, if they behave, of being up for parole at the end of one-third of their sentence. A man of 25 years of age sentenced to 25 years may expect, if he meets the other conditions-and they are stringent-to get out on parole in eight or nine years. What a difference between eight or nine years and what is proposed! This provides a goal to work toward, which is not inherent in 25-year or perhaps an 18-year sentence. These people will become, if this should be Canada's law, the living dead. I do not know whether society is any further ahead when it says to a man or woman in the courts that he or she is sentenced to a living death, or is sentenced to suffer death by hanging. One is quicker and very sure, whereas the other takes much longer but is equally sure.
For these reasons, I do not see what improvement there is in the amendment contained in Bill C-84. My colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), has moved that clause 3 be deleted and, in effect, that section 75(2) of the Criminal Code be maintained. I am in full support of his amendment and I commend it to the House.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a few moments in support of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). We are dealing with a situation much more serious than perhaps the minister and his colleagues realize. After listening to the exchange that took place this morning between the minister and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), it would seem there is an element of doubt as to whether this legislation deals with hijackers or if they are adequately dealt with in sections 76
95 570-5 4)4

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
(1), (2) and (3) of the Criminal Code. I am sure you are very much aware, Mr. Speaker, as I am, that in a great many cases guilty people are not subjected to the laws of the land because of technicalities. I can certainly envisage circumstances in which a smart lawyer could get a guilty person off on a technicality such as would exist in the criminal law if this legislation were passed.
The minister stated today that he did not have written advice that hijacking was included in piracy but that this was advice he had received through a phone call. It seems to me we should not be dealing with legislation by conversation and we should not be acting on conversation. This is far too important a matter for us to be dealing with it just by guesswork. The minister is not playing fair with the Canadian people by subjecting them to this type of legislation. It seems that we will end up with nothing short of a bird's nest and the only people who will get any comfort from that nest will be the criminals. Canada will become a haven for criminal activity. The day has long passed when we could say it cannot happen here, because it can. We are only separated by a few hours, by aircraft, from the most distant parts of the world.
The minister says that piracy does not relate to hijacking. He is differentiating between water and air travel. I suggest it is very difficult to differentiate between them. It would behoove the minister to clarify the Criminal Code in this area so everyone will know what can be expected. All the members of this House and, I am sure, the Canadian public are concerned about this matter. That is why there has been a great deal of interest shown in the legislation. The minister would do a great service to Canadians by holding back third reading of this bill.


An hon. Member:: So the public can react.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yes, in order that the public can react. Perhaps it could be dealt with during a certain period of time in the fall. I am sure my colleagues would agree to a three, four or five-day debate in the fall, allowing the Canadian people the summer in which to have some input into this important matter.
If hijacking is related to piracy, this means that every time a person gets on an aircraft he is up for ransom. Let me bring to the attention of the House a point made last night by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan). I read from page 15043 of Hansard for July 5:
I would ask you why those guerrillas hijacked the plane and held those innocent people captive? It was for the purpose of freeing other people who had committed political crimes, crimes of terrorism and crimes of air piracy, yet because they had not paid the penalty for these heinous crimes they were still alive in jail providing sufficient motivation to these people to commit this terrible act. They played with those people's lives so they could spring from prison their associates and accomplices in international crime.
Mr. Speaker, this should not go unnoticed. As I mentioned a moment ago, whenever Canadians board a plane their lives are at stake if someone should decide to hijack the plane and take hostages. We cannot any longer say this cannot happen in Canada. If this bill should pass, persons who are prepared to perpetrate this kind of crime will be protected in this land; there will be an inducement for

them to come here. We must think about that before we decide to pass this legislation.
Another point I wish to make is that it is very difficult to differentiate between piracy by sea, hijacking, piracy by air, or activities during war. I am sure there are few Canadians who would not agree that as a nation we have the right to protect our freedoms and our way of life in time of war. It is difficult for me to understand why people who agree that they should have the right to go to war to protect their rights and privileges would not have in place a form of capital punishment for acts that are closely associated thereto.
These are points which I think the minister would be well advised to take into consideration and give further thought to so that Canada will be able to have the best law possible for the protection of its people, a law that will meet with approval by the majority of Canadians. This is a fundamental principle and one we cannot pass over lightly. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to present my thoughts on this matter at this time.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to comment on an issue about which I had several opportunities to rise in the House since 1962. I am also pleased to speak to the amendment moved by my colleague from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) concerning the amendments brought to the bill. We hope that the minister will finally understand the merits of our allegations and our remarks which are not based on feelings but on the views of those who have already studied the matter on several occasions during the past years and especially when piracy acts were committed in Canada and elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, I have here the magazine Science criminelle et droit penal compare, volume No. 28 of 1973 where the various countries of world are asked to legislate more clearly and adequately on air piracy. On page 306, it is recorded that:
The world strike of air line pilots was launched on June 19, 1972 by the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA) to protest against inadequate measures taken to prevent and curb offences against aviation. IFALPA President Olof Fosberg met United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim on June 15, 1972 to ask him to submit to the Security Council for approval adequate measures to prevent air piracy.
The struggle for safety in the air is one of the crucial problems of modern penal law, its efficiency, its social function in today's world.
Experts in the field of aviation seek protection for the millions of dollars invested in aircraft by various people, for the human lives which they are responsible for as well as for pilots.
Today the minister wants to give wider scope to the statutes by saying that pirates may be penalized, not must be penalized.
By changing just a few words, we are opening the door wide to pirates, the gangsters of our country and those of other lands who can come here on various occasions and do what they will in Canada, as they already have in many countries of the world in the last 25 years. Later on, I shall give figures which constitute the balance-sheet of international piracy in the last 25 years.
July 6, 1976

The president of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations had this to say about the matter: First of all, plane hijacking has now become an international problem because the course of flights is being altered beyond state boundaries. International flights are often involved and frequently domestic flights are forced to fly out of their countries thus changing abruptly their original itineraries. That is why hijacking has become an international problem
-and national.
Now, this is what we hear when the notion of piracy is being defined: What is piracy? According to the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations, piracy is this:
1. The behaviour of individuals who disturb air traffic is currently known as "air piracy". The comparison with sea piracy at sea is easy to make. For centuries, pirates disrupted the peaceful navigation on the high seas, whose routes knew neither masters nor obstacles. The seas were and remain free of any state jurisdiction and ships flying the flags of all nations meet there freely. All civilized nations respected those free stateless waterways. Pirates who disrupted peaceful traffic on the high seas were considered as hostes generis humani. Arrested, they were immediately executed (hung from the yards) by those who had caught them. The state which got hold of them did justice. It is even asserted that the international penal code began with the struggle against piracy.
Section 15 of the Geneva Convention states:
The acts hereinafter enumerated constitute piracy:
(1) any illegitimate act of violence, detention, or any depredation committed for personal purposes by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or private aircraft and directed: (a) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or goods aboard, (b) against a ship or aircraft, persons or goods in a place not under the jurisdiction of any state.
Mr. Speaker, I could still go on for a long time quoting international texts on conferences in the field of international piracy.
It is strange to see that in Canada we seem to be very compassionate towards those who commit criminal actions, as evidenced in one of the trials described in the book entitled Air Pirates by Mr. James A. Arey which can be found in the Parliament library, and where we are told about the deeds of one of the most wanted criminals in Italy, by the name of Raffaele, who
committed the longest and most terrifying aircraft hijacking ever known, kidnapped a policeman; when he was arrested, he declared with innocence: Why do you arrest me, my friend?
In November 1970, he was tried in Rome under eight charges for kidnapping twice-first the crew of the aircraft then the Italian policeman; for having used coercion twice, by threatening with a gun first the crew, then the policeman; the three other charges dealt with the import, the keeping and the illegal possession of military weapons.
Minichiello was sentenced to seven years and six months imprisonment and to a $580 fine. While the most responsible editorialists in the United States wrote: "Hijackers are not heros!", in Italy, the public prosecutor . .. described Minichiello as a "good boy" ...
-a little like we apparently wish to define them in Canada as a result of this bill-
... a "good boy, a timid boy" who just wanted to go back to his native land to see his father again and find peace there.
The counsel for the defence said, and I quote: "You have in front of you a rustic Don Quixote, without any education, deprived of Sancho Panza and of Dulcinea who, instead of mounting Rossinante flew in the skies to follow his dream and to achieve his purpose." Upsetting, isn't it? How is it possible not to be moved, particularly if we hear that, in
Capital Punishment
addition, Minichiello is a pathetic and romantic young man who simply wants "to escape the injustices of vast America."
-And we were among those, among "the injustices of vast America".
"He is a romantic person: his anguish, his hopes, his nostalgia launched him in that incredible adventure, like an ancient crusader".
This is more or less the description Italians were making of the greatest hijacker Italy ever knew. And that is why in Canada we seem to be about to open our doors and soften our legislation to encourage these honourable individuals.
Minichiello ... was ... really crazy about the sky, endlessly cleaning his weapon while the old aircraft was crossing the ocean with its load of nice hostages .. . who, on several occasions, almost came to their death at the hand of a sympathetic gangster.
On November 10, 1969, young David L. Booth, aged 14, threatened with a butcher's knife a young lady he had taken hostage. He wanted to hijack a Delta Air Lines DC-9 from Cincinnati to Sweden or any other destination. David was finally persuaded to give up his plan and was held under guard until the plane had left the ground. This may have nothing to do with Minichiello's brilliant achievement but the child's mother, Mrs. Anne Booth, suggested herself that her son may have been influenced by a young marine's spectacular flight to Rome on the previous week. "He eagerly followed all news pertaining to the hijack in the newspapers and on television", she said.
When hijacking is reported in the media hijackers are depicted as heroes, and thus air piracy is encouraged over morality, much against our children's interests. During the few minutes which are left, Mr. Speaker, using reports on hijacking in various countries which were published in this book following interesting research in this matter, I would like to list the hijackings which occurred from 1930 to 1974.
If we read this chronological list, we see that in at least 80 per cent of the cases hijacking was carried out by revolutionaries of the entire world who, for the sake of piracy, try to alleviate our laws in order to do what they want with our planes.
It would be too long to give the whole list. I quote:
This list was made from data provided by the US Department of Transport; the US Federal Administration of Aeronautics; the American Air Transport Association; the International Air Transport Association; the International Civil Aviation Organization; and also from thousands of newspaper articles and the author's personal archives.
I only want to indicate that on November 1, 1958, five Cuban revolutionaries boarded Viscount and headed for Miami-Varadero and then crashed on the ground, causing the death of 17 passengers. There were only three survivors.
On July 5, 1960, two Cuban revolutionaries boarded the Madrid-Havana air line and landed at Miami. On July 18, 1960, a Cuban revolutionary on board Viscount going from Havana to Miami landed in Jamaica. On July 28, 1960, three Cuban revolutionaries on a domestic Cuban flight landed at Miami. On October 29, 1960, 9 Cuban revolutionaries on board a DC-3 Havana-Isle of Pines landed in Key West. It is funny, Mr. Speaker, to see how revolutionaries use air piracy to go to Cuba, their country where they wish so much to go, and a few years later, we see those same revolutionaries, having tried this socialist regime, using the same air piracy-of which we have the records-to get out of those countries and fly toward other skies.

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
On October 29, 1960, 9 Cuban revolutionaries on board a DC-3 Havana-Isle of Pines-I just mentioned that. On July 3, 1961, 14 Cuban revolutionaries, flying Havana-Veradero, landed in Miami. On July 9, 1961, a group of Havana businessmen took a DC-3: there were three dead and six wounded. On March 27, 1966, three revolutionaries named Angel, Betancourt and Cueto were on board an IL-18 San-tiago-Havana Flight: there were two dead after the pilot used trickery to land in Cuba.
Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me a list of approximately 560 air piracies where it is seen that revolutionaries of the world are those who did the greater number of hijacking to date.
Well, Mr. Speaker, when we want to relax our laws by saying that a pirate may be liable to death we are automatically encouraging revolutionaries across the world to commit a larger number of criminal acts than has been witnessed in history. As my hon. colleagues, and those tho preceeded me, I would like the passage of this bill to be postponed so we can have the reaction of the public and I would also like to keep the old bill as it was drafted so we can use it for a longer period than what is being proposed at this time to allow Canada to live at least the next six months because with the events that we witnessed all across the world during various Olympic Games, with the tensions that exist between certain states that will be coming to Canada I am concerned that we should want to relax our statutes so as to bring about at home events that we would not like to have particularly in our province and in this country.
I do not understand the eagerness of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to open the doors, facilitate air or other kinds of piracy, and nearly give medals to those who are unfortunately preparing to commit acts in Canada as were witnessed elsewhere in other parts of the world. I dare hope that the minister will be able to consider not only the advice of those officials but particularly the people and what they want, because they are asking for protection. The public elected members to this House to give protection to non-criminals and punish criminals. I do not understand that the cabinet, and the Solicitor General in particular, should want to have understanding, latitude, to open doors, nearly give medals, and not give any protection to those who live not outside the law but within the law, abiding by the law. We are in this House to make laws and ask the law-abiding population to respect the laws we pass in this House. On the other hand, we now see the policemen of Canada, even prison guards who are really concerned to see the spirit the Solicitor General wants to give to our laws by offering protection to those who have always lived outside the law.
In concluding, I would like very much the Solicitor General to postpone at least for a few months the passage of this bill to allow reflection and allow the people of this country to make their opinions known on a bill which is extremely important to the future of this country and also to maintain good relations with other countries which will be called upon within the next few days to send representatives to this country to participate in the 1976 Olympic Games. We must ensure maximum protection to the citizens of this country and those who have faith in Canada because this country has always had a good repu-

tation across the world and because we had stringent laws, discipline, because we were showing leadership and we were able up until this day to punish the guilty and have those who respect our law respected.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that there might be some hon. members who at first glance at this amendment to delete clause 3 might think it has some validity because you can talk about piracy in connection with a navy if you have a navy, but if your navy is non-existent, you can no longer talk about that form of piracy. The bill would become redundant in that sense. Considering the condition of our navy, it may be that the bill would be redundant in that regard. Therefore, I cannot understand why this morning the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) argued that the bill would have an effect only in the matter of piracy on the high seas. When we look at the two or three ships which are left in our navy, I do not know why any pirate would want to take any of them. The object of piracy is to get to port, and if a pirate were to seize one of our ships on the high seas the question is whether he would be caught long before he got to port.
At first glance, there might be some hon. members who think there is some validity in the government's bill and that we should eliminate the death penalty for piracy. However, it has always been contended that piracy should be deemed an invasion of the country whose flag a ship is flying, and throughout history an act of piracy has been considered an invasion of the integrity of the country to which the ship in question belonged. In addition to that, there is the vulnerable position of the people on board ship who are not in easy contact with their government and are isolated from the help of their compatriots and their government's constabulary forces. Piracy has been considered throughout history as the ultimate act of vandalism and a fraudulent affront to the integrity of governments.
Whenever we board an Air Canada jet, we walk past our country's coat of arms emblazoned on the fuselage of the aircraft. To me, that is a pretty clear indication that our government is fundamentally involved in the airlines of our country. That is our indication that unlawful intrusion of that aircraft is piracy.
In any act of war, the most heinous by-product is the anguish suffered by innocent bystanders. We can look back at the record of the suffering and anguish, especially on the part of women and children, in the Second World War during the Battle of Britain, the air raids over Germany and the bombing of Hiroshima. It is the suffering by innocent bystanders that is the most heinous aspect of war. How much worse is it when there is nowhere to hide? There have been cases in wartime when mass evacuation has taken place. We remember well that during the Battle of Britain thousands of women and children were taken out of London to the countryside, and many of them were brought to Canada.
However, what do innocent bystanders do if they are in mid-air on an aircraft flying at 35,000 feet? They are locked into the cabin of that aircraft. When a government authorizes or licenses a ship or a plane to carry the general public,
July 6, 1976

it owes the public the protection it deserves. In its present form, this bill proposes to make pirates or skyjackers nothing more than we would consider prisoners of war to be. They can declare war on this country and all we will do is imprison them; and in its present form imprisonment in this country is fairly comfortable. As the present prison system operates, that would be about as effective as "Sta-lag 13" where the prisoners go in and out at will. I am not implying that the administrators of our penitentiaries are the counterparts of Colonel Klink, but I am saying that the kind of support being provided by the Solicitor General makes it appear that way.
I must refer again to what the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) alluded to a few minutes ago. One of the reasons there is a rash of skyjacking in the world is that there are other terrorists in prisons and they become the reward for skyjackers. They are always the reason another skyjacking takes place. Just a few minutes ago the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) referred to the perverted sense of morality of skyjackers which involves the matter of identity and simple self-expression. It is suggested that all these people are trying to do is express themselves. There is some truth in that. In their perverted morality, these people have borrowed from the philosophy of Karl Marx, Sartre and Camus and said they are trying to express their authentic selves, and anyone trying to prevent their doing so is committing another act of immorality. They claim they are entitled to express themselves. There is no such thing, in this kind of perverted morality, as an absolute right or wrong; therefore the skyjacking of a plane is no different to these people than helping the poor.
In this country we are faced with the eventuality of having pirates or skyjackers in our prisons. The time will come when one of our planes will be skyjacked and the people in our prisons will be the reason for that skyjacking. Under the system that operates presently in this country, the next skyjackers will be rewarded for their terrorism. These people are ideologically committed to violence and have total disregard for human life. When we encourage skyjacking and air piracy by maintaining a terrorist population in our prison system, we are doing violence to the peace and security of the people of our country.
Mr. Speaker, we must pass this amendment that would alter the direction of the bill, in the interests of peace and security, if that is what the government is after. For innocent bystanders and innocent passengers on aircraft we must pass this amendment and take away the reward for skyjacking in Canada. I therefore urge hon. members to rethink and to re-evaluate their position on this bill, and to realize once and for all that we cannot afford to reward people who have this kind of twisted mentality and morality.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) aimed at eliminating clause 3 from this bill. At first I thought I would be speaking about piracy in terms of air piracy. However, that matter was so well covered this morning by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) that I feel he has given the Solicitor General (Mr. Capital Punishment
Allmand) cause to reconsider the definition of piracy. I share the view of piracy in this context and particularly the manner in which it is described in the Criminal Code which in section 75.1 reads:
Every one commits piracy who does any act that, by the law of nations, is piracy.
It is true, as the Solicitor General said, that the last conviction for piracy in this country was in 1867. During the past century there have been many developments in technology and in attitudes toward the law. I am satisfied in my own mind that should an incident of piracy affecting an aircraft take place, a judge could easily interpret this as meaning aircraft.
I have had other thoughts on this particular section, however, and I should like to draw to the attention of the House some anomalous situations which have developed as a result of the government's decision to include clause 3 in Bill C-84. I am convinced that as they were drawing up the bill and overflowing with this notion that they were going to eliminate the death penalty from Canadian law, they put their staff to work to find those sections of the Criminal Code where the death penalty occurred. In section 75.2 there is the possibility of someone being sentenced to death for having committed, or attempted to commit piracy although, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) pointed out earlier, any reference to a murder being committed in the course of committing that piracy was left out. No one will ever know why this occurred. In my opinion, it is another instance of extremely bad drafting.
Does piracy refer only to piracy on the high seas? I find it difficult to understand that the theft of a Canadian ship is the only act which can be considered a piratical act, when there are so few Canadian ships-unless we are talking about our neighbour's canoe up at the lake, or his sloop. Is that a Canadian ship? Is it piracy, or is it theft, to take charge of our neighbour's ship during the summertime? I think we have to be careful here.
In the course of eliminating the death penalty there is a most outrageous anomaly that has come to light in my study of the various related legislation on the statute books and that which is being proposed. Paragraph 76 defines piratical acts. I draw special attention to subsection (c), as follows:
76. Every one who, while in or out of Canada . . .
(c) does or attempts to do a mutinous act on a Canadian ship .. . is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.
So a mutinous act is one of those acts which under the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment for life. In section 53 of the Criminal Code, inciting mutiny is dealt with. That is another act which, if committed, would make a person liable to imprisonment for 14 years. But mutiny itself is another matter and is referred to in sections 69 and 70 of the National Defence Act. This is where the government is carrying out a great con game. It has presented this bill as measure to eliminate capital punishment in Canada. Either it is deliberately conning the Canadian public, or its staff's work has been faulty. Section 69 of the National Defence Act reads:
Every person-

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
This deals with every person, not a military person.
-who joins in a mutiny that is accompanied by violence is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to suffer death or less punishment.
Section 70 reads:
Every person who joins in a mutiny-
It explains that he suffers something unless he is the ringleader of the mutiny, and then he shall suffer death. My purpose is to warn the abolitionists in this House that if they think by voting for this bill, including the retention of this particular amendment, they are going to see the elimination of the death penalty in Canada, they have been had-completely and utterly had. I warn them: the death penalty remains on the statute books of this country. If they go away believing that by voting for this bill they will see the end of it, they delude themselves. The government either acquiesces in perpetrating this delusion or has been extremely inept in allowing it to happen. That is all I want to say. I shall leave it to the judgment of parliament.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-National Gallery-Acquisition of room painted with murals at Karsdale, Nova Scotia-Request that it remain in Nova Scotia; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Immigration- Medical checks on visitors from the tropics; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs-Possibility of increase in allowable earnings of recipients of war veterans' allowance.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code regarding piracy. I will speak particularly about air piracy and kidnapping and murder associated with such acts.

Although I have no formal notes to which I may refer, I feel strongly on the subject and think I have some capacity for speaking on it. I refer to a letter sent by the Reverend Sorley, of Stouffville, Ontario. In it he raises six points. His sixth point reads in part as follows:
Let us extend the death penalty.
We should include all those who are guilty of kidnapping, terrorism, hijacking, bombing and treason. If we do, it will have a discouraging effect on any lawbreakers and bring about a reduction in every form of crime. We have, in practice, abolished the death penalty for the last thirteen years and we have an increase in crime such as never has been known in the history of Canada.
What the clergyman said in his letter cannot but make one reflect on the enormous costs which have been inflicted on Canadian taxpayers and those of other nations for implementing methods which help to prevent acts of terrorism in the air. Canadians employed in security duties at airports and near aircraft could be better and more constructively employed elsewhere, at considerably less expense to the travelling public. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), in his wisdom, has developed the "user pay" concept and applied it to Canadian airports. The "user pay" policy applies not only to those operating light aircraft; it applies as well to commercial airlines, the travelling public and the long-suffering Canadian taxpayer.
I wonder what life in Canada or in any western country would be like without the embarrassment and harassment of airport security. I am thinking of what happens when an impatient air traveller is confronted by an equally impatient security officer. But it seems that most Canadians accept this new way of life, this new way of travelling, this new type of harassment, this further infringement upon civil liberties, as necessary. They look on security measures as measures to protect life and limb.
Perhaps members of parliament are more equipped than others to comment on the air piracy aspects of the bill. Many of us return frequently to our ridings at the Canadian taxpayers' expense. It takes me five or six hours of flying time to return to my western Canadian constituency. During my travels I have the opportunity to visit and observe Canadians of all walks of life. In the aircraft I see mothers with babies, aged parents and grandparents travelling to weddings, perhaps to funerals, or on holiday and I think about what can happen in the air if an act of terrorism takes place. I shudder at the consequences of air piracy.
Consider what happened recently in Uganda. All the free world lauded and applauded the actions of the Israelis in rescuring the victims of terrorism. What a frightening experience that must have been. Surely it has burned itself into the minds of all those hostages. They were held, I might add, with the apparently tacit approval of Uganda. I recall reading the reported remarks of one hostage who said, "When we heard the guns firing and the explosions, we thought it was all over for us, that our time had come."
In modern-day flying there are no second chances in the air when acts of piracy occur. Because of the ignorance, the madness of those who are involved in such acts, it takes only one mishap, one wrong move to send an aircraft plummeting to the ground. I recall an aircraft which was blown up some years ago over northern British Columbia. The identity of the perpetrator of the act was suspected; he could not be name for lack of proof. Mr. Speaker, there was
July 6, 1976

an explosion in the air; the people in the tail section were blown out of the aircraft. Actually, the entire tail section separated from the fuselage, and in a dramatic effort to save the lives of his passengers, the pilot, with enormous skill given to him by God, flew the aircraft in a flat spin right down to the ground. When the wreckage was examined, it was found that the seats had dented the floor of the aircraft only by a quarter of an inch. That shows the lightness of the impact. The pilot brought the aircraft down without the tail, without any rudders to control it, using the throttles to operate the engines on the port and starboard side. He was able to bring the aircraft relatively safely to the ground. Unfortunately, on impact the gasoline tanks exploded and all on board were incinerated.
This sort of thing has happened in Canada and is going on in the world. We hear these things almost daily. It is the new trend. Terrorists kidnap and hijack for political or financial reasons. Without doubt, such acts are premeditated. No one boards an aircraft with the idea of flying from Ottawa to Vancouver and, on arrival at Calgary, thinks it might be a good idea to hijack the aircraft. These people know what they are doing. I say that those who are prepared to inflict their criminality, their murderous intent upon Canadians deserve only one penalty, that is, the supreme penalty. This is why I support the amendment.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some comments on this motion, one which would in effect delete clause 3 from the bill and retain the death penalty as a deterrent to acts of piracy. In today's world we do not often hear about piracy on the high seas. We hear a lot about piracy of trucks and aircraft. Piracy on the high seas has pretty well come to an end, at least on a large scale; but piracy of aircraft is something else again.
I had an experience several years ago when I was travelling on business from Madrid to London. It was a BEA flight. We were on board, and shortly before the aircraft was ready to leave the terminal, airport officials boarded high government officials from Spanish Morocco. I was sitting in the first-class section and I was shuffled out into the economy section. Incidentally, I never did get back the difference in fare, but that is beside the point. The aircraft began to taxi out to the main runway for take-off. But just before we got to the main strip, the aircraft was halted, the engines were shut down and all the passengers were taken off. The aircraft was surrounded by security people.
Airport officials brought up a vehicle, which we found out later to be a bomb disposal vehicle. All luggage was unloaded and all passengers were required to identify their luggage from behind a steel plate, after which their luggage was examined and placed in another location. When this process had been completed there were three pieces of luggage left, and we found later that those three pieces of luggage contained explosives. It was evidently the intention of somebody to blow up the aircraft. We could only surmise that it was due to the presence of the Spanish Moroccan government officials who were on board. It certainly was not because I was on board, because I was only a lowly Canadian businessman travelling abroad, trying to sell something and make a few dollars.
Capital Punishment
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it was a frightening experience. We did not realize what was happening until it was all over. The aircraft was taken back to the terminal and checked again, after which those of us who wished to go on to London were allowed to board. I had some urgent appointments and consequently decided to proceed. Halfway into the flight all of us were suffering from a case of jitters, wondering whether they had really got all the explosives out. This illustrates the type of risk which travellers increasingly face today and which prompt one to ask whether we ought not to retain the supreme penalty for such crimes.
In the United States, acts of piracy on board aircraft with the object of securing money seem to have diminished sharply in number. It is true that some small aircraft are hijacked, but commercial aircraft have not been endangered recently in this way. In the last few years, though, we have seen a new threat: aircraft are being hijacked not for money but for political reasons. One group of individuals differs from another on political or religious grounds and is prepared to seize an aircraft and threaten people on board, most of whom they do not know, placing their lives in jeopardy in addition to the lives of the crew, not to mention an extremely expensive piece of machinery.
I notice that our airport surveillance arrangements are manned more extensively. At the Toronto international airport there are as many as five people who take passengers through the security gates. I do not know how much this costs Canada, but I estimate it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars a year, all paid for by the travelling public. The cost worldwide must be in the billions of dollars and all we seem to be doing is putting our trust in an electronic device.
Only a few cases involving air piracy have been tried in Canada. There was one here in Ontario, I believe, and two in British Columbia. The person who tried to hijack an Air Canada plane in Ontario was given a relatively short prison sentence, one of those tried on the west coast was given a suspended sentence, and the other was fined $100. I do not believe we can continue to accept the taking of hostages, placing in jeopardy the lives of innocent people, without specifying that this is a crime which warrants the most serious penalty which can be prescribed. I certainly do not believe that 25 years in prison, with provision for review of sentence after 15 years, is adequate.
For these reasons I shall support the motion when it comes to a vote, which I understand will be on Thursday at 9.30 p.m. or thereabouts, in the hope that the House will make it clear that piracy on aircraft in flight is a most serious matter and we must take the most severe action we can to deter it. I recall some years ago checking with Lloyds of London respecting losses in connection with aircraft they had insured throughout the world. This loss came to hundreds of millions of dollars. Insurance rates for aircraft have increased, adding to the operating cost of airlines. Of course this cost is ultimately passed on to the user of that mode of transportation.
I ask members to contemplate this motion very carefully, not just carelessly to wave it aside, saying that it is proposing the retention of capital punishment in some

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
form for certain crimes and they cannot support it. It would be a good thing if those members who oppose the motion were able to talk to some of the hostages in the recent incident in Uganda, to listen to their experiences and discover their feelings. I suggest they would realize that we should not lightly pass this matter off but should retain the most severe penalty that we have for the act of piracy of an aircraft.
That is about the extent of the remarks I wish to make. I will be speaking to other amendments that come forward but I thought it worth while to put on record the personal experience I had on an aircraft that was going to be blown up in the air. It was an experience I should not like to have again and which I would not wish on anybody else. I urge hon. members when considering this motion to think it out carefully and to support the deletion of clause 3 from Bill C-84.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to go on record as urging all hon. members to consider favourably the motion now before the House to delete clause 3 of the bill. Clause 3 clearly states that everyone who commits piracy is liable to imprisonment for life. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) made a very good speech on this subject before lunch, and I was slightly amazed during the question period to hear the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) say that the legal opinion that he had received was over the telephone. Not being a lawyer but as one who has been around here for a while, I thought legal opinions were written documents that clearly spelt out in every detail the arguments for or against a given position. Yet the minister suggests that piracy applies only to ships, I assume because somebody in the justice department advised him over the telephone that that was his interpretation of section 75(1) of the Criminal Code.
Section 75(1) clearly states that everyone commits piracy who does any act that by the law of nations constitutes piracy. The Geneva conference stated that air piracy exists and is considered as such. What we are dealing with in this bill is piracy, whether it be of ships or aircraft. Piracy is the taking of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, and endangering the lives of the people thereon.
I think there is hardly anyone in Canada, except for the scattered few in the cabinet who are obeying the dictates of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who does not believe that we should retain the death penalty for hijackers. This is what the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) is seeking. A hijacking took place some years ago in Calgary by a person who is now serving a jail sentence. He has clearly stated that had he known that the death penalty would be invoked if someone had come to harm, he believes it would have deterred him from hijacking an aircraft, having it flown to Montana and back again to Canada. However, in that case no one lost their life and all were very fortunate.
The very essence of hijacking is that it endangers lives. Section 75(2) of the Criminal Code provides that anyone who commits or attempts to commit piracy, and who murders or attempts to murder in the course thereof, shall be sentenced to death. That is the section that Bill C-84 seeks to delete from the Criminal Code and in its place substitute life imprisonment for the death penalty.
(Mr. Kempling.]
Someone pointed out earlier today that imprisonment for life does not mean that. A person can get out of jail on guarded leave, which only means that he has to report in every so many hours while out on a week end pass. That really is not good enough. A hijacking could take place even in that short space of time. I urge all hon. members to take their obligations as members of parliament and representatives of their constituencies very seriously. This is not a complicated matter but one that is simple and straightforward. The question is: should one who causes bodily injury to another while committing an act of piracy face the supreme sentence of death?
I believe we have to make a concerted effort to cut down aircraft hijackings. The recent incident in Uganda which resulted in the freeing of 100 passengers by an amazingly successful raid by Israel will have a tendency to deter any further attempts at hijacking aircraft or any attempts at blackmailing Israel to release prisoners serving jail sentences in that country. From now on these terrorists will know that their own lives will be threatened, not that of any hostages they may take.
If this country now attempts to create a situation where we have the least severe penalty of most western nations for hijackings, then the very opposite will be true. Rather than flying aircraft to Uganda, hijackers will have them flown to Canada, particularly if their country does not have an extradition agreement with Canada. The worst penalty they can get in Canada will be life imprisonment. Their lives will not be in jeopardy. We are taking what must be considered in the eyes of the world a very backward step in attempting to control the hijacking of aircraft. This is a modern problem that has only come into being in the last five or six years. We should wrestle with it, and we should enforce the law as it now stands. We should not try to amend it as the Solicitor General is attempting to do through this bill.
I wholeheartedly support the two amendments moved by hon. members, the one before me being the amendment by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. It demands the attention of the House, and now has the attention of the whole country. The entire country is in complete support of the amendment put forward today. Members of parliament on all sides of the House would be doing the country a service in voting for the amendment whenever it comes to a vote, on Thursday night or at some other time.
It would not detract very much from the beliefs of abolitionists to vote in favour of retaining the death sentence for those who are convicted of the crime of hijacking where bodily harm occurs during the commission thereof. Surely that would not be asking too much of those who believe in abolition. This is an horrendous crime which is very difficult to stop. Many innocent people's lives are endangered through no fault of their own. Surely the minister, if he had the good of the country at heart, would accept this motion moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.
There is one other thing that comes to my mind when dealing with this subject matter. This bill left the House and went to committee where the committee refused to hear any witnesses except the minister. Had we been able
July 6, 1976

to call witnesses of the CP or Air Canada Airlines to give evidence before the committee, and perhaps officials of some U.S. airlines who have experienced hijacking a number of times, we might have heard evidence from those people who are responsible for the operation of aircraft, and for that matter ships, who firmly believe that the death penalty should be retained in respect of any such act of piracy.
The government in haste, or in an attempt to cover the facts and keep the public ignorant of the true state, rammed this bill through committee in a shameful fashion. The subject matter of this measure has been around Canada for a very long time. The government should have been prepared to have its legislation stand the scrutiny a good committee would have given it, and I know that committee would have given it that scrutiny had it been able to call witnesses and hear evidence. This is one of those things I will never be able to understand.
The minister knows he is moving against the will of the people. One might have thought that by having witnesses appear before the committee the minister in essence might have educated the people into believing that he is actually ahead of rather than behind them. However, in this way I think he is taking a retrograde step. I urge hon. members on all sides of the House to support the amendment which would retain the death penalty for the crime of piracy involving bodily harm.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Before putting the question, it is my understanding that motions Nos. 10 and 11 were to be grouped for the purpose of debate but that the question should only be put on motion No. 10 as this would also dispose of motion No. 11. Is that right?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on motion No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Capital Punishment


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 29, 1976, the recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred.
The House will now move to the consideration of motions Nos. 12 and 13. It is my understanding they are to be grouped for the purpose of debate, but voted on separately. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Motion No. 12.
That Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 27 at page 4 the following new subsection:
"(6) Murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the
death is caused by that person and that person has been previously
convicted of either first degree murder or second degree murder." and by renumbering the present subsection (6) as subsection (7).


John Douglas Reynolds: Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended by deleting Clause 4.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I
shall not take too much of the time of the House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to outline, if I may, the sense of the first amendment. First of all may I say that the new Section 214 deals with that type of homocide which we now have in the Criminal Code as murder. Basically murder, under the amendment submitted by the minister, will be broken down into two new classifications, first degree murder, and second degree murder. Right off the bat, in the reclassification of this type of homocide, anything that is not first degree murder will be classified as second degree murder.
In the new amendments there are a total, if my arithmetic serves me right, of seven broad, general classifications of homicide that can be classified as first degree murder. First, homicide is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate. Second, homicide is first degree murder when the murder takes place by hiring an assassin, and that cuts through the verbiage of subsection (3). Third, homicide is first degree murder when the victim is a police officer or constable acting in the course of his duties. When a warden, prison guard or some custodial officer of that type is murdered during the course of his duties, that is the fourth broad classification of first degree murder. The fifth classification relates to a killing which takes place during an offence which we call the hijacking of an aircraft. In other words where there is a hijacking of an aircraft and murder or attempted murder takes place, then that is also first degree murder. The sixth classification is where a murder or attempted murder takes place during the offence of kidnapping or forcible confinement. Finally, classification number seven under the amendments submitted by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is where a murder takes place during the commission of a sexual offence such as rape.

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
Those are the seven classifications of first degree murder under the new reclassification submitted to the House by the Solicitor General, for which I congratulate him. The sense, the meaning, or the object of my amendment is to add an eighth classification for first degree murder. The eighth classification is in respect of any person who commits murder who previously has been convicted of either first or second degree murder.
I must admit that I have been doing a fair amount of pressuring and lobbying during the last few days about this. I feel that if an honest and fair vote takes place on this amendment, which hon. members will note does not deal with capital punishment but deals solely and strictly with a murderer who commits murder a second time, there are enough members who have indicated to me, regardless of how they voted on second reading that they will vote for this amendment. I suggest to hon. members that this is one instance in which we should not get emotional. It has nothing to do with the capital punishment issue.
I must admit that when I originally submitted the amendment my purpose was to make sure that all first degree murderers would be liable to the penalty of capital punishment. However, the Chair ruled that amendment out of order. But we still have this classification number eight for first degree murder. I submit it for the attention of members of the House because I think it certainly is worthy of consideration. The purpose is to make sure that the person who has been convicted of murder and who murders a second time is subject to the full punishment relating to first degree murder.
One might say that this is a pretty petty thing, and ask how often it happens. One might ask how many murderers are there who have been convicted a second time. I agree there are not too many, but there are enough. So far as I have been able to ascertain there are at least six convicted murderers in Canada now, and there is at least one person charged with an offence who has not come to trial, who have been convicted of murder a second time in the period between 1961 and 1974.
One thing I appeal to members of this House to consider, no matter what their philosophy and belief in respect of capital punishment, is the present law of the jungle that exists in our federal institutions. I merely point out that of the six people who have been convicted of murder a second time four have been convicted of murdering a second time in prison. I suggest to members of the House in general that this is something to think about. Under our present law a person in prison who has had a reduced charge of murder, which under the new classification would be second degree murder, does not have too much to worry about if he murders or attempts to murder a guard in the prison, or even a policeman on duty during an escape attempt.
I suggest to hon. members that my amendment could very well prevent the killing of other prisoners or the killing of a prison guard. It has nothing to do with capital punishment. It has everything to do with the deterrent effect in prison on some of those hard-core prisoners who simply are unrehabilitatable at the present time. I suggest that this is a sensible, fair and equitable amendment. At the present time there simply is no deterrent in the new

amendments brought forward by the Solicitor General that would deter anyone from killing a second time. Under this amendment at least there would be a deterrent if the person has previously been convicted of second degree murder, because it means in effect that instead of having a 15-year sentence he will have added to that at least a further 25 year sentence.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have given serious consideration to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). It is my opinion that we should accept the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: After examining it in detail I think the member makes a good point when he says that more properly this is the type of crime which fits in with first degree murder. I must say I have had other representations supporting his amendment. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) have supported this type of amendment.
I have met with the leaders of the Solicitor General's component of the PSAC, that is, the guards' union, and they feel that the penalty for a second murder should be a tougher penalty. They would have preferred capital punishment, but they would support something that goes in that direction.
So far as I am concerned this is a free vote situation and I am ready to recommend that we support this amendment to make second murders, whether they be first or second degree murders, considered as first degree murders and subject to tougher penalties under these provisions. I urge that we accept this amendment. I do not know whether we can accept it right now or not, but if we can I would be willing to do so.


John Douglas Reynolds: On a point of order, I just want to make sure that we are only talking about motion No. 12, not motion No. 13.


William Warren Allmand: I was simply talking about motion No. 12 dealing with second murders. Even though motion No. 12 is joined with motion No. 13, I am not proposing we accept motion No. 13, because it would delete clause 4 altogether. I am prepared to accept the amendment but not the deletion.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) intends to debate motion No. 13, because in effect he would be seeking to defeat the amendment which the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) finds acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding that motions Nos. 12 and 13 are grouped for debate but will be voted on separately, and everyone is agreed on that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the only thing I was trying to point out is that if motion No. 13
July 6, 1976

seeks to delete clause 4, by deleting clause 4 in effect we are defeating the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) and thus we are at cross-purposes. We see two members of the same party at cross-purposes.


John Douglas Reynolds: This is a free vote in the House, and there are also members on the other side who are at cross-purposes in this debate. The vote on motion No. 12 would come before the vote on motion No. 13. If the Solicitor General wants to approve motion No. 12, that is fine with me, but I would still go ahead with motion No. 13. My point of order was only to ask whether we would dispose of the vote on motion No. 12 right now because we have agreement. If the Solicitor General is willing, we would not put up speakers and we could pass it right now by unanimous consent and proceed to motion No. 13.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I wonder if I could speak on the same point of order and indicate to the House why I desire a vote to be held in spite of what the Solicitor General says on motion No. 12. We are dealing with a free vote, or what is supposed to be a free vote. I suggest that in any event we have a vote on my motion. Simply because the Solicitor General accepts it does not mean that it would be accepted by all members of the House. We have indicated that the votes would take place at another time and therefore I, and I hope other members, intend to stand when the question is put. May I suggest, Sir, to assist the debate, that you put the question on motion No. 12 now, which would help in cutting down the debating time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the same point of order may I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you put the question now and that you call for the yeas and nays. If there are any nays then a vote would seem to be in order, but if it is unanimous, perhaps the hon. member would not press for an additional vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, June 29, 1976, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You cannot vote against your own amendment.
Capital Punishment


Mr. O'Sullivan:: The Solicitor General cannot speak for the whole party.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I can and I will.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, although we were supposed to debate these two motions together, to see the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) agree to the amendment of my colleague, and I suggest that we only asked for a recorded vote because it is a free vote in the House and we want to ensure that every member's name is on the record. As the parliamentary secretary said, it may seem that we are at cross-purposes in debating the deletion of clause 4 at this point, but I do not think we are in fact. My colleague's amendment is somewhat of a victory in that if we had not put up a fight in the House over the bill, this amendment would not have been possible. We would have done what the government wanted from the start. We would have rushed the votes through the House and the bill would have gone through not in its best form.
My reason for putting forward this amendment to delete clause 4 is that I feel the whole clause should be deleted. Although my colleague would vote for his motion at the start, he will vote for mine when it comes up to delete the whole clause because we think it would be better than the first motion to which the Solicitor General agreed.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I might change my mind like you did.


John Douglas Reynolds: As a retentionist I do not see how he can do otherwise but support the amendment I am proposing because it deletes clause 4. As it stands, section 214 of the Code reads as follows:
(1)	murder is punishable by death or is punishable by imprisonment for life.
(2)	murder is punishable by death in respect of any person, where such person by his own act caused or assisted in causing the death of
(a)	a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties, or
(b)	a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, goaler, guard or other officer or permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties,
or counselled or procured another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing the death.
(3)	All murder other than murder punishable by death is punishable by imprisonment for life.
I suggest to any of the retentionists on the other side that clause 4 in the new bill totally eliminates this protection for police officers or prison guards. Although I stress that I am in favour of retention of capital punishment for all people guilty of first degree murder, I agree with the proposal that people guilty of second murders be considered guilty of first degree murder.
We have to deal with this bill part by part because it is a free vote in the House and each member has to vote according to his conscience. There may be some members of the House who do not want capital punishment for all first degree murders, but I know that there are some abolitionists who are prepared to support this amendment because they agree we should have capital punishment for

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
anybody who kills prison guards or policemen while in the course of their duties. I hope I will receive the support of the abolitionists who do not believe we should have total abolition.
The Solicitor General has had numerous letters and briefs from various groups across the country, from police forces and from penitentiary officials who are concerned that their lives will be in greater danger if this bill is passed. I have had letters from people who ask why we have capital punishment only for murderers of policemen and prison guards. I agree it should be for everybody convicted of first degree murder. This is a law which has not been carried out and, as a result, we have put some policemen and prison guards in great danger.
The government chose to ignore the statistics put out by the Department of the Solicitor General covering the period between 1961 and 1974, which is a period in which we have virtually had abolition, although the government has twice passed bills which called for capital punishment for the murderers of policemen and prison guards. I think anyone involved in crime knows that this has been an abolitionist country for a long time, and that is one of the reasons we have such a serious crime problem today.
Between 1961 and 1974 the statistics show that there were six convicted murderers charged with murder after their first conviction. All six were initially convicted of non capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In four of these cases the offenders were charged with a second murder which was committed in prison. That in itself points out one of the problems we will have if we end up with people spending 25 years in jail. Granted, they would have a chance of getting out after 15 years, but many of them will not because of the types of crimes they will have committed.
I cannot see the gentlemen who killed the policemen in Moncton, the two gentlemen who viciously murdered the RCMP officer in Surrey, British Columbia, the man who killed the policeman in Delta in my riding-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: And in St. Boniface.


John Douglas Reynolds: -or, as the whip for the Liberal party says, the man in St. Boniface, getting an opportunity of getting out after 15 years. There are many vicious types of murder, and the amendment put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) was a good one. I supported it, members of my party and members of the Liberal party supported it. That amendment proposed that after 15 years serious offenders should go before a judge and jury, rather than just the Parole Board, to decide when they can get out. I find it hard to believe that a jury would allow these people out of jail. Juries would make sure that most of these people stay there. That means a real problem for the people who have to work in the penitentiaries because these offenders will have to be controlled.
If hon. members have been to a penitentiary like the B.C. penitentiary and talked to people like Bruce and Lucas, or even watched what they do-I do not think one needs to meet them to know what kind of people they are-they will realize the problem we will have in this country if we abolish capital punishment and do not protect our prison 
guards especially. I think they should be protected even more than policemen because they are stuck inside institutions with people who will have no other recourse but, if they get a chance to escape, to take it, and when they get outside the institutions, they will take hostages, and we will have situations like the one in Calgary. In that case an escapee took his own life, and I do not feel very sorry about that at all. He had a choice to make. He knew he could either kill some people there and probably still not get away with it because he was surrounded, or he could take his own life. He asked for drugs and took his own life so he would not have to go back to jail. That is the type of situation we will have, but not everyone will have the conscience of the fellow in Calgary who took his own life. Some of them may take a few people with them, and if this clause of the bill were deleted we would be much better off.
I do not like to read things in this debate, but there have been a number of briefs sent to the Solicitor General by various police associations across the country. I think some of them were better prepared than others, but I would like to put on the record the brief sent in by the Calgary Police Association because the Calgary police have had some direct experience with some of these people. This brief is a good cross section of all the briefs which were sent in by other police associations. The Calgary Police Association brief starts by saying:
We appreciate the complexity of dealing with the problem of increased violent crime, and we sincerely empathize with the government's attempts to come to grips with satisfactory solutions. We would, nevertheless, like to raise several questions with the proposed legislative changes as contained in the bill. Our view of the issue "capital punishment", as we are certain it is of the government spokesmen and people in general, is couched with concern for providing community security, while at the same time, doing so without posing serious or unjust punishment on those who behave criminally irresponsible.
Their next heading is "Is the Death Penalty a Deterrent?" The brief goes on:
The death penalty, say its opponents, is no deterrent.
How can this be?
It is not being used. In Canada, since December 11, 1962, there has been no death sentence carried out, and yet there have been hundreds of innocent lives taken by the hands of violent criminals. Each murder was followed by a fair and open trial and due consideration for the rights of the accused person. If the Salk vaccine were given the same kind of test, there surely would be no cure for the dread scourge of polio today. One thing for certain-the death penalty is a deterrent to the criminal who is executed. He will not murder again and since in excess of 70 percent of serious crimes are committed by repeaters, a second offender may possibly have been deterred.
Then they discuss the public debate on capital punishment as follows:
Once again the matter of the death penalty is a matter of national concern. There are many different opinions and views being bandied about on this important subject. The question confronting people everywhere is this-Is it ever morally right for the government to take the life of a human being for his flagrant disobedience to the law, ie.-for a crime involving him in a capital offense?
Let it be said at once that the reason that we have so many varied and diverse opinions, such an endless number of opposing views, so many arguments for and against capital punishment, so many pros and cons of debate-the reason, we say is there is little or no leadership being shown over the past twenty years in the punishment and treatment of the violent criminal.
In both Canada and the United States there are several forms of perverted thinking. One of these is in regard to sex and another is in
July 6, 1976

regard to the punishment and treatment of criminal offenders. There seems to be a mass mania to be lenient and loose in both these directions. Laws and judges and juries take sides with the criminal and continually disregard the criminal's victim.
In preparing this submission, we came upon the most illuminating paragraph from the American Bar Association, an association of lawyers speaking on behalf of all American judges at a meeting some fifty years ago. Here is that echo from former and better days: "When, for the gratification of their appetites, or the promotion of their interests, lawyers, bankers, politicians, social leaders, both men and women, disobey and scoff at all law, they are siding with the cause of anarchy and promoting mob violence, robbery and murder; they are sowing dragon's teeth; and they need not be surprised when they find no judicial or police authority can save our country or humanity from reaping the harvest."
Contrast this quotation from the American Bar Association with the amazing statements made by the former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, U.S.A., when appearing before Congress in July, 1968-Mr. Clark urged Congress to repeal the death sentence for federal crimes. Mr. Clark assured Congress that crime would go away or greatly reduce when all men learned to love one another. Mr. Clark mentioned "love" several times during his discourse, but could not predict when this happy state would arrive, however, one step toward hastening it would be to abolish capital punishment he suggested.
But to eliminate capital punishment, strict, just, effective and quick punishment for those humans who show they want no part of love and understanding-is to lay helpless, the meek, the kind, the decent and the law abiding, to the brutal twisted acts of the criminal.
Let us for a moment, travel to the promised land, California, U.S.A., and the eve of the defeat of Governor Edmund "Pat" Brown at the hands of Ronald Reagan, December, 1966. Governor Brown carried out his last major act-he commuted the death sentence of 9 men to "life without parole". Their records would fill these pages.
Later, in the same day, he again changed their new status to "life with possibility of parole".
Should this proposed bill pass and become law, the same thing will happen in Canada in 1976 through virtue of Section 25(1) (2) (3) (4). Page 12 and 13 of Bill C-84.
There are presently a number of people who are awaiting the outcome of this discussion to know what their future holds. They were all tried in an open court with all of their rights protected and have been found guilty of murder punishable by death.
What then is their fate? Will cabinet again flaunt the spirit and intent of a law of Parliament, or will they engineer one large "coup" and make all elected members part of their conspiracy?
The Association then asks, "what kind of homicide should be punishable by death?" and goes on:
What then is the kind of homicide that should be punished by death? Someone has put it this way; murder is the direct result of the unlawful plan leading to the death of another innocent person; or when another person dies as the result of another attempting to fulfill his desires, such as stealing, rape and other sex crimes.
Under the heading "Capital Punishment as a Deterrent" the brief continues:
Let no one confuse or use a pile of unreliable statistics or insufficient figures and factors when attempts are made to prove that the punishment of crime has no deterring effect. Chief Justice Taft, former President of the United States, said:
"I think the abolition of capital punishment is a mistake. It is a
deterrent for crimes of bloody violence. I have on hand more testimonials from criminals who said-I would not risk the rope".
The next heading is "How Do we View the Proposed Bill?" and the brief states:
(a)	We are opposed to the abolition of capital punishment.
(b)	The taking of any innocent life should be punishable by death.
(c)	We endorse the description of first or second degree murder as outlined in Section 214(1) (2) (3) (4) (5), Pages 3 and 4 of the proposed bill.
Capital Punishment
(d)	We endorse the intention of improved staff training and increased safeguards for maximum security institutions.
(e)	We believe the proposed bill will place prison guards and other prisoners in danger, by allowing the offender to remain alive.
The brief concludes:
In searching for a suitable method of concluding this submission what better authority could be found than the Honourable Ernest C. Manning, former Premier of Alberta and now a member of the Senate: "In this respect it is evident in society today, a strange and indefensible inconsistency. Many of those who are the most vocal in demanding the abolition of the death penalty because they hold it is morally wrong to put a murderer to death, are frequently the same people who are the champions of abortion on demand. In other words, they argue that it is morally right to destroy the life of an unborn innocent child, but it is morally wrong to exact the death penalty in the case of a murderer who has deliberately taken the life of another human being".
Let's put the blame where it belongs-on the lawbreaker.
Respectfully submitted, Calgary Police Association
I must still comment about the fact that we did not hear witnesses at committee. This type of brief, which is one of hundreds that members of parliament have received comes from people who should have been before the committee to put their views forward so that the media and the people of the country would be aware of them. Briefs like this never reach the pages of the newspapers to show what the feelings of the people are who are in the front line.
Sometimes I think that the bureaucracy, the people who get involved in making the laws, do not know what is happening in the field. I do not think the Solicitor General has gone out and listened to the people under his control. Certainly the RCMP, people in the penitentiaries, and people in the security field, have a totally opposite view to his on this issue.
I should like to repeat a quotation I used in the debate on second reading. In a book he wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated:
I found it unacceptable that others should claim to know better than I what was good for me.
If he thought that at one time in his life, now that a majority of the country is totally opposed to what he is trying to do, can he expect the country to believe in him? Now he is asking the Canadian people to accept what he thinks is right for the country and I do not think they will.
The tremendous amount of mail which has arrived in the last few days shows that people are disgusted that parliament would pass a bill to which the majority of Canadians are totally opposed. The government can take a stand on an issue where the country is split down the middle, but in a situation like this the government is opposing the views of the majority who want some form of capital punishment.
I am prepared to compromise, Mr. Speaker. In the last two or three votes taken in this House on this issue we brought in compromise law. People knew there was no way an abolition bill would pass the House so they compromised. I wonder why, when there is close to two years left in the life of the present law, the government saw fit to bring in this bill. Why did it not carry out the law it voted for which ensured the protection of prison guards and

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
policemen? That law has been in effect ever since the Prime Minister has been leader of this country and certainly since the Solicitor General has held that post, yet they have not upheld the law. A number of executions have been stayed for a long time. Instead of trying to rush this bill through the House now why not delay third reading of the bill until the fall and stay those executions to the end of the year? It bothers me that the government wants to rush this through. The fact that it accepted the amendment of my colleague today is an indication that it should not be rushed through the House.
Those of us who decided we would stay here and fight some of the clauses of this bill to try to bring members of the House closer to the ideas and feelings of the people of this nation, were right. The people of Canada are going to remember, even if we should lose, that some changes have been made to improve the bill a little bit. Perhaps we are optimistic in thinking we might get some other clauses of the bill changed and that there would be some form of capital punishment for crimes committed in this country.
The Solicitor General circulated a letter from the family of a policeman who had been killed which said that they did not believe in capital punishment. Some of the letters of this type that we received are pretty strongly worded. I have a letter here from a Barbara Irwin whose husband was murdered in 1972 in metropolitan Toronto. It is worth putting this letter on the record so that people who read Hansard will see it. Not too many people have an opportunity of seeing what the wives and families of policemen who were killed have to say about the situation. The letter, addressed to the Solicitor General of Canada, reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Allmand:
I would like to voice my opinion on capital punishment, being the widow of the late Detective Michael Irwin who was with Metro Toronto police department. My husband was slain in the line of duty with Detective Doug Sinclair on February 27, 1972.
I have discussed this subject with my family and can speak on behalf of myself and my family. We all feel capital punishment should be brought back-not only for policemen.
I would like to refresh people's memories on our traumatic experience. When my husband was slain, the man who took his life was also slain, so I feel our opinion as a family is not revengeful.
My late husband and myself raised our children to respect humanity and what belongs to them. If they do harm to someone or something then they should expect to be harmed in the same way.
I am sure if your wife or children were raped or murdered you would not question bringing back capital punishment.
The cost to the taxpayer to keep this man in jail is far more than they pay the murdered victim's family.
We have one of the finest police forces, but I feel we won't have this reputation if capital punishment is abolished.
Why should these men put their lives on the line, to have their family's taxes keep the murderers in jail for 15 or 25 years?
I do not understand how parliament can say it is not a deterrent.
I have raised my children to be good citizens and respect the law by setting a good example.
The government should set a good example by showing they have some gumption, by making the murderers pay the price with their lives. One rotten apple is destroyed before it destroys the whole bushel. It should be the same in society.
I trust my opinion will be as valued as Pauline Maitland's. I am also a widow of a slain policeman and my family and I reside in Canada.
Sincerely, Barbara Irwin
It is signed also by three of her children.
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite finished so may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I had used most of my allotted time before the supper break. I wish to say one or two more things in support of my reasons for wanting to delete clause 4 of the bill. Before supper I quoted a letter written by Mrs. Barbara Irwin whose husband was killed in Toronto in 1972. May I at this time put on record a letter which Kathy Flannery, daughter of the late detective Michael Irwin, sent to Syd Brown, president of the Metro Police Association. She said:
Dear Mr. Brown:
I for one am very much in favour of capital punishment. Being the mother of a new baby, I feel I have more worries now than ever. I would like a little reassurance that when my child grows up, she will not have to put up with such a permissive society.
My daughter will be raised to the best of my ability to honour and respect the law and if she should do anything to break the law, she will have to pay severely for it.
I would not like to think that by the time my child is old enough to go out alone, that people such as Kevin Willden are back on the streets.
Perhaps if Mr. Warren Allmand or Mr. Pierre Trudeau saw the decomposed body of little Lisa Kowalski and put themselves in the shoes of her family, they would change their minds. Why take the risk that this could happen again?
I think that letter reflects the feelings of many in Canada. The feelings of such letter writers, of people whose relatives or friends are actively involved in the police force or work as prison guards, might be somewhat stronger than those of average Canadians, although I doubt it. Judging from the mail which members of parliament get, and the result of the Gallup poll-a poll which some people like to ignore in election times but which always comes within a few percentage points of showing the actual feelings of Canadians-the majority of Canadians want some form of capital punishment retained in this country. I think the majority feel that prison guards especially, and policemen, deserve special treatment.
Surveys I have conducted in my riding show that most people are in favour of capital punishment. The great preponderance of people want capital punishment retained at least for the offence known in this bill as first degree murder. I hope some abolitionists in this House will agree with us, show their support by the way they vote on this motion and thereby retain capital punishment for the murderers of policemen and prison guards. I should like to see the penalty retained for all who commit first degree murder but am prepared to accept a compromise if the majority of the members of this House feel it is necessary.
I shall close by quoting what a United States judge said some years ago about deterrence:

July 6, 1976

The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships that the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down.
Those words are appropriate to this bill. I hope we shall not tear our system down by abolishing capital punishment for the offences mentioned.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of amendment No. 13 to Bill C-84. This amendment modifies Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code, by eliminating clause 4, and I believe it is one of the most important amendments to be discussed today. Four amendments have already been passed by the House. We are now discussing the fifth of 29. This is encouraging, and in my opinion the House will be able to adjourn in a month.
I believe that motion No. 13 is the most important of the amendments since it concerns the safety of policemen and prison guards. I have already talked about this during the other debates that we have had on capital punishment, but today I have realized, Mr. Speaker, that there is a considerable difference between section 4 in its present form and what the minister wants us to adopt.
The amendment reads as follows:
214. (1) Murder is punishable by death or is punishable by imprisonment for life.
(2)	Murder is punishable by death, in respect of any person, where such person by his own act caused or assisted in causing the death of
(a)	a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties, or
(b)	a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, gaoler, guard or other officer or permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties,
or counselled or procured another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing the death.
(3)	All murder other than murder punishable by death is punishable by imprisonment for life.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the amendment which had been suggested during the last discussion had been accepted by the then minister who was the present Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). I wonder why, since Parliament had agreed to this amendment, today, without consulting anyone, since the government has refused completely to have witnesses appear before the standing committee of the House, we are presented with a new bill that I consider completely ridiculous.
First, they start by categorizing murders. So we would now have first and second degree murders, probably ending up with third, fourth and fifth degree murders. So murders are going to be classified.
I now read the proposal before us:
214. (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.
(2)	Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.
(3)	Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), murder is planned and deliberate when it is committed pursuant to an arrangement under which money or anything of value passes or is intended to pass from one person to another, or is promised by one person to another, as consideration for that other's causing or assisting in causing
Capital Punishment
the death of anyone or counselling or procuring another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing that death.
And further down, under subclause 4, the existing statute is somewhat altered as follows:
(4)	Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder when the victim is
(a)	a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties;
(b)	a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, gaoler, guard or other officer or a permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties; or
(c)	a person working in a prison with the permission of the prison authorities and acting in the course of his work therein.
And finally, in subclause 5, the minister deals with the matter of aircraft hijacking that should have been included of course in the first amendments to the statute, that is amendments introduced this afternoon concerning piracy. However, this subclause deals with hijacking, kidnapping and sexual offences. Mr. Speaker, I would like to limit myself this evening to the matter of subclause 4 dealing with the murder of peace officers, sheriffs and prison guards.
As always the minister was very careful to put aside any conclusion contained in the previous act, that is to say that he ends up with life imprisonment as punishment.
This afternoon, while we were discussing motion No. 12, we heard a speaker introduce the motion, which would add a clause saying that if a prisoner who committed murder escapes or commits another murder, he can be given more severe punishment. The Solicitor General jumped to his feet, of course, to support that proposal. I wonder what more severe punishment he has in mind, when he says in his bill that first degree murderers will be sentenced to life imprisonment. It seems to me that the punishment that is more severe than life imprisonment is the death penalty. But he does not go beyond that. Yet, this afternoon, he said to us: we will give him a more severe sentence; but what punishment is that? What does he mean by more severe? Now, the amendment is ridiculous, stark ridiculous! When someone has really been condemned, I take the words to the letter, when they say after all that the maximum penalty will be life imprisonment and he tries to have us believe that there will be a penalty more severe than that, but what kind of a penalty is it? Another life imprisonment? And if the criminal commits a third murder, it will probably be a third life imprisonment? It gets so funny Mr. Speaker, that it is ridiculous.
I simply declare that the whole population cannot admit such a bill in the present circumstances. I think the minister, as all the others, has certainly received reports from police officers and prison guards. He received letters of opposition as we have received reports in which we are given the same percentage of the number of police officers who are opposed to Bill C-84.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand at all how the minister can interpret his bill. He declares he is here to adopt laws which will protect the public and he is going to let the murderers absolutely free after a few years, and as I said this morning, I do not believe in these 25-year and 10-year sentences, as I did not believe him when he assured the House, during the last few years, that he was going to execute those who would kill police officers or prison

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
guards. Dozens of police officers or prison guards have been killed, but what about the executions? How many executions during the last 10 years? Is this minister sincere? And we do keep this minister. He promised that he would submit his resignation if the bill was defeated and I heartily hope that the bill will be defeated so that he can disappear forever.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Solicitor General is rising on a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: I do not want to intervene prematurely but I should like to ask Your Honour to enforce the rule of relevancy. We are now discussing motion No. 13, which is a motion to strike clause 4. Clause 4 deals merely with the classification of murder. This afternoon we disposed of motion No. 12, the amendment respecting first and second degree murder.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to differ with the opinion of the Solicitor General but he has just come into the House. I have been listening to the hon. member's contribution, and 99 per cent of his remarks up until now have been directly related to the clause the motion seeks to delete. Perhaps he did go off the subject for a second or two, but he should be given enough time to return to the subject matter of the bill which he has treated so well up until now.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I always thought that you had a sense of justice and I am satisfied that you realized, as we did, that the minister does not know much about order, he brings disorder, how can he know whether he is consistent with the Standing Orders or if another member acts similarly?
Now, I come back to my subject. I was earlier speaking about clause 4, which deals with police officers and prison guards. If he has not read all the reports, I am going to read to him a few paragraphs of the report of the Police Chiefs Association of Canada. This will probably refresh his memory or he might learn something if he has not read this report.
I have the feeling he does not read any of those. He is one-track minded and goes straight in the direction in which he looks and I even wonder if he looks where he goes. So I quote:
The Police Chiefs Association of Canada studies with great interest the debate concerning capital punishment and we want to assure everyone that we have the same respect for the views of both abolitionists and retentionists ...
Do you realize their impartiality? There is no racism in all this.
In the briefs we already presented on that subject, we have clearly stated our position in favour of capital punishment...
Hear, hear!
... and at this time a discussion of the pros and cons would only bore you.

However, we wish to mention that so far one speech mentions our recommendation to create a committee of people representing the executive, the legislative and the judiciary to study in depth the permanent banishing of an offender and some alternatives.
Mr. Speaker, when we refer to permanent banishment, I am not sure if the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) knows that it means. Permanent banishment means capital punishment, to use the right words.
The current alternative advocated in Bill C-84 is not the result of considerable thought and is nothing but a deceptive palliative aimed at making us accept the abolition of capital punishment. This statement is mostly based on the comments made by the hon. Warrent Allmand ...
-this has to be the Solicitor General-
... in an April 8 address before the John Howard Society when that question was put to him. He said that a 25-year imprisonment sentence was too harsh but that we should first eliminate capital punishment and then direct our efforts toward reducing that imprisonment term.
It has been his idea, his obsession for ten years. It is not something new, this has been his target for ten years ever since I have known him in the House.
Such a philosophy greatly worries us because even if the full period of imprisonment in Bill C-84 did apply, it implies a much more serious threat for our society and particularly for the guards of our institutions. In view of this philosophy ...
Some people call this a "whim".
... we submit that the minimum sentence of 25 years as proposed in Bill C-84 is a blatant misrepresentation, considering that for all practical purposes an individual would have the right to make an application for a reduction once he has served the first 15 years.


An hon. Member:: Fifteen years should be enough.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Yes, it should be enough. He is going to serve only five years and sometimes only three.
We also think that a minimum sentence of 10 years in some cases where life is taken is much too severe comparatively to the odious individual who only thinks of killing for money.
This is what we call hired assassins. It is for them and not for those who kill by accident that the law applies, of course. I wonder whether the minister is not now protecting these hired assassins.
Even if we retain capital punishment, the traditional commutation would have the same effect.
Considering that as spokesmen for the police forces in Canada, we have a knowledge of criminals which is available to very few people outside our profession, we regard it as our duty to express our deepest concern to you, our M.P.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that you are about to interrupt me. I believe my 20 minutes have come to an end but all the same I shall finish reading my letter another time. I shall have other opportunities to talk about those problems, for I have indeed five or six major issues to put forward to the House. During the forthcoming days which will be very enlightening for the people, I want the public to know what is going on, what the Solicitor General thinks of capital punishment and what he is trying to force down on them.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly in this debate on behalf of policemen and prison guards in the context of this bill. I believe they deserve special consideration because of the special kind of work that they perform.
July 6, 1976

If capital punishment does not exist for the killing of a policeman or prison guard, the prisoner serving a life sentence who attempts to escape has no deterrent to restrain him from killing a policeman or a guard in the course of that escape. He knows the only penalty he will receive is a continuation of that life sentence. This is obviously no penalty at all. I believe the penalty for killing a policeman or a prison guard should be capital punishment because that is the only deterrent to committing murder during an attempted escape from prison. Therefore I intend to support this amendment.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I spoke on previous amendments, once yesterday and once today, and I make no secret of the fact that I am really not prepared to speak on this amendment in the way I would like, though I must take issue with the government's position in this bill as it affects the security of police officers, prison guards, and people who are in danger of falling victim to contract killing.
Just over a year ago, 13 months, there were 15 people held hostage in the penitentiary at New Westminster. I know that at least one of those hostages was a constituent of mine. He was held as a hostage, together with others, for several days by men who have no convictions and no compunction in respect of human life. Last February there was another hostage taken at this same penitentiary by two of the same prisoners. Another constituent of mine was held at knife point by the same people. I met that constituent just a few weeks ago and found he was still not working after having been released on sick leave since February.
It seems to me we owe something to the men and women across Canada who are willing to place their lives in jeopardy for the security of others. We owe them at least protection from those who have no sense of value for human life.
Not too far from where I live there was a contract killing a few years ago. The price of that contract was $200. That is the price some of these people place on human life. If that is the kind of society we are willing to protect through this legislation, we have become bankrupt. We must re-evaluate our position on this matter.
The people in this House who are protecting those who have absolutely no sense of value for human life will be guilty when prison guards and police officers become the victims of future murderers. I am in complete agreement with those officers who are sending letters to those who voted for the abolition of the death penalty. I am in complete agreement with their position, that those people who voted for the abolition of the death penalty for the killing of police officers and prison guards should be held responsible for the deaths of future policemen and prison guards who are murdered.


An hon. Member:: You tell them, Benno.


Benno Friesen: I am, if you will only listen. If you will not listen to me, please listen to your constituents.


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


Benno Friesen: Some 80 per cent of the people in Canada agree with what I am saying today.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Benno Friesen: That hon. member will hide behind the cloak of self-righteousness and say he is voting on the basis of his conscience. I would ask that hon. member whether the 80 per cent of the voters in his constituency do not have consciences. He chooses to ignore that 80 per cent. I suggest it is nothing short of a dictatorship when a minority rules the majority. That hon. member will have to account to his constituents the next time they get a chance to make a decision in respect of their representation in this House.


An hon. Member:: That's a joke.


Benno Friesen: That is no joke, and anybody who can be flippant on this subject deserves to be re-examined by his constituents. We need some sober second thought about this clause. I intend to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), and I would hope that other members, as we just heard from the previous speaker, will also re-evaluate their positions and realize what they are doing to the peace officers of this country. I hope they will vote in support of this amendment in order to protect those police officers and prison guards who are working to protect us.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). Let me bring to the attention of the government some of the problems it will have to face if this amendment is not accepted.
Prison guards and policemen in this country are very disappointed over what parliament did a few days ago. They are now reviewing their positions in terms of the kind of work they are doing. Contrary to the Anti-Inflation Board policies, there will be only one way in which these people will remain in their jobs, and that is if the government is to come up with enough money to keep them. Certainly money is not everything, but some of these people may remain at their jobs if they are sufficiently well paid. Perhaps even then some police departments across the country will be able to recruit new staff. If I were a young man graduating from school at this time in 1976 the last job I would want to look at, no matter what it paid, would be the job of a policeman or prison guard.
The law as it existed before the vote did in fact provide a deterrent. Notwithstanding that the government did not live up to its own law, many of those who might have committed murder thought they might be hanged. They thought "the government did not hang the last fellow but they might hang me."
If I were convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to prison for 25 years with little hope of parole, and if I happened to be somewhere around 20 years of age that would mean I would be 45 or 50 when I got out, the uppermost thing in my mind would be how to get away for six or seven days of freedom. Circumstances might arise during my incarceration in which I would only have to deal viciously with one or two prison guards. Perhaps I

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
could overcome them and obtain seven or eight days' freedom before I was caught again and returned to prison to continue serving the 25 years, or another 25 years for having committed another murder. That would only worsen the situation, because the minute I went back to that prison I would start thinking again of how to get out for another eight or ten days.
Let me say in all seriousness that I think it is terrible and disgraceful that the minister, who is so adamant and so vehement in his position that hanging must be abolished for all kinds of crime in this country, is not in this House to listen to some of the speakers on this side who have very serious and legitimate concerns. If we are really responsible parliamentarians I think it is our job to do all we can to ensure that the government at least sees a little sense in what it is doing.
We have the question, with regard to law in Canada, of whether or not we should be going as far as we are. Should we be as lenient as we are in terms of what is happening all around the world? I remember the day when the use of the lash was abolished. What is wrong with the lash in the view of any citizen who lives in accordance with the law? All I am saying is that we should use it for sexual offenders, for people who continually commit crimes against society. It is a deterrent as much as hanging is a deterrent in respect of the commission of a crime against a policeman or prison guard. I say in all seriousness the government once again should take a look at this before this matter comes to a vote.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on capital punishment I have felt constrained to make a contribution on each motion, not for the sake of getting my name in Hansard-any member can do that at any time-but with a very deep seated concern over the direction of this country and the direction or the path our government is taking in the face of overwhelming public opinion. My concerns are no less, indeed perhaps no greater, for the safety of police, prison guards, and all those associated with that particular group that helps maintain law and order in our society. I have no wish to give them a special category, but the criminal element has elected to give the police and prison guards a special category.
I recall recently after the result of the vote on second reading the response of two murderers in Oakalla prison in New Westminster who said, "Great stuff, a guard a day". That, Sir, is the attitude of the hardened criminal. That is the attitude of those individuals who have no hope for redemption, absolutely none; who have absolutely no concern for law and order and who place no value on human life except their own.
We had the example some 18 months ago on the lower mainland of those two murderers who said that their kick that night, their pleasure, distorted as it may be, was to go out and get a cop. Mr. Speaker, let it be on the record, for the continuing respect of the RCMP and the control they demonstrated at the time of the capture of these two murderers within a matter of an hour or two, that they did not shoot them on the spot having witnessed the murder of a brother officer. What fear have these men; what fear do 
these murderers have? Are they concerned about a sentence of 25 years in prison? Many of them have spent almost that much time in prison on a variety of other charges involving crimes against society.
The public cries out in frustration over the attitude of the government on the subject of abolition. I can readily accept the concerns of those who voted for abolition and the manner in which they have had to agonize over this issue, as well as the pressures to which they have been subjected by their constituents. I recognize and respect these concerns, but I cannot respect anyone in this House who would vote for abolition for the sake of appeasing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: I shall not point the finger, but if there be a member in this House-


An hon. Member:: Who told you that?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, the honourable noise from the opposite side will have his opportunity to contribute to the debate when he has something sensible to say. Let me continue.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, would you like to interject and quieten down the rabble on the government side of the House so that I can continue to contribute something sensible to this debate? I wish it clearly understood that I am not about to point the finger at any one member. I say hopefully that over there sitting in this House tonight there is not a member who, because he had his eye on the post of a parliamentary secretary or a cabinet ministership, changed his vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: I know of the agonies that have existed in the minds of the abolitionists who have made a substantial contribution in this House in so many other ways and yet whose constituents feel they have been let down. I believe that is unfortunate. I can think at the moment of one of my goods friends, a member of this House of many years standing. I must say with respect that I have forgotten the name of the member's riding. It is a Halifax riding. This member has contributed for more than a decade to the decision-making process in Parliament. I believe it is decidely unfair that a member such as this should be vilified by his constituents, be they one, a dozen or 100. Nevertheless I would hope that members of this particular persuasion would consider the impact of this particular amendment, and of one or two other amendments that have been presented in respect of Bill C-84 concerning capital punishment. I hope they will consider the impact this will have on the Canadian community. They should at least realize, or a least give credence to the fact that when we declare open season on the police and prison guards it is a sad day for Canada.
Let the Canadian people know, let my constituents know from the record that I heartily support the proposed
July 6, 1976

amendment that clause 4 be withdrawn and that capital punishment apply to those who have set out to murder the very men who protect our lives in this House and on the streets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on these amendments-


An hon. Member:: Then don't, sit down.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: -the main reason being that I had done the anguishing that the hon. member mentioned at the time of voting on the bill in principle and I did not think that any amendments would do anything else but cause me the same anguish and cause me to come up with the same conclusion. Now on this particular amendment I find it necessary to say something because of my personal experiences and also because of the references of at least six members of the opposition concerning the situation.
I thought I had indicated in my earlier speeches my absolute respect for people holding the retentionist view and my honest presumption that they hold the retentionist view because they think it would improve the situation. I hold the abolitionist view for the same reason, and I would normally expect the same kind of respect. I will not indulge in any remarks that I feel offended sometimes- and this is only a human foible-when innuendoes are made, but I will get down to the point and let those hon. members who wish make the innuendoes do so. Let me get down to the point at hand.
Since this was part of the previous law, I had to deal with the fact that unexpectedly I would have to take a plane to Moncton and attend the funeral of the two policemen whom I knew so well. The two gentlemen had worked so hard with youth and were so well known in minor football circles that the police force itself each year purchased for them a ticket to the $100 a plate dinner where all the funds were raised for amateur sports in that area. I happened to have been the guest speaker at each one of those dinners and so was vitally involved in this work in the city of Moncton. I stood in the cathedral and heard the archbishop say to us "God help us not to do what it would be normal for us to want to do, but help us to do what you would have us do, and so save our souls". It was not easy when you knew the young boy who had been kidnapped. It was not easy when you knew his father, his mother, and the children of the policemen. It was not unusual for someone to send you the photograph of the little boy crying over the coffin and accuse you of not caring.
So this was a calculated decision. At the risk of not ever holding another seat in this House in my life I decided that those whom I consider my brothers-and being a Presbyterian I think I might see them again-would understand me. This is my reason for voting in this fashion.
It may be old fashioned to be religious, but being a bachelor who does not have the comforts that some of you have in your homes-


Some hon. Members:: What comforts?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I still pray to my mother and father who are dead and are in heaven. Believe it or not, but you
Capital Punishment
might as well hear the truth now. There are others who have other reasons, and I respect them. There are others with great legal minds who can make decisions that I could not attempt to make. There are others who know the law backward and forward and can argue it. I am just a simple soul who comes from an ordinary world who says: I must stand now and be counted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: When I received a letter from a constituent who was particularly peturbed by the murder of those two policemen-and at that time we had not seen the bill on abolition-I replied to him in all honesty in writing that indeed if these two are convicted and if the law at that time is that they should be put to death, I will support that law.


Mr. Woolliams:: Why did you not do it then?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Because it did not occur in that order. I then had the opportunity to think on it, just as many juries do. Do not think for a second that a person like myself who has administered corporal punishment in the schools when it was considered important did not do it with a will, but sometimes when you reflect and think back, you discover that in the first year of your teaching when you used the strap in school 42 times when it was encouraged, and discovered what a poor teacher and disciplinarian you were, you never used it again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: You discovered that respect came from the students not because you were good at anything in particular but because you respected them as individuals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: When I came to parliament, I did not think I would be in this situation. I am not ashamed to say that there was a moment when I saw those policemen when I wondered whether capital punishment should be invoked. That is not an embarrassment, that is the truth. If I saw a child being molested, do you not think I would kill the other person on the spot? Do you not think I would feel that way? But six months later, sitting in a court room and thinking carefully about whether the taking of another life would serve any useful purpose, I had to think differently. That is what I am doing here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: By the same token, it is not fair to make the division between the abolitionists, the retention-ists, the parties or anything else. In one situation when a reporter telephoned me and discussed this, he made a very good story out of it which was attractive enough because six other members mentioned it. The man who wrote the story, and who thought up the tremendous idea that there might be a contradiction, was an abolitionist. First of all he was a press man, the story was important. Imagine if by any chance I was really waffling and moving back in the other direction, he would really have a great story. We do face that. Some people make as much as they can out of a situation in their own interest rather than recognizing that

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
we are making a value decision here in parliament just like a jury.
Beyond reasonable doubt you must vote in the way you believe would be the best for all concerned, and it is not necessarily a conscience vote. My vote is the best for all concerned, not just for my conscience. I really believe I vote for my constituency. I feel that if this is successful and abolition is indeed accepted, I will be able to attack more strongly any of the weaknesses which I see exist in the law which might make it more dangerous or less safe for my constituents, for the people on the streets. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is well aware of the fact there is no one side in the government on that because I will be at him like thunder that I want that kind of protection, just like thunder, and no kidding about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That is the reason I felt I should put myself on record on this matter.
I have not gone into other member's constituencies, as some people have, in order to badger them.
I have not gone on open lines and used their names at any time, although they have used mine. In my speech I did not refer to them or to one article or editorial I have read about them, as they have done about me-and I do not condemn them for that; they can do anything they want- but remember that I and many of my colleagues, who are retentionists or abolitionists, are here at this moment not just supporting the government but in a free vote saying, "This we believe we must do, and now."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to follow the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), but I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) for moving the hon. member to speak.
It has been obvious that hon. members on the government side have not been very interested in this particular stage in the legislative process.


An hon. Member:: Where is Joe?


Mitchell William Sharp: Where are all your members?


An hon. Member:: Where is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)?


An hon. Member:: Joe who?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I think the record will show that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain is the first member on the other side of the House to participate at this stage of the bill. I understand that one hon. member from the New Democratic Party was more or less goaded into participating yesterday.


Mr. Gilbert:: Persuaded.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Or persuaded. I know there are some retentionists on the Liberal side, and they are to be con-

gratulated for their political fortitude because I sincerely believe they have been under a great deal of pressure. I think it is a commentary on this so-called free vote, which I think is a snare and a delusion, that there has been so little participation by Liberal members at the report stage.
This amendment brings the bill into focus with the existing law because capital punishment for the murder of police officers and prison guards is the only form of capital punishment we have at the moment. This amendment deals with that matter.
I think it is worth while to remind hon. members at this stage that the study in committee of this legislation was really not very worth while or illuminating to hon. members who participated in that committee. I spent some time one evening in that committee, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) said that he really did not know what would happen in our penal institutions if Bill C-84 passed. There was some talk of building new and special facilities to deal with criminals of the incorrigible type who are dangerous, but he could not satisfy the committee or hon. members of this House that the approach of the government is the right one.
The minister just said we would have to wait and see. Of course he believes that his approach is the right one, but this is too serious a matter to be running a laboratory type of experiment, and it distresses me greatly that the government, which less than three years ago said that it wanted another five year period of experimentation with a limited type of capital punishment, now feels that it is very important that all stages of this major piece of legislation must be dealt with before we adjourn for the summer. In my view that in itself is an interference with the free deliberation and conclusion to be arrived at by this Chamber on this legislation.
There happens to be a penal institution in my constituency at Drumheller which has been referred to on many occasions as Eldon's house, but it has also been referred to as the crown jewel of the penitentiary system of this country. I think the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) should be congratulated for forcing the government to build that institution against all the expert advice the government was receiving as to why it would not work. With this piece of legislation the government is acting on the same type of expert advice, and we will rue the day we listened to those elitists who think they know better than the majority of Canadians.
I have heard hon. members questioning the hon. member for Kootenay West about whether 80 per cent of Canadians want the retention of capital punishment. I suppose there is no absolute way of determining the matter, but several of us have conducted surveys over the last number of years, and the figures vary from in excess of 70 per cent to in excess of 80 per cent. I believe the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion has shown that the figure is well in excess of 70 per cent. But I do not think anyone can seriously argue that the overwhelming view of Canadians is that there should be some type of capital punishment.
We hear the Burke philosophy expressed, and abolitionists can agonize all they want and bleed all over the Chamber because they are using their judgment rather than that of their constituents. I do not accept that particular philosophy of Edmund Burke. I am sympathetic to a
July 6, 1976

great deal of his thinking, but that sympathy applies to other areas. I think the people who send us here to do several things on their behalf, and when we are discussing matters such as freight rates, banking legislation or economic questions, things ordinary citizens do not have the chance to become acquainted with, they will look to us for leadership and for our judgment. After all, members of parliament have more resources at their command to help them to come to the right conclusion. However, the question of capital punishment is in no way similar to those types of questions.
When I made my speech at second reading I said that surely this is the type of question which is most suitable for a referendum. The government says there will not be a referendum because it knows its view would be rejected by Canadians at large. That is the only reason the government will not hold a referendum. It knows it would not have its way, but it is so elitist in its approach and so convinced that it knows best that it will use all the tricks at its command to make sure its will prevails in this matter.


Mitchell William Sharp: We have the support of your leader.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: That doesn't make it right at all.


Mitchell William Sharp: Does it make him wrong?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: It certainly does not make him wrong. That does not mean that the people of Canada are wrong, just because the leaders of all the parties except the Social Credit party, happen to be in cahoots in this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Look what happens on the procedural questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest that the hon. member get back to the subject of the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He was only answering the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane).


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: No, I was answering the hon. House leader who dragged in that red herring. That is another little trick he is using. He is just full of tricks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is Joe Clark a red herring?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The only thing red about Joe Clark is his hair.


John Gilbert: Joe is a red Tory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: And you have a red face.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I would not know about that. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), sitting where he does, may have a better perspective of where people fit into
Capital Punishment
the political spectrum than I do. I guess we could not be much more apart, and he has a better view.


John Gilbert: But we are still friends.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Certainly. As I was saying the Drum-heller institution is in my constituency. It has operated very well in its ten year history, but the staff of the institution is very upset. The Solicitor General has not reassured them about what the situation will be in those institutions when this bill is passed.
On the subject of policemen, Mr. Speaker, I would just repeat what I said on second reading-we should be careful that we do not find ourselves in a situation in this country where the police feel compelled to shoot first and ask questions later. That is the road I am afraid we are heading if we go along with Bill C-84. That is why I support the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) in his amendments, so that those in whom we place the most confidence to protect us and our families and all those dependent upon us in society, may feel safe. I would ask hon. members to give their support and ensure that this amendment passes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) designed to delete clause 4 of Bill C-84 is, in my opinion, extremely important.
Section 214 of the Criminal Code which was in effect in Canada since the last review of the Criminal Code provided for different kinds of murders, and at the time the House of Commons abolished the death penalty for the murder of any citizen but clearly retained it for the murder of prison guards, policemen, sheriffs or sheriff's officers.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, Parliament then suggested it was essential to support the police forces in Canada at the legal and governmental levels through a legislation stipulating that the murder of a prison guard or a policeman would be punishable by death. That is from section 214(1), (2) and (3) of the Criminal Code went.
The Solicitor General now proposes to abolish capital punishment altogether and just sets two categories of murders: premeditated murder and unpremeditated murder. In any case, the penalty remains the same-life imprisonment.
Mr. Speaker, I am not in favour of a police society. I do not believe either in a society where some kind of parallel power is given either to the armed forces or the police or the military. I believe in democratic power but I dream of a society where the rights of everyone will be respected and everyone will recognize his obligations. We know as professors, family heads, mayors or members of a provincial or a federal legislature that we can pass all the statutes we want but there will always be people who either will

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
not know them or not understand them or who will voluntarily defy them. That is why any organized society sets for itself means, limits, structures within which it must develop. That is how a system was invented for street and road traffic-traffic lights. You stop on red, you go on green, you use caution and stop on yellow. That is an essential law. It is stupid in itself but essential to the security of the public driving down the many roads of Canada and across the world. Laws of this kind for an organized society are found everywhere. As I said, Mr. Speaker, we had Criminal Code provisions calling for the death penalty for the murder of people paid with our taxes to enforce those laws whose only purpose is the protection of society. Under the old Criminal Code which imposed the death penalty to those convicted of the murder of a policeman or a prison guard, 11 persons were convicted pursuant to section 214 of the Criminal Code, and therefore, liable to the death penalty, because they deliberately attacked and killed police officers or policemen or prison guards.
These people thus deliberately broke the law, and I am not the one to say so, but the courts, the judiciary which says that they broke a law passed by Parliament. We all know that these 11 persons were shown mercy by the federal cabinet under the influence, I suppose, of the Solicitor General, this man who is so soft with criminals. And that is how, Mr. Speaker, these 11 persons are now sent to prison for life, but with the possibility of parole. I would like to say outright that what colours this debate on capital punishment is the existence of the Parole Board.
We pass a law, then the court states that a convicted person will serve for a given time, but inevitably the National Parole Board intervenes in favour of the criminal concerned and releases him, and thus the law of Parliament is twisted and so is the will of the court.
Mr. Speaker, during the second reading debate, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) argued about clause 4 of the bill. In turn 1 would like to do just that. He said that those who will vote for retention of capital punishment should think twice since they would have on their conscience the death of eleven people. I cannot do that. This is not a literal quotation but roughly the portent of what the Prime Minister said.


Mr. Bechard:: You should quote literally.


André-Gilles Fortin: If the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) is so well informed, he should have the courage to speak like a man, to stand up, rather than remain seated; otherwise, he should be so kind as to listen to me.


Albert Béchard: When one refers to someone, the reference should be made properly.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said then that those who would vote for the retention of capital punishment would have the death of these 11 criminals on their conscience.


Albert Béchard: He did not say that. Quote him properly.


An hon. Member:: But this is what he meant.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like very much the Prime Minister to tell me who has the death of at least 11 victims, the victims of these criminals, on his conscience.


Albert Béchard: Those who killed.


André-Gilles Fortin: It is funny, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about criminals here but we forget the innocents who are the victims of these criminals. Who is going to compensate these families? Who is going to protect these families, Mr. Speaker? It is not important. They do not talk about it but say that the lives of criminals must be protected, and the Prime Minister said: "I wash my hands of it, I cannot do this action, I cannot act as a hangman, let those who want to act as hangmen do this."
Mr. Speaker, since when can a government pass the buck to Parliament, when a legislation providing for the application of capital punishment for the murder of policemen, prison guards or law enforcement officers had been passed with a majority of votes? Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious situation. We pay for the maintenance of police forces with our tax money at the municipal, provincial and federal levels.
Let us suppose that tomorrow morning somebody commits armed robbery in some shop and that the police are called. Their first duty, that for which they are paid, is to go to the scene of the crime as rapidly as possible, armed, because our money is used to provide weapons for policemen to protect either the lives or the public and private property of individuals. That is the reason for the existence of police forces. It is so true that the federal government is now investing over $100 million in the Olympic Games to ensure security in case of danger or threats. On the one hand, enormous amounts of money are spent, the army is called, all the sophisticated techniques available are used, and on the other hand, when the supposed criminals are caught, they are simply released or told: You are liable to life imprisonment, which means a 25-year imprisonment with possibility of parole after 15 years.
Mr. Speaker, why would a policemen, if we adopt clause 4 as proposed by the minister, why would he go out and risk his own life to defend property which is not his own, a life that is not his and buildings which do not belong to him? Why should the law enforcement agencies intervene in a violent demonstration when the statutes of our country do not defend or support police action in Canada? Why should we, as Canadians, finance municipal, provincial or federal law enforcement agencies to protect our lives and our property if our own laws do not support them? This is why I say that the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) is valuable in the sense that it aims at ensuring that the most important democratic institution of our country, Parliament, which is supposed to reflect Canadian opinion, can protect the police.
We do not want a police society, we do not want a violent society, we do not want a society where people take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We want a society where the rules of the game are known, a society where we try to educate people as much as possible about their rights and their duties, but where we respect the laws that we pass. We have come to a point in our country where the legislation of the labour world is defied, where injunctions are
July 6, 1976

defied, where the police forces are defied; we are facing a situation of virtual anarchy.
People are worried. I have asked the following questions in my constituency: Do you approve the fact that the cabinet is changing the death sentence to life imprisonment when the Canadian judicial system has condemned the criminal to the death penalty as provided by Criminal Code section 214? This is what my own constituents, those who have shown confidence in me and who have elected me to the House, have replied: yes, 409; no, 1,885; undecided, 9; no answer, 138. This is significant. These 1,885 citizens of Lotbiniere are not violent people, they are not people who demand violence for violence. They are people who are worried about their safety. They are people who want to live in peace in their own country. They are people who want the policemen that they pay with their taxes to be able to do their work with the respect and support of the governments.
Mr. Speaker, I have asked my fellow citizens: In the case of premeditated first degree murder, would you approve the death penalty? Here is the answer: yes, 2,058; no, 274; undecided, 14; no answer, 95. I would like to note that more than 37 per cent of my fellow citizens who have received this questionnaire have answered it when a 10 per cent reaction is generally considered excellent. I have therefore received more than 39 per cent of answers, which shows how the Canadian people are worried about this situation. What we deplore is the fact that the cabinet does not respect the legislation passed by Parliament.
When we adopted Criminal Code section 214, the minister-and I remember that debate, I was sitting in the gallery-said that we would apply the death penalty in the case of murders of police officers or prison guards. Let us go back to that context. The death penalty was never applied. The cabinet found a way to bypass the wishes of the members as expressed in the House.
The minister says today that those guilty of first degree murder will be sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, which he calls "life imprisonment," and that after a 15-year period they will be eligible for parole. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe him. I claim that the criminals will be set free before the end of the 15-year period. Why? For good behaviour. I have no reason to believe the word or the good will of the Solicitor General because, Mr. Speaker if I rely on past experience, I have been deluded. I cannot believe him. If somebody could assure me that the laws voted by Parliament and dealing with the application of justice in Canada would be respected, my judgement on the application of the death penalty would probably be different. But I have no choice. This is my sole resource as a member of Parliament as I showed you by expressing the opinion of my constituents. This is my sole resource to try, with others, to ensure a minimum of security in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, no one can laugh at people forever, no one can exploit their good faith and their ignorance forever. The Olympic Games will cost more than one billion and a few million dollars of our taxes. For the Olympic Games, we are going to invest in excess of $100 million of our taxes to ensure the protection of personalities, politicians and athletes. Why do we spend $100 million to ensure the protection if, in any case, whatever crime might be committed on these premises, either piracy, high treason or
Capital Punishment
deliberate murder, we will not move to condemn the criminals? Mr. Speaker, there is a limit, if we really want order in society. The government uses the police forces and the armed forces of our country to escort athletes along the Trans-Canada Highway. In Quebec for example, they are being installed in Granby and a number of other places around Bromont. This excites people and creates an illusion that this government truly wants to ensure protection. But in fact, what are we going to do with criminals we catch, if there are any, which is not to be hoped.


An hon. Member:: Give them an Olympic medal!


André-Gilles Fortin: They probably will get an Olympic medal, if the logic of the Solicitor General is to be followed. That is totally ridiculous. Our police forces need encouragement and if clause 4 of the bill is not amended, I fear that if this government refuses to implement it, police forces will do so in the field. That probably is what will happen. Police officers called on the scene of a hold-up or violent crime will implement capital punishment to save their own lives, knowing full well that this government does not take its responsibilities. Police forces will take their own responsibilities.
Somebody told me recently that police force regulations provide that one shot shall be fired in the air as a warning before a shot can be fired at the criminal. From now on, after the Solicitor General's bill has passed, it will be one shot at the criminal and then one shot in the air, to warn him he has been fired at. That is utterly ridiculous. Either we want an organized society or we don't.
It is time we come back to earth and face facts. Mr. Speaker, the other night before the House I was talking about the taking of hostages in a Montreal schoolbus. There were then some gun shots, you will remember, and at that time, Mr. Speaker, the police stepped in. What could we read in the newspapers following that? Some public servants castigated the police for stepping in too quickly.
Mr. Speaker, that shows us how far anarchy has progressed in this country. And I repeat what I was saying earlier: I do not want to live in a police society, but I just want to live in a society where people respect one another, but in a society which punishes, governs or arrests those who do not want to obey traffic regulations. Mr. Speaker, when driving down the streets we stop on red lights and go ahead on green ones-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interruppt the hon. member but his time has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I shall not abuse the kindness of my colleagues who give me a few minutes more. Mr. Speaker, there is a limit. Some minimum standards have to be respected in a society and as I said before I was interrupted, for a long time I have been wishing to run a red light and stop on green. But society
15106

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
demands that we stop on a red light and go on a green light. I have always considered that it was faster with greens but however-
Mr. Speaker, that is the highway code in our society. Then, what do we do when an hon. member, a minister, a citizen fails to comply with the rule of the road? What happens? We say that everyone is equal before the law and we levy a penalty against him. Let us look at the case of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) who recently was allegedly treated in an offhand manner by the Ontario Provincial Police for a mere summons for a parking offence. Mr. Speaker, is it not a ridiculous situation? We are extremely strict with a representative of the people for a mere parking ticket when in the case of criminals, who kill the father or the mother of young children, we just put them in jail.
Recently in Granby we had the case of someone who was convicted of murder and sentenced, if I am correct, to six months imprisonment considering his social status, the fact that it was a first offence and so on. What example do we give to society? I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that we should be strict but I say that we should be fair.
If, as citizens and MPs, we can accept that an hon. member be treated offhandedly by a police force for a petty offence, should we not, Mr. Speaker, insist upon adequate measures, corresponding to the seriousness of the crime, in the case of murders where innocents loses their lives? Mr. Speaker, only then will our society be really treated equitably. That is important and I want to close on that, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe in the law of retaliation, nor do I believe in an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, but I would like to see a society in which there are minimum standards to respect, in which everyone knows the rules of the game.
We have reached the point where we want to control the use of firearms by innocent people through Bill C-83, but this bill does not control that of the criminals covered by Bill C-84. In other words, we attack honest people to give freedom to criminals. There is a limit to laughing at people! If we are serious about investing so much of the taxpayers money in the Olympic Games or about protecting public safety against the FLQ during the October crisis, let us now apply penal sanctions against those who break the law; otherwise, we are wasting our time.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, it has been and continues to be my position that crimes of premeditated murder and certain other acts of premeditated terrorism in some instances merit the death penalty. The amendment before us, though it does not go as far as some of us would like, does restore the status quo as it existed before this issue was brought back to the House of Commons. Why was it brought back? It was brought back because the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and the government did not see fit to honour the existing law which was passed in this Chamber by a free vote. Had that law been honestly applied it would probably have made it unnecessary to raise this touchy issue at the present time.
As I say, this particular amendment would restore the former situation by deleting clause 4 and restoring section 214 of the Criminal Code. As my hon. friend from Prince
(Mr. Fortin.]
Edward-Hastings has stated, prison guards and others in a like position do deserve special consideration. When one looks at the situation which prevails across the country today, the violence in our prisons and the crime which is being committed outside those prisons, it becomes obvious that society has not reached the stage at which the death sentence can be abolished no matter how much one might wish it had. For one thing, we still do not have in this country an adequate system of rehabilitation or a workable system of parole.
One particular situation that troubles me very much concerns a person who, for example, commits murder, is sent to prison and murders again. This time it is a guard whose life is taken. What does society do with this sort of individual? Does one put this person in chains or allow that individual, who may be a psychopath or just a plain, vicious killer, to remain in an institution menacing the lives of guards and other inmates? What do you do with a person who has demonstrated the capacity to kill repeatedly? That is the question to which we should address ourselves this evening.
One thing that has been lost sight of in this debate is that under the present law very few people who commit murder even face the possibility of being executed. The vast majority of the people who take the life of another do so in some extenuating circumstances. However, for the person who deliberately commits some kind of crime which most people regard as particularly abhorrent or unspeakable, there is no adequate way to deal with him at the present time until a way is devised to provide proper rehabilitation or other remedial assistance.
Anyone who heard the speech made by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) this evening would do nothing less than applaud his sincerity. Unlike many speeches made with a great deal of emotion, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain did not get carried away with exaggeration, make unfair comments, or cast reflections upon anybody else, and he deserves a great deal of credit for his excellent speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In putting the case forward for myself as well as perhaps for others who feel with a great deal of sincerity that there are cases where the death penalty is merited, in doing away with the kind of violence, admittedly abhorrent, that is administered by the state, with the consent of the citizenry and under the sanction of the law, we may be trading one system for another which will bring about a vigilante type of violence, even a type of violence that is administered by police and prison guards for selfprotection. It seems to me that at least an equal amount of violence will replace that which the minister and the government are trying to prevent. Until our system of justice, including rehabilitation and parole, becomes more refined and realistic, I cannot justify in my mind the total abolition of capital punishment.
It is fair to say, without being unduly sarcastic, that the Solicitor General in the administration of his portfolio, and the government in the administration of the country's affairs, have not demonstrated that they have matters
July 6, 1976

under the kind of control that would justify the vast majority of the people of Canada having confidence that their rights will be preserved and their protection improved by removing the death penalty. On the contrary, I think a vast number of people in this country feel a sense of betrayal on the part of the government in failing to provide protection for them in general, and for policemen and prison guards in particular.
I agree with all those who say that members of parliament must reflect their own consciences. Nevertheless I think it is incumbent on the government to recognize that perhaps as high a percentage of Canadians as 80 per cent feel very uneasy about the removal of the death penalty. In taking this extraordinary step surely the government should be able to point to some sort of improvement in prison conditions and in the administration of justice that will replace the security that many people feel the death penalty represents. Otherwise this would not be such an issue and you would not have eight out of 10 Canadians writing in to protest the death penalty being taken away.
If hon. members support this motion they will surely be coming to grips with the basic proposition that, in allowing police and prison guards to risk their lives to protect the rights and properties of Canadians, police and prison guards ought to have, as I maintain all Canadians ought to have, some sort of specialized protection. Otherwise, as a previous speaker this evening pointed out, it will become increasingly difficult to find people of sufficient calibre and initiative to make a career out of a very important and demanding occupation.
I hope the Solicitor General and the government will take into account the fact that up to this point in time they have not been able to improve or refine the administration of justice, parole services, facilities to reform criminals, or indeed do anything except to put in place of the death penalty a system which in many ways is more repressive and which makes the cause of prisoners more hopeless than it is today. Not only is the government giving people who are prone to violence and have nothing to lose an opportunity to vent their frustration by committing further murders, but many people convicted of murder will be sent to prison for a long time in situations where, if they were judged under the present law, they would be provided with some hope of rehabilitating themselves and re-entering society. Altogether, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is a very good amendment that will basically improve a very bad piece of legislation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to say a few words on these amendments at report stage, and I rise to support this amendment. During the committee hearings we asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) about the changes being made by Bill C-84. The bill divides murder into first degree murder and second degree murder, and the penalty for murder in the first degree is 25 years' imprisonment. The bill refers to planned and premeditated murder, the killing of peace officers, police constables, correctional officers, wardens, deputy wardens, instructors and so on, and uses the term "without prejudice to the foregoing generalities".
The point has been made that guards, wardens, and correctional officers are responsible for guarding convicted
Capital Punishment
murderers for 15 or 25 years. During the committee stage we asked the Solicitor General whether these people will be permitted to be released into society under any circumstances. The Solicitor General replied that on humanitarian grounds even these prisoners will be released, but with an escort. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if any person, regardless of his age, who has been found guilty of first degree murder under the terms and conditions of this bill and has been given 25 years' imprisonment is released on humanitarian grounds or for some reason or other with an escort, what value is he going to place on the life of that escort? That is why this amendment is so important, particularly if these people are to be released with escorts on humanitarian grounds.
Let me give you a little history, and I am not digressing. It was only a few years ago that humanitarian grounds under Section 26 of the Penitentiaries Act meant very special grounds. For a number of years it was necessary to get an order of a judge of the high court, and the attorney general's consent in the province where a person was incarcerated, before that person could be released on humanitarian grounds to attend the funeral of a member of his family, for example. Now this decision is made by an administrator, perhaps an individual without any knowledge of jurisprudence or of the law. Perhaps he interprets Section 26 of the Penitentiaries Act to mean any kind of grounds, because certainly people are being released now for any reason. Apparently many things are humanitarian. Some of the grounds are, of course, very unusual.
Let me review with you for a few minutes that intamous Geoffroy case. This was a person who was found guilty of the planned, premeditated murder of his wife. After he had killed her he burned the bed in the bedroom.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Some hon. members may think this is funny, but this is what happened, and this is what we are talking about tonight. I am not in any sense attempting to be humorous. This person was found guilty by the court, then by the court of appeal of the province of Quebec, and then by the Supreme Court of Canada by the due process of law. Then how do we find humanitarian grounds being interpreted by the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), who was then the Solicitor General? This is so tragic that if it were written up it would almost be a comedy.
The reason the accused wanted out was that the children had no mother. Who had got rid of the mother? It was this man himself. The then solicitor general, who is now the Minister of Supply and Services, said he should be released. The accused took part in a ceremony of marriage with his mistress who was involved in the crime. The accused had had a long time liaison with her, whatever that means.


An hon. Member:: And that is the fact.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And that is the fact, and I raised it in the House. In any event the necessary people gathered together to hold this ceremony, with all the candles, all the trimmings and all the things that go with it, because his
gssTO-ss'/j

July 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
children needed a new mother. When the time came for the accused, Mr. Geoffroy, who had enjoyed a long time liaison with Miss Peron, to return, they had disappeared. I asked the then solicitor general, now the Minister of Supply and Services, to make a statement about this on motions. He said they had disappeared, but it wasn't very long before they found them. Where do you think they found them?


An hon. Member:: In Spain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are right. They were found in Spain on the sand at the beach. The children had been left with the parents of one side or the other. Apparently their needs were not being neglected. If that is the way humanitarian grounds are to be interpreted by the Solicitor General's administrators, then let us not leave those people who are tonight waiting on death-row under difficult circumstances. If this bill goes through, no matter what kind of heinous crime they have committed, there will be a 25-year term of imprisonment substituted for the death penalty, and they will have the right to get out of an institution on humanitarian grounds. If that is to be the stare decisis, or the precedent to be followed, then we have a very sticky wicket. That is the first point I wanted to make.
Just two and a half years ago the present Solicitor General and our same Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), of course with different parliamentary secretaries, stood in this House, after having been at caucus, saying that if we would abolish capital punishment except in respect of murderers of police officers, wardens and correctional officers-if we would go along with that bill they would give it a trial for five years-some trial, some promise, and some commitment to the public!
I cannot call those people who made this commitment and this promise, including the government House leader, what I am thinking. I would not dare say that those people are hypocrites because of their failure to keep this promise and this commitment, but I can say in this House that this is the very basis for the definition of hypocrisy. That commitment and that promise were not only made to the people of Canada but to those people who have a lot of courage and guts in the Liberal party who will stand and vote against this Prime Minister, this House leader, and this cabinet.


Mitchell William Sharp: What about Joe Clark?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He happens to be our leader, but he has made no commitment to any other leader. He stands by his own conscience.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: But he is your leader.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me answer that little man from the civil service who got fired by the Tories and stands here and speaks so smoothly out of both sides of his mouth, and sometimes even with the front of his lips, asking us where our leader stands. I will tell him where our leader stands.


An hon. Member:: Let's hear all about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What about Joe? Tell us about Joe.
[Mr. Woolliams.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me say to the hon. member that at least this party has the right and freedom to-


An hon. Member:: Show respect.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it those hon. members are the essence of respect, perhaps I should call it ten o'clock, because that is symbolic of the end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, the all-inspiring reason we are gathered together in such large numbers this late at night began about 130 years ago in a place called Karsdale on the shores of the Annapolis Basin in Nova Scotia. There, as legend or modern history would have it, a British sailor deserted his fleet and sought refuge in the home of a wealthy merchant. While being given haven he passed away the winter by painting a room with murals. This room, which exists today and is the subject matter of this question tonight, is 15 feet by 12 feet by 6 feet 11 inches high. It has two doorways, a fireplace, and three windows, two of which look out on the Annapolis Basin. I am just trying to have people feel as if they were sitting there in that particular room.
The paintings have now become the subject of some controversy in the province of Nova Scotia. Miss Gretchen Pierce, who is one of the journalists employed by the Halifax Chronicle Herald, has described it in part as follows:
He covered it with a gigantic mural with many different scenes depicting life in Great Britain and the rural life of the Indians, scenes from the Croscup's own life,...
That is a reference to the person who owned the home.
... their marriage, Croscup's wife and their firstborn ... The walls of the room portray ship launchings, a group of MicMac Indians in the woods, a hunting scene, Queen Victoria with the Royal Family, and both St. Paul's Cathedral and Somerset House in London.
It shows Trafalgar Square, but in the days before the Nelson monument was placed there. The artist whoever he was-and again it is only legend which says that it was a British sailor who deserted who apparently has not left his name on anything in that room-did his work by pencil and then applied oil paint afterward. A few years back I understand there were several such painted rooms found
July 6, 1976

in Nova Scotia and other parts of eastern Canada, but now apparently the nearest one may be that in Wilmington, Delaware, where a home contains several painted rooms.
The National Gallery has acquired this room from its present owners and proposes to restore and remove the same to Ottawa so that the nation may join in this particular heritage. I do not quarrel with or fault the intention of the National Gallery, and indeed as a Nova Scotian I have to be a little shame-faced in saying that the problem really did not become recognized until after the sale had gone through.
Now, can this be moved? I have spoken to one of the most respected artists in the province of Nova Scotia, Dr. Donald Cameron MacKay, formerly the principal of the Nova Scotia College of Art, who says yes. Technology makes it possible to take a room, even a plastered room such as that one, cut it up in segments and move it many thousands of miles so that it can be reassembled in some other place. So obviously the issue is not only of whether this rather unique artistic heritage would suffer if it were moved. Perhaps the point is that Nova Scotia would be losing something that, even late in the day when we come to this conclusion, we think we should try to keep there. I will suggest a solution in a moment, as I did the other day when I asked the hon. lady the question which brings us here this evening.
There is something called the Atlantic Conservation Institute. It is funded by the National Museums. It works in my part of the world out of Moncton. It could carry out the work of restoration. It was not asked to do so in this particular case. I understand the work is being carried out by the arts faculty of Queen's University. I wish them well in seeing that the work is restored to its original splendor. Tomorrow Mr. Jean Trudel, the curator of early Canadian art of the National Gallery of Ottawa, will be in Annapolis Royal and he will be meeting with the Friends of the Painted Room, which is the name of the society that is trying to retain this for Nova Scotia. I wish them all well in dealing with what perhaps has become a rather difficult problem.
May I finally present my own suggestion. I do not like to see a deal cancelled. It was entered into a good faith by the National Gallery of Canada and the people who own the house. The provincial government could have been involved in this early but decided not to do so for reasons of its own. So I am not asking that the deal be cancelled. Rather I would suggest to the hon. lady and the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) that the National Gallery perhaps use a little imagination and try to make the best of what I think is a pretty good bargain.
I suggest that it not move the thing too far. There is the Champlain Habitation at Annapolis Royal, a few miles away, and I am sure there is a room which could be found there in which this unique painted room could be reassembled after restoration. The Annapolis Royal Habitation which exists in the constituency of my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Miss Campbell), receives up to 190,000 visitors a year. This would not be part of the Champlain tradition, but it would be part of a tradition-
Adjournment Debate


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


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was correct when he stated that this Painted Room is of concern to me. I would not like to see this artifact lost, and until the National Gallery stepped in that is exactly what was happening, as had happened to other similar rooms in the province. At present the Friends of the Painted Room are attempting to find solutions to this and to see how it can be kept in Nova Scotia and, more particularly, in the locale where it was found. But anyone who has visited the room will see that there is a big job of restoration to be done.
However, let me give some of the history of this. The board of trustees of the National Museums of Canada approved the purchase of the Painted Room in December of 1975. This decision was based on the board's judgment that the preservation of the room could best be assured through its acquisition by the National Gallery and brought to Ottawa where it could be restored and kept up under the proper conditions needed to keep such an artifact.
Before its purchase the director of the National Gallery advised the Nova Scotia government of the gallery's interest. In particular, the National Gallery wished to determine that the provincial government would not regard an offer to the room's owners, and its subsequent removal, as a loss to the provincial heritage. The reply to the director of the National Gallery was that the government of Nova Scotia was of course concerned about the departure from Nova Scotia of this art as a result of the purchase. However, it was felt that unless the province supported the gallery's initiative, the art might be totally lost. They recognized that the removal of the paintings was a delicate and costly task which the province was not able to undertake.
The removal to Ottawa of the paintings has been the subject of representations to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) from private persons and non-governmental organizations in Nova Scotia. As far as the National Museums Corporation was able to determine before the purchase by the National Gallery, no local initiatives had been taken or were contemplated at the provincial or any other level to purchase, restore, and preserve the room for the public.
It is the intention of the National Gallery to instal the paintings in a part of the gallery devoted to the arts of the Maritime provinces.
The Painted Room will contribute to the national collection, the development of which is a major responsibility of the National Gallery. This involves acquiring works of art and artifacts from the various regions of Canada and bringing them to the national capital. If this were not the case, the national collection would cease to represent the Canadian cultural heritage in its totality. Perhaps these paintings may be able to be displayed when they have been restored in the local regions. Perhaps other arrangements could be looked at, but at this time the cost of saving these paintings and restoring them has to be undertaken, and the National Gallery has become responsible for this.

July 6, 1976
Adjournment Debate
In carrying out this responsibility, the National Museums are sensitive to local concerns and are doing their utmost to ensure that these concerns are given fair consideration in all such purchases.


IMMIGRATION-MEDICAL CHECKS ON VISITORS FROM THE TROPICS
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak about immigration and the spread of tropical diseases. I know that a great deal has been done in these areas, but I still feel that what has been done is not adequate to deal with the problem. I have stated the necessity for more drastic action to control the problem. I have stated that it is estimated that 10,000 people or more in the city of Toronto live underground and share corners with others. They are frightened, they receive no services, and they pay no taxes.
Apparently the federal government does not realize that Toronto is a multicultural city. The other night I talked to a girl from the city of Montreal who is now working in Toronto representing a firm there. She told me that on the subway one night she heard five different languages spoken, and that 52 per cent of the children going into primary school cannot speak English.
The field of children's health care is also becoming more and more overloaded, and a wide range of subtropical diseases is appearing. These diseases are being brought to Canada not just by immigrants. Many of them passed the requirements of a health department months before their immigration, and I would like to ask the minister if our standard has been met or the standard of the country from which these immigrants come.
I think it is basically unfair to allow an immigrant to come to this country and months or years afterwards to find that he is suffering from a parasitic disease. That puts a stigma on him and his family which is unfair. Since he may have unknowingly spread the disease to his family or others, that has made the health care system very costly.
I hope I will be forgiven for bringing to the attention of the Department of National Health and Welfare that many of these cases are missed for months or years because the medical profession does not have the opportunity of diagnosing subtropical or tropical diseases. To illustrate my point, I had a professional patient who suffered ill health for months. He had been in the east, and finally, after going around the circle, I diagnosed his problem because one of my associate doctors picked up the same disease while in Asia.
The point I am making is that we must be as careful as possible in diagnosing any disease which may be a subtropical or tropical disease. Let me add that parasitical diseases are accepted far more as a national occurrence in some countries than we can tolerate here.
I also want to say to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras)-and I am grateful to see him here in his seat tonight to answer me-that the risk increases with the length of time a person remains in Canada. However, the minister so far has been unable to state-and I can readily understand that-how many of

those immigrants there are and how many of them stay longer than the average tourist. Surely here is a case in point. The minister says a year or more. How about three months or longer, with the net result of the spread of infection mounting with the passage of time?
The minister states he has very little to do with Canadians who have stayed in those countries for a long time. Some work there for industrial firms or otherwise, or perhaps even for the governments. Is there any good reason why a thorough medical examination, particularly with regard to tropical diseases, should not be required when they return to this country?
My final inquiry has to do with foreign students from tropical or subtropical countries. Are they or are they not covered by insurance prepaid at universities? I am advised that many of them become sick and are afraid to go to the hospital or to see a doctor because they think they are not covered. Are they examined for these diseases when they come to our universities? Are they covered by health care insurance?
I want to tell the ministers involved that I have dealt only with the Toronto area, but there is also Vancouver, Montreal, and Cambridge, which has more than 10,000 Portuguese among its population. These cases present an aspect of medicine which is new to this country, and preventive medicine should be practised to stop and control these infections. The minister must now assure us that preventive measures will be taken and adequate care will be provided.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). The other day he asked me for some statistical information, particularly relating to immigrants and Canadians returning from tropical countries. I am not trying to dodge that. I want to tell him that we do not maintain statistics on the number of visitors precisely by classification of tropical or subtropical countries. That information is available, though, and the hon. member could actually collate it himself.
International travel statistics are obtained from Statistics Canada. We certainly use this information. If the hon. member were to identify those countries that he considers to be tropical, by reference to the latest publication called "Travel Between Canada and Other Countries" he would be able to find the statistics he seeks.
The second part of the question he posed the other day and asked again tonight was regarding visitors who stay in Canada longer than on an ordinary visit. I could give him that information if he would provide me with a list of the countries in which he is particularly interested. My parliamentary secretary outlined the procedures and the change in procedures quite clearly in May this year. The information is all in Hansard so I shall not repeat it.
In regard to Canadians returning to this country, the Department of National Health and Welfare has primary responsibility and screens all persons subject to immigration jurisdiction who are referred to that department by us at the primary inspection area or wherever we come in contact with them. The health screening procedure includes stool testing for the detection of parasitic diseases
July 6, 1976

and it is carried out on people coming from countries where parasitic diseases are prevalent. If the hon. member wants more specific information I would refer him to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).
I do not consider this matter lightly, Mr. Speaker. I am alerted not only from other sources of information but by the hon. member's repeated expressions of concern. I intend to dig a little more into this area than we have done so far although I think he should recognize that we have taken very specific action in the last several months, particularly with visitors who stay more than 90 days and people who may be employed in food handling, and also foreign students. We recognize the potential danger in these areas.
I will check Hansard for the more specific questions that the hon. member posed tonight and will get him complete answers at the earliest opportunity.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN ALLOWABLE EARNINGS OF RECIPIENTS OF WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight to address myself to the difficulty that veterans are having in attempting to live a decent life on the income they are receiving. While it is recognized that increases have been forthcoming under the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, there is an immediate need to review the amount of casual earnings and to increase it beyond the $1,000 for the single veteran and the $1,500 for the married recipient.
I realize that there have been periodic increases in the amount of casual earnings allowed but I am sure the minister recognizes that there is justification for a suitable increase immediately to allow veterans to cope with rising costs.
The government has recognized and has provided quarterly indexing to veteran recipients of the allowance, and if recognition exists in this regard it should follow that there should be a coincidental increase in casual earnings. However, since the need is immediate a simple order would put the increase into effect. May I suggest to the minister through the parliamentary secretary-and I know the minister always listens to my suggestions-that the increase be in the order of 50 per cent which would increase the earnings to $1,500 for the single recipient and $2,250 for the married recipient.
If I may refer to the act itself, it was implemented to recognize pre-aging of the veteran as a result of war service, and also because of need. The veteran recipient and his wife are now in their twilight years and in most cases the children of the family have gone on their own, having been brought up under difficulty because of the veteran parent being on a fixed income. I am sure it should be recognized that the veteran in this situation, or his wife who now might want to supplement their income, should be able to enjoy a bit of extra comfort, and the amounts presently existing restrict their ability to offer themselves for employment with any permanency. They often run into the embarrassing situation where overpayments are creat-
Adjournment Debate
ed because they might have innocently earned a little more than the allowable amount.
One of the most important needs that I see with respect to increasing the casual earnings of WVA recipients is that many live in their own homes which need repairs or improvements. Because of their fixed income they cannot afford to maintain them at a reasonable level; neither can they afford a home improvement loan under the National Housing Act or the costly material required, and until we can convince the government to expand the veterans' housing program to include a home rehabilitation item for veterans, an increase in the casual earnings would help the veterans to prevent the deterioration of their homes.
I think that the minister should also give consideration to treating as casual earnings the meagre amounts that a veteran might be receiving under workmen's compensation and the Canada Pension Plan, particularly for those who cannot work.
Under the War Veterans Allowance Act a single recipient receives at present, on an unmarried basis, the amount of $221.98, while the married receipient receives $378.48. For those who can earn, this would mean that the single veteran would receive $350 and the married veteran about $550, which he could earn with pride and dignity.
I hope that the parliamentary secretary, who is most sympathetic to the veterans' cause, will pass on to the minister my remarks so that I can receive confirmation with a positive reply as to the action the minister has taken, whether or not he has made an approach to cabinet and on what date we can expect an announcement for increasing casual earnings which are so direly needed by veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy discussing these matters with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) because we are both interested in seeing what we can obtain for war veterans receiving the WVA. The hon. member ought to realize that we, in our caucus, are interested in this problem and we have received recommendations similar to his from various members.
The hon. member pointed out that what was allowed to veterans receiving WVA in 1973 is now inadequate, and if we could increase from $1,000 to $1,500 the casual earnings allowable to a single veteran, and from $1,500 to $2,000 those to the married veteran, it would be a great help. On the other hand those might or might not be the correct amounts. Who knows; they might not be enough? That will need to be worked out. Such earnings are provided for under the War Veterans Allowance Act and Part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
I always have to remind hon. members that, from the point of view of financial assistance, we have probably the best war veterans legislation in the world. There have been major changes recently in the legislation covering veterans. These include additional allowances for children and quarterly escalation of ceilings of WVA recipients. However, as the hon. member says, we have done nothing since 1973 to increase the allowable ceiling on casual earnings. I

July 6, 1976
Adjournment Debate
think the minister did say recently he was in the process of addressing himself to this question. I know this to be the case.
Studies are going on, though they are not completed, and we expect that changes in the regulations will be made in the near future. That might not be an altogether satisfactory answer, but I do not mean that an announcement will be made in a year or two; I mean in the next few months. I
believe the increases will permit levels which more accurately reflect wage levels at the present time. We as a department are anxious to take action which will ensure that Canada does honour those who served us so bravely in war.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but the time allotted to him has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, July 7, 1976