1976-06-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the Unemployment Insurance Commission of Canada. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration advise the House of details concerning employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission of Canada making use of the commission's internal form numbers 1116 and 1171 to infiltrate the commission's payment system without opening actual claim files, and finally that the minister give the House an estimate of the amount of money defrauded by this method, details of steps taken, if any, to deal with this rip-off, and if no steps have been taken, an explanation as to why not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service recommended that classification should become a matter of collective bargaining, some of us feel that the Treasury Board should slow down rather than speed up the process of reclassification until parliament has acted on this recommendation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the Treasury Board to postpone its program of wide ranging reclassification of public servants until parliament has acted on the recommendation of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Employer-Employee Relations in the
Public Service to the effect that classification should be made a matter of collective bargaining.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion of pressing and urgent necessity.
Since one of the main conclusions drawn by the Baker Weeks brokers' firm indicate that the Canadian pulp and paper industry will register a decline this year over last year, and the impact those difficulties may cause in the future and which may go as far as forcing plants to close down for an indefinite period, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House immediately survey the present situation and the anticipated situation lor this year in the pulp and paper industry so as to introduce necessary correcting measures to counteract the negative consequences of such a recession on the economy and the employment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion may not be put.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity regarding the

June 7, 1976
Unemployment Insurance
financial fiasco in Air Canada which, during the first four months of this year, has experienced a net loss of $14,474,783.29. In light of the fact that such a net loss can be attributed to the contracting out of financial work and such things as the writing off of a debt of $186,000 of Electronic Associates Canada Ltd. of Toronto, Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to launch an immediate investigation into the finances of Air Canada and, in particular, why debts such as the one of Electronics Associates of Canada are permitted to accumulate to such levels and then written off. Furthermore, that after the Minister of Transport has investigated the situation and reported to this House that action be taken to rectify the financial problems of Air Canada by stopping the contracting out of financial work and taking steps to recover the debts such as the $186,000 owed by Electronics Associates of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, too, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of Part III, Section 23, Subsection (2) of the Fish Marketing Act, and in view of the fact that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation continues to violate the law, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the Minister of State (Fisheries), in conjunction with the Solicitor General, undertake an immediate investigation into the noncompliance of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation with the act.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that jury duty is a compulsory obligation of a citizen, and in view of the fact a person receiving unemployment insurance benefits is automatically disqualified when called for jury duty because he is unavailable for work, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):

That this House recommends that the Minister of Manpower change the regulations so that this discrimination under the Unemployment Insurance Act is ended.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can only be presented for debate with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and concerns the long-range patrol aircraft. On June 3 at page 14108 of Hansard, the minister is reported to have said that his statements the previous day and those of his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, indicated very clearly that they were working together on this project. Would the Minister of National Defence tell the House if at anytime between November 15 and December 15, 1975, when they were working together on the project, the Minister of National Defence informed his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, that Lockheed had given verbal assurances that it could provide the bridge financing?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my reference to my colleague and I working together indicates that our departments were in close collaboration, as well as the project office which is responsible to both, having personnel of both departments, and that there was a close interchange of information in the project office.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-DATE MINISTER INFORMED PRIME MINISTER OF VERBAL AGREEMENT WITH COMPANY ON FINANCING
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I take it from that answer that the minister did not inform the Minister of Supply and Services. Would the Minister of National Defence inform the House just when he informed the Prime Minister of the verbal agreement between DND and Lockheed of the interim financing?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the records to find out the exact date. The need for financing, as I have said many times, was known during November and was the subject of discussion in the Cabinet, the Cabinet committee and the Treasury Board. It was, as I have also said, about the middle of December that I was first advised by my deputy minister that Lockheed was not able to fulfil its commitment, or to do what it had agreed to do in financ-
June 7, 1976

ing. I am not certain at what point the Prime Minister would have become aware of this fact but I would think very shortly after I was.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary by the hon. member for Victoria.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
Mb\ Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, the supplementary is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Would the President of the Treasury Board tell the House if on December 2 when the Treasury Board met and discussed the Lockheed deal was he aware of the verbal agreement reached between DND and Lockheed and was he aware of the requirement by DND for $100 million to pay interest?
Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, when the cabinet considered this matter last November, we knew there was a financing problem of about $100 million but we did not intend to change the National Defence Department's estimates and we knew that discussions were being held about this problem between the National Defence Department and Lockheed.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-INQUIRY IF MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AWARE OF VERBAL AGREEMENT WITH COMPANY ON FINANCING ON DECEMBER 2
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Public Works. Could the Minister of Public Works, as a member of the Treasury Board, tell the House if on December 2 when the Treasury Board met and discussed the Lockheed deal he was aware of the verbal agreement reached between DND and Lockheed and was he aware of the requirement by DND for $100 million to pay interest.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think really that kind of a question having to do with the operation of a committee of Cabinet should be directed to the President of the Treasury Board.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-INQUIRY IF MINISTER OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WAS AWARE OF VERBAL AGREEMENT ON FINANCING ON DECEMBER 2
A. Daniel McKenzie: We
thought you were on the Treasury Board. I will direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He also is a member of Treasury Board. Could he tell the House if on December 2 when the Treasury Board met and discussed the Lockheed deal was he aware of the verbal agreement reached between DND and Lockheed and was he aware of the requirement by DND for $100 million to pay interest.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A final supplementary by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Minister of Veterans Affairs was not tuned in. On December 2 you were a member of the Treasury Board and that is why I am directing my question to you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Questions can be directed to the minister in a general capacity. I am not sure if the Minister of Veterans Affairs, from the information I have before me, is now a member of the Treasury Board which is important and relevant. It has been clear from many precedents in the past that questions ought to be directed to ministers only in their present capacity. Questions can be directed to ministers, as members of the Treasury Board, but I want to make it perfectly clear that they should be directed to present members of the Treasury Board.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The Minister of Veterans Affairs was on the Treasury Board at that time and I want to know about his involvement in the discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has hit precisely on the point. That was on December 2. Questions related to that time ought not to be directed to any member of the Treasury Board unless he is on the same board at the present time.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-INQUIRY IF PRESIDENT OF PRIVY COUNCIL AWARE OF VERBAL AGREEMENT ON FINANCING ON DECEMBER 2
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the President of the Privy Council. I will repeat my question so that it is perfectly clear. Could the President of the Privy Council, as a member of the Privy Council tell the House if on December 2 when the Treasury Board met and discussed the Lockheed deal, was he aware of the verbal agreement reached between DND and Lockheed and was he aware of the requirement by DND for $100 million to pay interest.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is misinformed. I am not a member of the Treasury Board.


An hon. Member:: Who is?


MANPOWER
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, the government will need a lot more luck to get out of the mess it is in on that issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the House on June 3 he said with reference to his new year-round job

June 7, 1976
Oral Questions
creation program to deal with the fact of having some 760,000 Canadians out of work that he would have a program to submit to Parliament in the fall. I would like to ask him how much the government plans to spend on that program and, secondly, when the government intends it to become operational.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The amount of money that will be allocated to it has not been decided, so that decision would be premature. The time frame of the whole approach is associated with legislation in the fall which might or might not be required for the job creation program to which I referred. It will certainly be required for the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which are associated with it. I would expect that to be presented in the fall session and it will be up to the House to decide when it receives parliamentary assent and royal assent. Did that answer cover the question of the hon. member or was there another part to the question?


John Edward Broadbent: The other part is an elaboration of the first, and perhaps the minister could be a little more helpful since he also said in the budget debate that it takes "$200 million to drive less than one fourth of a percentage point" off the unemployment levels. Is he prepared to say to the House that the kinds of funds that the government intends to allocate for the program will be sufficient at least to bring down the level of unemployment, say, early in 1977, well below the 7 per cent level?


Robert Knight Andras: I think that is a variation of the same question. It would be premature for me to indicate the funds available. I also said in my comments in the House the other day that already $100 million have been allocated to the local initiatives program or to similar types of programs starting this fall. That will probably be in place before the other measures to which I referred are implemented.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the $100 million that the minister referred to, may I remind him that the government cut off almost the $100 million for such programs from its budget just before Christmas as part of their new restraint program, so it can hardly be seen to be a new sum of money. They just recycled the program to bring back the $100 million which they cancelled before.
My final supplementary question is as follows: In his budget comments the minister said that the government would not set a target for unemployment levels for 1981 even at the 5.5 per cent level. Since he said in the same speech that the unemployment level considered acceptable to the government depended in part on the rate of inflation, does this not amount to saying that part of the program against inflation will be waged on the backs of the unemployed in Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR DECISION ON EXTENSION OF PROJECTS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: My supplementary question is for the same minister. In view of the fact that some LIP projects remain from last year and will not be completed by the June 26 deadline, even though the minister stated in the House that a decision will be made on them, would he assure the House, in order to overcome the unemployment that cancellation of them will cause, that a decision will be reached so that these projects can be extended to create employment?


Robert Knight Andras: The only likelihood is that we will look at those projects which, for well considered and examined reasons, have not been completed in the time frame originally set for them and projects which require no further additional funds above those already allocated. I want to look at each project individually and make my decision on its merits.


Jack Marshall: Would the minister give the House an assurance that if no more money is needed these legitimate projects will be extended and that he will make his decision before June 26?


Robert Knight Andras: The only assurance I can give is that I will examine each one on its merits and make a decision on that basis.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
A few days ago, during the hearing of a court in the province of Quebec, a Department of Transport official said that the Canadian National, and more particularly its passenger service, should generate profits. As it is important to clarify the purpose of the rail passenger service, can the minister tell the House if his department considers that service as a private service or as a profit-making company?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, our basic intention with the railway passenger service is that it be run as effectively as possible and where it is reasonable, having regard to all those factors, that that service be maintained. It is our objective to do that in a more effective way than in the past by maintaining good equipment and effective marketing, and thereby to offer the service in a sensible way, but not to do it in areas where there is clearly too great a cost and where there are other available alternatives.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
As the minister answered that the service should be improved, but not in the areas where it would be too
June 7, 1976

expensive per passenger, does he intend to make a statement to the House on this matter and, if so, when?


Otto Emil Lang: I made a statement to this effect on January 29 in this House, following which hearings were started before the Canadian Transport Commission to identify the specific areas in which the service is essential and desirable, as well as other areas in which it is simply too costly to maintain. This will be followed up with specific action on the part of the railways, either to improve the service or in certain cases to discontinue it.


NATURAL GAS-POSSIBILITY OF EXCHANGING PRESENT CANADIAN SUPPLIES FOR FUTURE SUPPLIES FROM ALASKA
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the minister tell us whether discussions are going on between Canada and the United States about the feasibility of swapping natural gas, which is now produced in Canada, for future supplies of natural gas which may come from American sources in Alaska?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any formal discussions of this kind going on. It has been an idea which has been in the wind for a very long time, and probably hon. members on both sides have been talking about it. As far as I know, there are no negotiations going on.


James McPhail Gillies: Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether-or perhaps this is too premature; I am not sure- these discussions are about exchanges in terms of value rather than quantities?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I indicated, any talks which would be going on would be of an extremely informal character, and I doubt whether they have become as specific as that.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I tried to obtain information from his department, but understandably at the present time civil servants are not anxious to give any information.
Therefore, I come to the source and ask the minister whether his department had anything to do with providing a United States company with a list of elderly adults in small towns and small cities across the country who are in receipt of old age pensions or allowances, the American company using these names for the purpose of having
Oral Questions
mailing lists available to casualty companies, bank and trust companies, memorial parks, hearing aid leaders, drug discount plans and so on? Will the minister get in touch with his department and ascertain whether this confidential information has been made available by any officials in his department, and if not, has he looked into the question of how an American company could have a list of approximately 400,000 elderly citizens receiving pensions, which number is being increased each month by approximately 25,000 names?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. member for drawing this question to my attention. To use his language, I will check at the source in my department to see whether there is any foundation to the allegation or the reference the right hon. member has made. I can tell him that it is illegal under the act for any such information to be made available to other than provincial governments with which we have an agreement, and that provincial governments are bound by this same rule of secrecy. So any such information which might have been provided would have been provided against the law.
Second, the right hon. member referred to 400,000 elderly citizens. I remind him that the list of senior citizens receiving OAS exceeds 1,800,000. It would be very unlikely that this particular information would be provided by my department or any provincial government that has any such list for its own program. I will inquire but I cannot imagine that this is accurate.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. While the minister cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I asked. I wanted him to find out, and I asked a reasonable question for which I could not get an answer from his department. Everybody is running for cover.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I said I would inquire so what more can the hon. member ask for.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport relates to the sale by the city of Montreal, subject to approval by city council tomorrow night, of the 48 Expo train cars at 15 per cent of replacement cost. Considering that these cars are in good condition and usable for a public transit proposal involving Chateauguay and South Shore areas and that Montreal has assured me it will be prepared until tomorrow evening to sell these to either provincial or federal governments, can the minister give us some assurance that he will give full collaboration to the province of Quebec in any initiative it may take to acquire these cars which are needed for public transit purposes now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and relates to imports of carcass beef from New Zealand and Australia. In view of clear indications that New Zealand has gone back on her unofficial agreement not to export beef to Canada at more than a six cents per pound spread, which is well below the equivalent exports to the United States, and further, in view of current indications that both Australia and New Zealand are now selling or dumping their beef into Canada at prices 25 cents per pound below equivalent exports to the United States and well below the current equivalent price of Canadian beef, will the minister once again review his December 31, 1975 statement that positive steps would be taken to prevent such specific actions and would he indicate what action may be expected?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the figures that I have and the figures that the hon. member has are different. Either my figures are too conservative or his are too liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: There is no difference.


Eugene Whelan: I agree with him about Australia and New Zealand-especially Australia-because we met with their people last week and discussed this very nitty-gritty issue with them. As far as I am concerned, they are treating the United States differently than they are Canada. According to a verbal agreement, they said they are charging much less in Canada, selling beef in Canada at distress prices and selling it in the United States at higher prices. They know what will happen to them if they lower the price in the United States-the United States government will bar them from selling meat in that country. Because Canada is a much freer trading country than the United States they know they can get away with more here.


BEEF-SUGGESTED VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT ON IMPORTS WITH AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: A supplementary question and I want to assure the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that my figures are as current as this morning. Perhaps the minister would consult with his colleague

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and consider again the introduction of a Canadian meat import law that would permit voluntary agreement on imports with Australia and New Zealand that are definitely not firm quotas.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, that is what I wanted the hon. gentleman to say. Now that I have the concurrence of the Official Opposition, I will forge ahead with that kind of law.


MANPOWER
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the course of his remarks last week, the minister indicated that the change in the unemployment insurance law would go into effect perhaps by the end of the year. He also indicated he would not be in a position to indicate an employment program until some time this fall. I am sure the minister would agree that, apart from the question of the money involved, it would take some time to put such a program in place and make it effective. Having announced a change in the unemployment insurance situation and having indicated approximately when it will take place, is there any reason why the minister cannot now inform the House of the general nature of the program designed to implement employment for at least some of those affected? Can he give the House any possible reason why he should put one half of the program in force to change unemployment insurance when he is unable to give the House any assurance of the nature of the other part of the program or that it will be in place in time to meet the need?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I must express surprise at that comment coming from the hon. member who has been an advocate for some time on behalf of the program as it related to unemployment insurance, with no suggestion that I have heard on the other half, that is the provision of direct job creation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister has not listened to me on this subject. Some of his colleagues have not listened to me on other topics and have only taken the part of what I said that they chose to take.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Having announced his intention to introduce an employment program, out of concern I ask the minister why he cannot announce that program with respect to employment in general terms now and what right he has to ask members of the House and the people affected to wait until next fall? Can he honestly expect us to believe and the people affected to believe that his failure to announce the program is for no other reason than he has not the slightest idea what he is going to do?
June 7, 1976


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Halifax is being a bit unkind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: I did outline the general approach to the employment program in my comments in the budget debate the other day. I said that it would be developed into a year round, multi-facted program with emphasis and direction to areas of chronic high unemployment with special emphasis on those people who are likely to be unemployed for long periods of time. If the hon. member would review my statement he would see there is a fair amount of general detail there. Many complexities of design still have to be worked out, as I also indicated quite candidly.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The subject is the same as that of the motion I sought to move under Standing Order 43 so the minister has had at least that much warning. In view of the fact that the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service-and that title takes nearly half of the time of my question-recommended that classification be made subject to collective bargaining and in view of the complaints from public servants that the Treasury Board is now engaged in a speeded up process of reclassification, may I ask if the government will consider slowing down this process until parliament has made a decision on the recommendation to which I referred?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member any firm assurance that we are going to stop any classification until the legislation is passed. I think that the operations of the government must go on as required. However, I hope that my officials will consider the recommendation of the committee, and that instead of accelerating the rhythm they will have to act fully within the established standards. I would be surprised if this were the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council. Can the President of the Privy Council say whether the government has taken note of this recommendation and whether a proposal to implement it will be in the legislation to be introduced this fall?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will recall, I made a statement about the government's intentions with respect to legislation. We are establishing a special task force to prepare some proposals for consideration. These proposals
Oral Questions
and the work of the task force I hope will involve consultation with the various employee organizations so that this and other points will be given serious consideration.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Les Gens de L'air refuse to acknowledge and work with the appointed commissioner, what action is the government prepared to take in this regard?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we hoped to encourage them to work with the commissioner. I must report to the House today that, in view of the controversy which came to surround the appointment of Mr. Keenan as commissioner, I received, just before entering the House, his resignation as a commissioner of this inquiry. Of course, I received it with profound regret and will present to the House his letter of resignation and my reply thereto at the earliest moment.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I raise with the Minister of Transport the question I raised with him last week. I am concerned about over-crowded conditions at Calgary airport terminal, conditions which are unsanitary for users of the airport, and which affect the working conditions of employees. What is the situation now? When will the new depot, which the government has been promising since 1968, be completed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, vast expenditures are being made on the fine new airport terminal at Calgary, which is being put in place rapidly. There was a slight delay before construction began in the redefining of the nature of the terminal, to meet recurrent clearance and other needs. Construction is now going forward satisfactorily.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There is no time limit on construction. The government has spent millions of dollars on the existing depot. It has erected one leanto after another, but has not built sanitary toilet facilities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If hon. members would like to see what those washrooms are like, I will invite them. Can the minister give me any time limit as to when this depot will be finished?


Otto Emil Lang: After listening to the hon. member's question, hon. members may be surprised to learn that a very large

June 7, 1976
Oral Questions
sum of money, about $127 million-I forget the exact figure-is in process of being spent on the Calgary terminal buildings and facilities.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You have been spending it since 1968.


Otto Emil Lang: If the hon. member for Calgary North would go to the other side of the tarmac at the airport, he would see that facilities are rising with great rapidity. The airport will become one of the most elegant in this country.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Halton and has to do with the minister's answer about Mr. Keenan's resignation. What is the status of the investigation Mr. Keenan was conducting? Will another person be appointed, or can we expect a dual appointment, as mentioned in the newspapers? Would the minister bring us up to date on the status of the investigation.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are up to date. I was handed the letter of resignation just as I came into the House, which means that hon. members are very much up to date. I will want to consider some of the problems this raises. I emphasize again that I had indicated in the past my personal confidence in Mr. Keenan's ability to conduct a fair and proper inquiry. He would have worked with the tests which would be conducted with the simulator, and would have worked closely with people in industry and government who were involved with those tests. We intend to continue with those tests, and to have the co-operation of the pilots and air traffic controllers. I can go no further at this point.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
Mr. Speaker, the collective agreement of the group of economists, sociologists and statisticians will expire on June 27. So as to anticipate that, the negotiating agent for that group submitted in good faith a proposal for a new contract to the Treasury Board on April 29, that is two months before the expiry date. But the day before that submission, the group had received from the Treasury Board a letter indicating that it had been unilaterally decided to abolish the classification structures of that group. My question to the minister is this:
Is the President of the Treasury Board aware of that development which came about without any prior consul-

tation? Does he approve of it, considering the adverse effect such a decision by his department had on the morale?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall investigate. I am not aware of the incident mentioned by the hon. member. I knew their collective agreement was expiring. As to the classification, I will investigate and inform the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question addressed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs arises from reports concerning the clash of Syrian forces with Lebanese forces within Lebanon. What position has Canada taken on this Syrian intervention in Lebanon which-although Syrian peacekeeping intentions may be praiseworthy-does not seem to have been authorized by any international authority?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member be kind enough to clarify his question. I did not understand if he spoke of a Syrian intervention or of our peacekeeping mission. I did not understand him exactly.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to clarify my question. What position has Canada taken on the Syrian intervention inside the borders of Lebanon? I gather that Syrian forces have crossed over into Lebanon, clashes are taking place and the situation is tense. I know of the great interest of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in that part of the world. What position has Canada taken on this unauthorized intervention?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a sad witness, as many other countries are, to foreign interventions in that part of the world where cultural and other traditions are very close to ours, in Lebanon particularly. For the time being, Canada can do absolutely nothing because this would be another foreign intervention, which would therefore be unacceptable.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if the Canadian government is still receiving an unimpeded flow of reports from our representatives in that country?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know our embassy in Beirut has been closed for a very long time unfortunately and our personnel sent to Athens and other close and relatively secure places. There is nothing we can do from within Lebanon.
June 7, 1976


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is the minister aware of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Board ordering the deportation of Mrs. Isabelle Romiro, the wife of Luis Valdez, and of her four children? If so, does the minister intend to use the powers granted to him by the law to prolong the stay of this woman and her four children?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question to be a form of representation, and familiarize myself with the case with which I am not fully familiar at the moment.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since the latest Statistics Canada figures show the quantity of skim milk powder in storage has actually increased substantially from April 1 to May 1 of this year, will the government now begin programs to make this surplus available to Canadian consumers, especially lower income consumers, at prices which, while higher than the give-away levels at which the government has been offering skim milk powder outside Canada, could still be lower than the present domestic price? Would this not be a major way to help both producers and consumers? I ask this question because recent events seem to indicate some degree of dissatisfaction with the present program, not only on the part of consumers but on the part of producers as well.


Eugene Whelan: There is no doubt there is dissatisfaction with the program-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: It is mainly because the producers have done what we asked them to do-actually, they have overdone it and produced more than there is an ample market for. There is nothing we do for other parts of society that we shall not do for this one. We are doing everything possible to distribute the product in as fair a manner as possible and in a manner which would not disrupt normal markets. I would remind hon. members that we are still supplying a subsidy to domestic consumers at 34 cents a pound, making skim milk powder cheaper than in any other nation in the world.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


FREIGHT RATES-REQUEST FOR DELAY IN IMPLEMENTING CHANGE IN RATE ON RAPESEED PRODUCTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport in his capacity as minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the united opposition of rapeseed producers and processors on the prairies to the new freight rates on rapeseed products and the attempt to remove rapeseed from the benefit of the Crow rate, will the minister wait for the Hall and Snavely Report or does he still intend to impose new rates before the end of this month?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would have the honesty to state what I presume he knows, namely, that there is no proposal to remove rapeseed from the Crow. The specific issue over which rapeseed producers are unhappy is the question of the rate at which rapeseed oil may move. Until 1971 or so it moved at a rate which was set by the railways according to total costs or their ordinary rate-setting pattern. The rate was frozen for a while since that time because of the appeal concerning that rate-setting process. In the last couple of weeks the Governor in Council directed the Transport Commission to allow no rate higher than a compensatory rate on rapeseed oil. That is the lowest rate which is allowed under the law. This is an approach to rate-setting on oil which the provincial ministers in the West understood was the best we could do. It leaves a discrepancy between rapeseed as a grain and rapeseed as an oil.
This has been a longstanding source of disagreement and the situation will require legislation to correct. There is, however, no likelihood of an early movement of these rates, even at that, because the difficulty of determining the compensatory level is so great that the Snavely Report could quite possibly be issued first. However, the problem caused by the discrepancy between the rates under the Crow on rapeseed and rapeseed oil still remains. This is what the crushers really face, and anyone who wants to be honest about it would recognize that fact and say so.


REPRESENTATIONS FROM ALBERTA TO REMOVE DOMESTIC
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My supplementary relates to a telegram sent to the minister by the minister of transport of Alberta asking him, in effect, to take the domestic shipment of feed grains off the Crow rate. What response has the hon. gentleman given to this telegram and can he assure us that he will not be taking the action requested?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member would like me to give serious consideration to a request from any responsible provincial government. I consider the comment which has come from the Alberta government to be a responsible approach to the issue of the discrepancy in rates between meat and grain, rapeseed and rapeseed oil. I will certainly give this matter serious consideration and I would wish to

June 7, 1976
Oral Questions
discuss the question with the minister concerned before replying to him finally.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. I have in my hand a copy of an application form for radio licensing from the Department of Communications which I obtained directly from the minister's department. Unbelievable as it may seem, I find it stated here that it was printed in Japan. Can the minister explain the disgraceful fact that a department of the government would by-pass Canadians, not only the Queen's Printer, but Canadian firms which I know are starving for this kind of business? Could she tell us not only how but why such a deplorable decision was made?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: It
seems to me most unlikely that an application form would be printed in Japan, but I will look into the allegation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration; it concerns the Unemployment Insurance Act. Did the minister have any discussions with the premiers of the maritime provinces concerning the proposed changes in the Act before they were announced last month by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech?


Robert Knight Andras: I have taken part in a series of bilateral consultations with provincial ministers and I am sure they include ministers from the Atlantic provinces. The hon. member asked specifically whether the premiers were involved. I do not recall meeting with the premiers themselves but the ministers were aware there were many options we were considering, including the one adopted on budget night.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, supplemental to that asked by the hon. member for Windsor West. In view of the fact that insufficient quantities of feed grade skim milk powder are available in Western Canada at reasonable prices for use in the manufacture of milk replacer,

poultry meal and calf starter, and since officials of his department, and, indeed, the minister himself undertook to have the Canadian Dairy Commission, consult with the feed industry as to the advisability of releasing sufficient quantities of skim milk powder to the domestic feed industry, may I ask the minister whether these consultations have been concluded and whether any positive steps will be taken in this regard?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the price the Canadian Feed Manufacturers Association offered for skim milk powder was 6 cents a pound. I met with the head of the Feed Manufacturers Association when he was here the other day and he said they would probably be prepared to offer more because of the tremendous increase in the price of soybean meal at the present time. I would remind the hon. member, and the hon. member for Windsor West, that this skim milk powder belongs to the farmers of Canada. If they want to give it away, I suppose they have the right to do so. But I am here as Minister of Agriculture to make sure that they get the best income possible and try to dispose of the product in the best way we can. I might add that they do not have the tremendous stocks of which the hon. member spoke in the House on Friday, when I was not here. There is not that much skim milk powder in storage and they are doing a good job of getting rid of it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the minister is suggesting he is trying to get farmers the best price possible, may I remind him he is doing a damned poor job. I simply asked him whether he could tell the House whether the consultations he and his officials recommended have been completed and, if so, can he bring the report to the House?


Eugene Whelan: Well, if I am doing a damned poor job, the salesmanship job can be offered the hon. member any time he wants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: We will give him the same commission as we are giving any agent selling skim milk powder around the world. If the hon. member wants to be more useful than he is by asking the stupid questions he is asking, maybe he should go round the world and sell some skimmed milk powder. What he is saying isn't true. Farmers cannot afford to produce skim milk powder for animal protein; they would go broke quicker than they are at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: And let him tell the Opposition critic on corporate and consumer affairs to have the guts to go and tell the Quebec farmers that I am paying them too much for their milk. Tell the member for Brome-Missisquoi to do that. He has said so in this House. Tell him to go and address the dairy farmers of Quebec and tell them that I paid the farmers too much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would remind the minister that my job would be to sell rather than to store. That is what the business of selling is all about.
June 7, 1976


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which stems from a matter I have raised in the House on other occasions concerning information furnished to me from high level sources in the public services, sources which I consider to be beyond reproach, dealing specifically with alleged defrauding of the Unemployment Insurance Commission by certain persons. I would not have raised this matter in the first place had it not appeared obvious from the information given to me that a serious situation existed.
I might point out, before proceeding directly to the main substance of my question of privilege, that what I am going to say in the next half-minute will provide the necessary background. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration, on the first day that I raised the matter in the House, made certain remarks in this chamber, and also outside the House, which in effect corroborated what I said. In this regard, I think I am quoting him quite correctly when I say that he used two specific adjectives; he referred to the matter as being "extensive" and "serious". He also said that this was "more than an ordinary problem" and was one "involving thousands and thousands of dollars". At the time, I considered that the minister was making a proper and truthful statement in regard to the situation, and, of course, I still believe that that is exactly what he did, based on the information given to me up to that time and reinforced by further information given to me since that time by sources I have referred to previously.
To move directly to my question of privilege, may I refer to certain public statements made by Sergeant Gordon Butt of "A" Division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, located in the city of Ottawa. To begin with, it would seem to me that the proper procedure that should have been followed in a matter of this kind is that any statement dealing with things said in this House by a member of this House on behalf of the government should have been made by the responsible minister concerned, namely, the Solicitor General of Canada, in the House, and not by a noncommissioned officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, on behalf of the government, outside the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the conduct of Sergeant Butt in attempting publicly and politically to refute statements made in this chamber by a member of this House is a gross interference in the political sphere where police officers have no business whatever, and therefore interferes directly with the privileges of a member of the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: And vice versa.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I believe there is absolutely no significance, at least at this time, in why Sergeant Butt made these statements, but it is of great significance that he did indeed make them. Whether he made them through ignorance of the facts, or whether he made these statements intentionally or unintentionally, or whether he said what he said because the Unemployment Insurance Commission has failed to co-operate and to furnish all available evidence to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in their
Oral Questions
investigation-all these factors are of minor significance alongside the fact that a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has for some reason taken it upon himself to act as spokesman outside the House and to make statements that should have been made, if they were to be made at all, in the House by the Solicitor General.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I have always held the RCMP, as a force, in the highest regard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member is not going to conclude without telling the House what the statements are. I have to make some decision as to whether or not the statements he has referred to in some way offend the privileges of the House, and I have not yet heard those statements.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I would add that the statements made by Sergeant Butt were to the effect that what I said in this House had no substance.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If the members opposite know a lot about this, then perhaps they would tell the Canadian people. He also went further and stated that it was exaggeration. He indulged in the use of certain adjectives which obviously, if they were to be said, should have been said by the minister responsible in the House for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If the honourable seals opposite would be quiet, I will conclude my statement. I can only say, as I said a moment ago, that I have every respect for the Mounted Police. I do not wish to raise this matter as one that would cast a reflection on the force as a whole, but it does give one cause to have some reflection on certain members who wear the scarlet tunic when they speak politically.
I could furnish the House and Your Honour with the press reports that quoted Sergeant Butt, but may I conclude with these words: the government has denied and has hedged on Sky Shops and the judges' affair-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In seeking to conclude with those words, the hon. member does not conclude with the motion that would seek any action on the part of the Chair. In any case, having gained the floor on a question of privilege, he must realize that in referring to certain remarks that have been made by an officer of the RCMP and whether they could constitute a question of privilege, he would have to provide the House with detailed accounts of what the remarks were. Not having done so leaves the Chair with no choice but to find that no prima facie question of privilege exists.


Mr. Poulin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege. In view of your ruling, I am very reluctant to comment on what has just been said by the hon. member opposite under the guise of a question of privilege, but I do not believe that we continually can let him and other hon. members on the other side make these remarks without

June 7, 1976
Oral Questions
our being given the opportunity to respond to them. The Solicitor General is not here today, but I can say that Sergeant Gordon Butt was certainly not acting politically on behalf of the government, as the hon. member opposite said he was.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: What was he doing, then?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: What the hon. member has done by making these allegations is to bring into disrepute the whole of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He has been unable to substantiate what he said as fact at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: The hon. member also referred to the UIC investigation. May I say in a conversation that the Solicitor General's office had this morning with the RCMP it was made apparent that the UIC is giving its full co-operation in every way to the RCMP in their investigations. May I say that it is a low attack that has been made by the hon. member, and against a public servant who cannot defend himself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago Your Honour ruled that the matter raised by the hon. member for Leeds was not a question of privilege.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: That is right; it is too low.


Walter David Baker: I am not, of course, questioning that ruling, but under the guise of a question of privilege or a point of order-certainly I would think it too was not a question of privilege-the hon. member for Ottawa Centre rose and imputed something to the hon. member for Leeds which, upon reflection, on reading the statement, I think he will find false. Quite frankly, I think he is overreacting.
All of us in this House have a high regard for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and it is extremely important that none of us, in the exercise of our duties as members of parliament as we see them, either overreacts with respect to any comment that is made respecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or forgets the fact that when a comment that is held to be legitimate is made by a particular member, it should be confined specifically within narrow terms. The reputation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is extremely important to all members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The difficulty here is very clear. The hon. member for Leeds makes certain allegations against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and their conduct, and I have no way of finding this to be a prima facie question of privilege. However, it has been the practice of the House to allow comment on the opposite side. The value of that is seen in the fact that failure to do it only provokes other spurious questions of privilege which are responded to in turn, and in that way the matter can go on and on. The fact is that there is no question of privilege on either side of the House. Members are rushing to the defence of each other and to the defence of the RCMP, and

that is quite understandable. But the fact is that no question of privilege exists, and the matter ought to die there.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Leeds rises on a further question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I will only take 20 seconds just to reply to the hon. member opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The hon. member said I was casting reflections on the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I did not cast any reflection on the RCMP, and I have every right to ask that that statement be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Think of the Canadian people, for a change. I have every right to ask the question, and I did not make that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, the difficulty must be plain to all hon. members, that when a question of privilege does not exist it only invites disaster and a disrespect for the rules for the House to suggest that hon. members on a non-question of privilege should be entitled to reply or to go on with the same debate. That is the difficulty always faced when the Chair makes a ruling that no question of privilege exists. I would ask the courtesy and respect of all hon. members in that this matter be discontinued forthwith.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like, under Standing Order 41(2), to table, in both official languages, the letters from Mr. Keenan and the brief comment thereto.
June 7, 1976


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: That, notwithstanding any standing or special order, for the remainder of the session, no private members' business shall be taken up and on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the House shall sit from 11.00 a m. to 1.00 p.m. to consider government bills, provided that, on those days, the normal daily routine of business shall be taken up at 2.00 p.m.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, when I saw the motion on the order paper today, I expected that someone from the government side would rise in his place to give the House some reason that the government, through its majority, should decide to interfere with the Standing Orders of the House. Frankly, I am appalled, sir, as I am sure all thinking members are appalled, at the silence of those on the government benches in respect of this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We are now coming close to the end-at some time, in any event-of the longest session in parliamentary history, 317 days as of today. That is the length of two sessions of parliament, under ordinary circumstances. For some reason or other the government has assumed there is some magic in the date of June 30, and some reason that the ordinary Standing Orders of this House ought to be interfered with in order to finish a legislative program. It may be otherwise, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot help but think that what the government is attempting to do now is, in a rather cute way, bring the session to an end in a hurry. From the government's point of view there is a darned good reason for wanting to bring the session to an end in a hurry. Just cast your mind back over the past 317 sitting days. This is the government which could not handle the dredging contracts, for example, which found its way into the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: This is the government which at one stage of the game felt itself so much in the saddle that it could sink to the level of having its members call judges, over which a minister, who perhaps should not have resigned, was forced to resign, and the minister who should have resigned still sits in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: I thought perhaps time would be the great healer and nothing more would happen to indicate the inadequacies of the government. Then all of us were shocked by the revelations which occurred in respect of the Sky Shops affair. This is just another indication of the deterioration of this government which now asks us to extend the hours of debate so it can go home. This is the same government that could not even handle tendering practices at airports.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I can tell I am getting awfully close to the bone when I arouse the
Extended Sittings
hon. member for St. Boniface, whose contributions to the debates in this House are recorded now as "Oh, oh". That is the record. Sitting with the hon. member for St. Boniface, in the seat normally occupied by the Minister of Supply and Services, is the Minister of National Defence. This is the closest they have been to being together for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The one thing we can say about the Minister of National Defence, and I hope he is not tainted as a result of occupying that particular seat, is that, unlike the Minister of Supply and Services, he has at least not yet seen fit to cast off his ministerial responsibility on a public servant who cannot defend himself. That is the record of the Minister of Supply and Services.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: I do not think there is one minister of this government who is not only ashamed of its record-which is pretty dismal for 317 days-but is also not ashamed of the Minister of Supply and Services for his reprehensible and scurrilous attack on a public servant, thereby attacking the hallmark and the foundation of our parliamentary democracy, namely, the responsibility of ministers. That is why ministers have their prerogatives of office, and that is why they take the oath, because they are ultimately responsible. That great tradition has been denied and trampled by that hon. minister who normally occupies the seat now occupied by the Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: This is the longest session in parliamentary history.


An hon. Member:: And you are prolonging it.


Walter David Baker: You just wait and see how long we prolong it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I want to make it clear right now to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of this House, that June 30 holds no magic for the official opposition. There are some legislative items on the order paper and on the shopping list of priorities of the President of the Privy Council which are important to us and important to the people of Canada, if they are not important to the government. I intend to speak about this matter today, and there are others who intend to speak about it in terms of the business of this House. Not only are we here now, on the 317th day, with the government trying to quickly end the session, but we should cast our minds back to another record of this government. This is the government that has used closure more times in this particularly long session than it has ever been used before in a session of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 7, 1976
Extended Sittings


Walter David Baker: What were the government's choices? First of all, it decided that Bill C-58, dealing with Time, Reader's Digest and the income tax amendments was so important that it had to get it through this House. The government decided it had to overcome opposition to this bill, forgetting that it was also overcoming the opposition of the country. When that bill left this House, it went to the Senate. Who has been speaking against the bill in the Senate? I suggest it is none other than the Liberal senators.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: The Secretary of State now wears a beard in order that his blushing will not show. We now have Bill C-83 before the standing committee of this House. The government had well over a year to prepare Bill C-83, on peace and security-including gun control, parole, invasion of privacy by wiretapping, and all the other things-but the bill was in such terrible shape when it reached the committee that the government itself sought to introduce 43 amendments to it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: I repeat, the bill was in such dismal shape when it got to committee that the government saw fit to introduce 43 amendments to it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: We listened to the people.


Walter David Baker: If the hon. member for St. Boniface is right, that they are listening to the people, then the result will either be that there will be 43 more amendments or they will withdraw the bill.
Then there is the subject which goes to the heart of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I refer to Bill C-68, the medicare bill. Here is another bill in respect of which the government has used closure. This is an interesting commentary on how these so-called Liberals function when they find that everything they touch is turning to lead. This is a bill which will drastically affect the delivery of medical care to people in all parts of Canada, particularly those parts of Canada which are low income areas and which historically have fallen behind all other areas of Canada. Yet this government used closure in respect of that particular bill, and we find that bill on the government's list of priorities with regard to the closing of a session.
There is no magic in the date June 30. As if what I have said is not enough, all members of this House might consider the effect of another bill which is on the order paper, Bill C-87, a bill which will have a dramatic effect on the east coast of Canada, on the ports of Canada, on the shipping industry of Canada and on the elevator industry of Canada, not to mention family allowances and the government's retraining program, as well as the legislation in respect of industrial research and development incentives and western grain stabilization. All these matters are the subject of Bill C-87. What does the government expect? Does it expect, in this way, to get the government out of here so that it will not look so bad? This government would look bad wherever it might go. Does the government

expect that members representing areas affected by this bill will trade off the problems affected by that bill for a holiday? I do not expect so.
So I say to the government members, particularly the member who interjected a few moments ago, that if they think they will be home on June 30, they should make plans for August because we will be here fighting this legislation, particularly Bill C-87. I put it to members of this House: is it any wonder that the Gallup poll recently released indicated that the government is still at the lowest state in the public mind, and that the people of Canada are looking for an alternative to this government? Is there any wonder about the government's reputation?
This is another form of closure. There are other members who will speak in this regard. If the government thinks that as a result of this motion it is luring our party into this trade-off approach, then it has another think coming, because this party is prepared to stay and fight for the principles we think are beneficial to all Canadians. More important, we believe the Canadian public is behind us. We believe the Canadian public looks at this government as a government in retreat, in disrepute. Certainly, in the eyes of the public and some members of this House it has failed to take the responsibility for its mandate. That is the position.
I am sure that on the motion before us now, the government supporters will not take advantage of the debate. I am sure what will happen is that the hundreds, thousands and millions of Canadians represented by the backbenchers of the Liberal party will be unrepresented in this House. The Liberal backbenchers will be expected to sit mute while the problems wash around them. They will be expected not to intervene in the debate, and once again it will be the duty of the official opposition to carry the debate.
Mr. Speaker, I would think that at the end of 317 days of parliamentary practice we would have devised a way in which public business could be considered in an orderly manner. We have not done so. We wonder sometimes why it always has been the practice of this government to push into the latter part of the session some of the most important legislation with which this parliament must deal. Bill C-87 is one of those bills, and we intend to see some justice done for those who will be affected by its terms. I concluded by saying, let not the member over there who interjected, or any other member, feel that there is any magic in the date June 30. We are here prepared to do the public's business, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when motions to extend the hours of the sittings of the House are made, it is our view, that each one must be looked at on its merits. There have been occasions when such motions were made which we felt were unfair and unjustified and we have taken a very definite stand in opposition. There are times when a motion to extend the hours has merit and we are prepared to give our support. Let me say at the outset, so that it will be quite clear, that we intend to support this motion.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton began his remarks in good oratorical style by saying that he was appalled by this motion: He acted as though he did not

know why it was being put on the order paper. He expressed the view that many members of this House would not know why this motion is in front of us, especially in view of the fact that the President of the Privy Council chose not to speak to it when it was moved. As my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton knows, we-together with the House leader of the Social Credit party and the government House leader-have discussed this matter over a period of three or four weeks. We have discussed this matter at House leaders' meetings and we have discussed it with our various caucuses. I do not know how anyone could be taken by surprise today.


Walter David Baker: I am not surprised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know how anyone could be appalled. I suspect everyone in this House knows why the motion is in front of us. The reason is that parliament is engaged, understandably and justifiably, in a lengthy debate on a very controversial subject, namely, the subject of capital punishment. We have pleaded with the government, and I must say in all fairness that the President of the Privy Council has agreed readily, that there should be no closure motion used on the debate on Bill C-84.
We take the stand-and the President of the Privy Council agrees with it-that because of the emotional feeling about that legislation, no one who wishes to speak should be denied the right to speak. Therefore, since it has been accepted that there would be no closure, and since we want to make provision for all those who wish to speak to do so, the proposal that has been put down today is for an extension of hours to make it possible for most or even all of the speeches on the subject of capital punishment to be made within the month of June.


An hon. Member:: You don't know what it is all about.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I happen to know what it is about.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why don't you say it, then?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish my hon. friends would say what they mean.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: We will.


An hon. Member:: Don't worry; we'll say it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact of the matter is that the motion proposes that we add two hours on Tuesday mornings and two hours on Thursday mornings. It also provides that each of the private members' hours, where they occur-a maximum of four in a week- shall be taken for government business on the understanding that the extra time will be devoted to the second reading debate on Bill C-84. I submit that on balance that is not an unreasonable request. If the minister were threatening closure instead of this, he would find me and my colleagues opposing him very strongly, but since the proposal is simply to provide more time so that there can be
Extended Sittings
all the debate that members want on Bill C-84, I think it should be supported.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton had a delightful time reciting some of the mistakes that the government has made in this two-year session. When I look at the motion, it seems to be wide open-we can discuss just about anything that has happened in this session under the motion. I, also, could spend some time on this. I could complain about the fact that there has been no increase in the basic amount of old age security. I could also complain about Bill C-62 which provided for spouses allowances but discriminates strongly against widows, spinsters, widowers and bachelors. I could complain about some things that were left out of the bill regarding compensation for prisoners of war. I could complain about some other things that have taken place in the past, and about some things that are still before us. But parliament has taken its decision on these matters and I think we are all reaching a state, because of this session having lasted nearly two years, where we believe that it would be a really good idea if we could get this session over with and start a fresh one, certainly no later than the fall.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Having said that, I want to make it clear that I do not intend to take time to complain about the mistakes that have been made, because I am concerned about where we go from here. I am concerned about some of the other things that the President of the Privy Council wants to have passed before the House recesses for the summer or before we prorogue, and the minister knows it. We, in this party, are totally opposed to Bill C-68 which is down to the third reading stage, and we are also opposed to quite a number of things in Bill C-87. To make it clear on the record, let me say that Bill C-68 has to do with medicare and Bill C-87 is a restraint package which wipes out the Company of Young Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where does my friend stand on that? The bill also imposes a number of restraints which affect the poor people of this country, and also gives legal effect to something the government is already doing, namely, freezing family allowances at their last year's level. We do not think the government should proceed with Bill C-87 in this session.
In all fairness-I have to be careful, because we hold our House-leaders' meetings with a certain amount of confidentiality, but since this matter was discussed, we know the President of the Privy Council has given us these bills, and he announced in public a number of times the bills he wanted dealt with before the end of June or before we rise for the summer recess-he has admitted that we are making it difficult with respect to Bill C-87 and it may be a bill that might be negotiable. Perhaps he or someone on the government side could say so in the course of this debate. I feel very strongly about Bill C-87 and I think it should be held off. I think that Bill C-68 should be dropped altogether. I do not think it is necessary, and I think that with the federal-provincial ministers' conferences that are still taking place, both among first ministers and among
June 7, 1976

Extended Sittings
finance ministers, it would be better if that bill were stood. But this produces a kind of mixed package. My friends to the right are saying that they are concerned about Bill C-87. Let us separate this and get things clear. Let us have the Tory caucus give some advice or instruction to their House leader, so that when it comes to meetings of House leaders we know what we are talking about. If they want not to go on with Bill C-87, let us find that out.


Walter David Baker: Nonsense.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Follow the debates in the House, and you will find out.


Walter David Baker: You know our stand. Don't play that game.


Mr. Nowlan:: Comedian!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am usually here. I know what is going on.


Walter David Baker: You have one foot on each side of the fence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know what is at the root of the opposition to the motion that is before us today. It is opposition to Bill C-84, to the capital punishment bill.


Walter David Baker: Nonsense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Behind that is the notion that somehow, if the House is kept going long enough into the summer, that bill could be delayed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton heard some retorts from the government side, he said, I think, that he was getting close to the bone, or something. Well, I am obviously getting close to the bone of the Progressive Conservatives. The issue is before the House. I would say that the other subjects, such as Bill C-87, are still negotiable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Is that right, Mitch?


Mitchell William Sharp: It has not been held up on our side.


Walter David Baker: On Bill C-87 you have.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He is in the dark ages. He thinks it is only Bill C-84.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a great temptation to turn this debate into a House leaders' meeting. Perhaps hon. members should come back to debating the motion before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I had exactly the same thought, Mr. Speaker. Why do we not hold our House leaders' meetings on this floor? I submit that Bill C-87 is negotiable. But I submit, also, that with a number of persons on death row with execution dates set for the month of July, it is a reasonable proposition for the House

of Commons to make a decision on Bill C-84 at least some time in the month of June.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say, again, that there is an agreement on the part of the President of the Privy Council not to apply closure to the second reading debate of Bill C-84. If we are not going to apply closure, we have two choices, and it is not for the government to decide; it is for parliament to decide. Do we get in all the speeches that hon. members want to make by debating the bill all of June and into July, or do we allow extra time in June and try to bring the debate to a conclusion so that parliament can make its decision?
I think the sensible thing to do would be to add extra time, and if hon. members still want to continue the debate, they can do so. One of their members down the line can move an amendment for a six months' hoist and let all those who have already taken part in the debate get in again. They can keep it going, if they want to; but let us find out whether there is any disposition to try to bring things to a conclusion before the summer months. I think the motion does this, and we are prepared to support it. We think it is a good idea, but we will continue to negotiate with the President of the Privy Council for dropping Bill C-87 so far as the period of time between now and the end of June is concerned, and the same applies to Bill C-68.
Although I have been a little hard on my Tory friends-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not hard, just wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not been wrong. I have been around here a while and I know how things operate. The Tories are to be forgiven for being confused. Some of them are more concerned about Bill C-84 than others, and some are genuinely concerned about Bill C-87. But the issue before us in this motion is a very clear and simple one. I have stated it two or three times, but I will state it again. It has been clearly decided and agreed that there will be no closure on the debate on capital punishment, and everyone who wants to speak shall have the right to do so. So the simple question is this: Do we achieve that right for everyone to speak by carrying it on into the middle of the summer, or do we add some extra hours in June with the hope of getting a decision on that piece of legislation in this month?
There have been House leaders' meetings; this question has been discussed and we know that the extra time will be used for that. The other day, when one hon. member was speaking at second reading of Bill C-84, he complained because there was a proposal to sit extra time which was to be devoted only to Bill C-84. The President of the Privy Council asked him across the floor of the House if he would accept the motion if reference to Bill C-84 was left out and it was open for all government bills. Of course, he did not really answer that question. No matter how you put it, our friends to the right want it both ways. The simple question is, when do we want the time for the extra debate on Bill C-84 which hon. members want?
June 7, 1976

Do we want it in the month of July, or do we want it on Tuesday and Thursday mornings and during private members' hours in the month of June? I think the public will not give us one speck of credit for sitting here all summer to debate something which has been going on for months. I think the public will respect us for having a little more common sense if we support this motion and if we try to make a reasonable amount of headway in the month of June.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, just a few words about the motion put forward today by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). At first, I was very surprised at the conclusion drawn by the Progressive Conservative House leader that he found odd the motion on the extension of hours in today's order paper. Since we had consultations between House leaders and since during these sittings the President of the Privy Council said that if the discussions raised too many points with regard to Bill C-87 and Bill C-68, at this time, we members of the Social Credit Party of Canada do not intend to object to the extension of sitting hours. I think the government wants to be democratic. It wants to extend the hours to complete the consideration of Bill C-84 and also enable all members who would like to speak on that bill and other important one to do so.
If the House wants to adjourn on June 30, we agree. As far as I am concerned, I go once in a while to see my family. I would like to be home sometimes. I do not want to be like the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who stated that after 300 days the current session had been too long and who in the same breath added that it would have to continue. He should at least know what he wants. Considering that the case at issue has to do with Bill C-87 and Bill C-68, as so well stated by the previous speaker, and that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) suggested that the matter was negotiable, I think that we must hasten to vote for the extension of sitting hours to allow the backbenchers who wish to speak on Bill C-84 and other important bills to do so.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning I thought I might be launching into a long harangue, having had my dander raised by the House leader of the official opposition. But what we have learned from the replies of the House leaders of the Social Credit party and the New Democratic Party is that what is taking place here is, in effect, an open meeting of House leaders. There has been an exchange of views, and people are jockeying for position because we are coming to the end of a very long session. It has been the longest in memory.


An hon. Member:: In history.


Mr. Blais:: I think it has been the longest in the history of this House. We are dealing with a bill which, with the consent of all parties, has taken a considerable amount of time. As I understand it, we have spent a total of 30 hours debating Bill C-84, and there have been 78 speakers. Everyone was in agreement with that, and I think the contributions have been commendable. I think the whole country
Extended Sittings
has benefited from it. I am not trying to prolong this discussion, but I think there has been a general view that we would like to see this motion, which is not a closure motion but simply a motion to have us work harder as we get close to the end of our session, passed so that that particular bill can be passed.
The motion does not say that this House will adjourn on June 30. There has been an indication by the government as to which legislation it gives priority, and the government has to accept its responsibility in passing a certain package of legislation as best it can within the time-frame and the restrictions of the House and the mood of the House. We do not want to create an antagonistic mood in this House. We want to create a mood which at the end of this long session will permit the passage of legislation which the government deems essential.
There has been an indication from the right that there are some bills which they would like to have some chance to negotiate with regard to their passage, or amendments to some of the provisions. That is fair game. But, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated, having spent a great deal of time on Bill C-84, we ought to allow some additional time so that the other pieces of legislation which the government feels are important and necessary can be given a sufficient amount of time on the floor of this House to be intelligently debated. I have no indication as to which ones are to be negotiated. Surely that is something which should be the subject of further negotiations between the House leaders.
The government House leader indicated that he is ready to negotiate certain aspects and certain bills. He is ready to meet again with the House leaders whenever the need is felt. Surely every member in this House is anxious, in view of the heat-especially of last week-to recognize that we have spent a great deal of time in Ottawa, that we have a number of fences to mend in our constituencies and that we have been away from them for an overly long period of time. I am one of those who is very close to his constituency, namely, 240 miles away-, which is not far-and I find that if I can manage three weekends a month in my constituency, that is the maximum. That is not enough if we are to serve our constituents in the proper way.
Those who come from afar are in a worse position than I am. I am looking at the hon. member for Vegreville. Surely, he recognizes that his constituents have not seen him as much as he would like. The same is true of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, and all hon. members on this side. It has been a long time. Sometimes our constituents do not recognize that we spend ten months of the year engaged in the legislative process in this House. We are tied to this House; all hon. members opposite recognize that. I agree that if we are going to shore-up our bargaining positions, there is a necessity to try to use such instruments as we have available to us. That is fair game. But I think that on the whole we should recognize that this House has been sitting long enough in this session.
We should also recognize that we ought to be coming up with a new legislative program in the early fall, on the government side, and a rejuvenated attitude on the opposi-

June 7, 1976
Extended Sittings
tion side, so that we can deal with the legislation that will be proposed in the government's new program in an intelligent manner, lor the benefit of all Canadians.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly and quietly, because my throat will not permit me to do otherwise this afternoon, even if I were so inclined. I must say that there are aspects of Bill C-87 that I cannot accept. I would not consider that I would be discharging my responsibilities to the part of the country I come from if I did not make a very determined effort to prevent it going through in its present form. What I am concerned about in the passage of a resolution such as this is that with the extra hours the government might very well steamroller-I am not concerned about a vote coming on Bill C-84, because I want to see a vote taken on it-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -but I am concerned about the government using the extra hours to streamroller and beat down an opposition trying to fight for what it considers to be the necessary point and necessary principle in regard, specifically, to Bill C-87.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader say these things are negotiable. If they are negotiable, let us have them negotiated. The government House leader will say now that Bill C-87 will not be pushed; that it will go into the fall, or something like that. As far as I am concerned, the more time people have to discuss Bill C-84, the better; but I would find it very difficult to put my colleagues in the position or to be associated with taking a position which would allow a government with a majority to steamroller something through which might have great tragic consequences to my part of the country.
I say to the government House leader, to the hon. member for Nipissing and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre: Do not ask me to vote for this and then negotiate. That is too late.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the hon. member for Halifax? If an arrangement were made that Bill C-87 would not be proceeded with, would he and his party support this motion?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, Mr. Speaker, I would be hedging. I can no longer speak for the party. Certainly, I would be prepared to vote for this motion, and I have pretty good reason to believe it would go through very quickly this afternoon.


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Privy Council knows the discussion we have had with respect to Bill C-87 and our attitude to it. He knows, as well, that negotiations have been carried on by the hon. member for Edmonton West, on behalf of our party with the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Transport who were interested in the matter. He knows now that those negotiations did not bear fruit.
Since the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre decided to open up the House Leaders' meetings, I shall open

them further. The hon. member will recall that I spoke to the minister at the last meeting and suggested that he consult again with his colleagues in respect of Bill C-87 as there would be some great difficulty in our dealing with the bill while clause 15 remained in it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may be interested in something else. I cannot answer as to that, but I am prepared to say that if the government House leader will consult his cabinet colleagues again-either the two I mentioned, or all of them-and deal with me or, better still, the hon. member for Edmonton West, with respect to our concerns, I think perhaps I could answer his question in the affirmative. That is an offer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before going on with the debate, there has been some suggestion which would at least give rise to the thought that further negotiations might take place before the vote on this motion comes about which would call for an adjournment of this debate, further negotiations, resumption of the debate and a vote on it. I do not know if there are others who wish to speak to the motion.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should adjourn the debate. I am not sure what sort of problem that would create. In principle, however, I hope there can be a recess in the debate until nine o'clock tonight. I would be very happy to have some further discussion with my confreres, the other House leaders. As the hon. member said, we have had some discussion already, but it has never been clear. I think that in this way we might resolve the issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that this debate be now adjourned until nine o'clock this evening?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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: 4,378, 4,532 to 4,536, inclusive; 4,893 to 4,895, inclusive; 5,151, 5,308, 5,341, 5,343, 5,391, 5,467, 5,482 and 5,496.
Mr. Speaker, the answer to question 5,308 is corrected. [Text]


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Osborne Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.
June 7, 1976


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Carlton Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Portsmouth Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Montgomery Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at St. Hubert Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Parrtown Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Oskana Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.
Order Paper Questions PSYCHIATRISTS-ALTADORE CENTRE


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Altadore Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Scarboro Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the total fees paid by the government in the past four fiscal years to Gowling & Henderson, Barristers, 160 Elgin Street, Ottawa?
2.	What is the breakdown, by department and agency, of how such fees were earned?


Mr. Francis Fox (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: In so far as the agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: 1 and 2.
Department	1972/73	1973/74	1974/75	1975/76D.	N.D.	9,689.97	12,408.80	21,017.24	1,505.75E.	M.R.	540.00	2,465.85	2,695.85


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 5,308-Mr. Cossitt: (Corrected)
Has the government given any consideration to the establishment of passenger and baggage helicopter service between Dorval and Mirabel Airports to facilitate quicker and easier passage of passengers making connecting flights and, if not (a) for what reason (b) will the matter be given consideration?
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Transport Canada has not given any consideration to the establishment of passenger and baggage helicopter service between Dorval and Mirabel Airports, (a) Reasons: (i) A bus services is already being provided by the Montreal Urban Transportation Committee, scheduled every half hour between 1330 and 2330 (peak period at Mirabel) and every hour between 0600 and 1300, for a total of 29 return trips per day. (ii) Current departmental policy leaves the provision of all such services open for competition; to this date there has been no application by private companies, (b) Future Considerations: Transport Canada has no intention of changing current policy with respect to the provision of such services. However


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 5,126 that the cost of the aircraft for travel to and from Campobello Island was $586 per hour (a) what was the total amount of flying time involved and the total cost (b) what was the total amount of waiting time involved, if any, and the total cost (c) did the aircraft and crew remain with the Prime Minister during his stay and, if so, what was the total cost of their stay (d) did the aircraft fly back to Ottawa, returning to pick-up the Prime Minister later and, if so, what was the total cost of all flying time involved?


Ralph Goodale: (a) Five hours. Total Cost, $2,930.; (b) Not Applicable; (c) No; (d) Yes. For total cost see (a) above.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 5,123 that the cost of the aircraft for travel to and from French River was $586 per hour (a) what was the total amount of flying time involved and the total cost (b) what was the total amount of waiting time involved, if any, and the total cost (c) did the aircraft and crew remain with the Prime Minister during his stay and, if so, what was the total cost of their stay (d) did the aircraft fly back to Ottawa, returning to pick-up the Prime Minister later and, if so, what was the total cost of all flying time involved?


Ralph Goodale: (a) One hour and 20 minutes. Total Cost, $781.; (b) Not Applicable; (c) No; (d) Yes. For total cost see (a) above.


Mr. Crouse: On a national accounts basis, what were the amounts of the surplus or deficit for the years ending March 31, 1969 to March 31, 1975 both inclusive?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: On a National Accounts basis, the federal government surplus or deficit for each of the fiscal years from 1968-69 to 1974-75 is shown in the following table:
	Surplus or Deficit (- ) ($ Millions)
1968-69	75
1969-70	978
1970-71	-94
1971-72	-243
1972-73	-256
1973-74	-46
1974-75	-609


Mr. Allard: 1.	Was an agreement concluded between the government and the Province of Quebec on May 13, 1942, concerning the suspension of certain taxes during war time and, if so (a) what were the names and job titles of those who signed the agreement for and on behalf of each government (b) is it possible to obtain a signed copy (c) which taxes were suspended by the agreement?
2.	Has the agreement lapsed and (a) if so (i) on what date and in what manner (ii) has there been any renewal of the agreement (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. Yes, concluded and signed on May 27, 1942; (a) Hon. J. L. Ilsley, Minister of Finance, Canada; Hon. J. A. Mathewson, Provincial Treasurer, Quebec; (b) Yes-from Files in Public Archives; (c) Provincial Personal Income Taxes; Provincial Corporate Income Taxes; Certain Special Corporation Taxes; Provincial Succession Duties.
2. Yes; (a) (i) On April 1, 1947 upon the expiry of the wartime agreement; (ii) No; (b) The agreement was a wartime measure only.


Mr. Stevens: For the years 1973, 1974 and 1975, by quarter, what was the total number of revenue passengers (a) enplaned (b) deplaned at (i) Toronto International Airport, Terminal 1 (ii) Montreal International Airport (Dorval) (iii) Montreal International Airport (Mirabel)?


Ralph Goodale: Table I (following) provides the requested quarterly total number of revenue passengers enplaned and deplaned at Toronto International Airport, Terminal 1. These data refer to scheduled passengers only. Annual 1975 figures are not yet available, therefore an estimate was made based on 11 months of data. Table II refers to the number of charter passengers enplaned and deplaned at Terminal 1 and Terminal 2. Charter passenger data are not available on an individual Terminal basis.
Table 1
Toronto International Airport-Terminal 1 Enplaned and Deplaned Passengers-Total Scheduled Services
Enplaned	Deplaned	Total1973	1st quarter 2nd quarter*111 3rd quarter 4th quarter	910,369 533,510 335,309 299,657	919,875 539,011 338,759 290,519	1,830,244 1,072,521 674,068 590,176Total	2,078,845	2,088,164	4,167,0091974	1st quarter 2nd quarter*121 3rd quarter 4th quarter	293,361 333,201 431,859 341,454	310,496 351,377 446,365 330,670	603,857 684,578 878,224 672,124Total	1,399,875	1,438,908	2,838,783

June 7, 1976

1975*<3) 1st quarter 2nd quarter 3rd quarter 4th quarter*141
Total
307,108
354,807
430,224
343,039
1,435,178
321,882
375,247
446,990
329,985
1,474,104
628,990
730,054
877,214
673,024
2,909,282
Order Paper Questions
3.	What are the names, job designations and annual salaries of all persons employed in the Office of the Co-ordinator of Parliamentary Returns as of the date this questions is answered?
4.	What is the date this question was answered?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.
** (1) Air Canada's Terminal 2 passenger figures for the period April 23 to April 30, 1973, are included in the 2nd quarter data.
*(2) Air Jamaica's and Aeronaves' de Mexico Terminal 2 passenger figures for the period June 16 to June 30, 1974, are included in the 2nd quarter data.
*(3>
Preliminary statistics.
*<4) December figures were estimated based on 11 months of preliminary 1975 data.
Table II
Toronto International Airport-Terminals 1 and 2 Enplaned and Deplaned Passengers-International Charter Services
Enplaned	Deplaned	Total1st quarter	93,427	96,172	189,5992nd quarter	92,617	87,199	179,8163rd quarter	178,367	197,069	375,4364th quarter	68,462	55,944	124,406Total*	432,873	436,384	869,2571st quarter	119,433	115,947	235,3802nd quarter	104,103	113,334	217,4373rd quarter	174,670	179,623	354,2934th quarter	90,473	75,310	165,783Total*	488,679	484,214	972,8931st quarter	147,236	148,421	295,6572nd quarter	123,276	141,083	264,3593rd quarter	188,593	191,091	379,6844th quarter	100,723	80,291	181,014Total*	559,828	560,886	1,120,714Name	Title	Salary RangeGuimond, G. Y.	AS-3	$12,512-14,181Jubinville, L.	CR-3	7,777- 8,499(now Sanscartier)	Lajoie, L. L.	CR-3	7,777- 8,499Lavigne, L.	CR-3	7,777- 8,499MacAulay, L.	CR-3	7,777- 8,499Paquette, D.	AS-5	16,373-18,573Regimbald, R.	CR-3	7,777- 8,499Roy, G.	CR-4	8,633- 9,438Simard, L.	ST-TYP-02	6,036- 6,5842. Name	Title	Salary RangeCharette, F.	ST-TYP-02	$6,036- 6,584Dinel, L. R.	CR-4	9,280-10,146du Perron, R. A.	CR-4	9,280-10,146Gorley, D.	ST-TYP-01	5,602- 6,462Macfarlane, R. M.	CR-4	9,280-10,146Racine, L.	ST-TYP-02	6,036- 6,584Regimbald, L.	CR-3	8,360- 9,1363. Name	Title	Salary RangeCharette, F.	ST-TYP-02	$6,489- 7,078Dinel, L. R.	CR-4	10,394-11,364Gorley, D.	ST-TYP-02	6,489- 7,078Guimond, G. Y.	AS-3	13,638-15,457Macfarlane, R. M.	CR-4	10,394-11,364Paquette, D.	AS-5	17,847-20,245Regimbald, L.	CR-3	9,363-10,232Regimbald, R.	CR-4	10,394-11,364Roy, G.	CR-5	11,796-12,901Sanscartier, L.	CR-3	9,363-10,232Simard, L.	CR-3	9,363-10,232
'Annual published numbers may differ slightly due to adjustments in quarterly published numbers.
!


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names, job designations and annual salaries of all persons employed in the Office of the Co-ordinator of Parliamentary Returns as of July 8, 1974?
2.	Since July 8, 1974, what are the names, job designations and annual salaries of persons who have joined the staff of the Co-ordinator of Parliamentary Returns?
4. The Government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions on the Order Paper and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information such as asked in this question about internal administrative workings.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
14212

June 7, 1976
Capital Punishment



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one of the reasons we had discussion between three o'clock and four o'clock today on the motion to extend the hours is that the government, in its modesty, has deceived the people of Canada and the members of parliament through its handling of certain legislative processes introduced in Bill C-84. In 1973 the government introduced a bill which was to extend the death penalty for another five years in certain circumstances. Subsequently, at committee stage the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) tried to introduce an amendment which in effect was going to abolish capital punishment, but it was ruled out of order.
Now, some three years later, without waiting the five years they pledged, the government-without providing the right framework for this legislation-is back, with the same Solicitor General, trying in a neat piece of manipulation to get out of the commitment made at the time the legislation requiring extension for the first five years was introduced. By deceiving the Canadian people, deceiving themselves and going back on their word, the government has become bogged down with this legislation.
I now turn to the principles of Bill C-84. We are debating a bill which is to provide for the abolition of capital punishment. But it must be made clear that not all killings are murder. Most killings are homicides. Homicide usually involves violent death. Some call all homicides murder. With respect, they are wrong. For example, accidental deaths are not murder; suicides are not murder; manslaughters, usually involve a killing arising from an act of passion. You hear of people getting drunk, then getting into an argument, getting hold of a butcher's knife and stabbing someone. Such acts should not be called murder and in those circumstances the accused will probably be charged with manslaughter. This sort of thing is on the increase; probably that is why manslaughter statistics are high.
Then there is murder itself to be considered. I have been interested in this subject for some time and reluctantly must count myself among the ranks of the retentionists. Abolitionists contend that most murders are accidental. They argue that if a criminal armed with a rifle, machine-gun or other weapon enters a bank with no purpose save that of relieving the bank of the burden of keeping $1 million, or some large sum, and kills somebody who interferes with the smooth operation of the robbery, that killing should not be classed as murder but as accidental death.
(Mr. Speaker.]
The abolitionists claim that the death would not have happened if someone had not got in the way and intere-fered with the smooth operation of the crime. Retentionists say it is premeditated murder, because the person committing the crime went equipped with a firearm or weapon which he intended to use, and did use when the crime did not go as smoothly as the criminal wanted. In that case one is talking of murder resulting from a premeditated criminal act. I am not talking of the sort of premeditated murder involving a paid killer who is paid to kill Mr. X and hunts him down and kills him. The situation I have described, I believe, involves murder; it is not accidental murder as some abolitionists might claim because the criminal went prepared to kill.
Perhaps all this is a reflection on our society. Most of the letters which I receive have to do with capital punishment, abortion and gun control-three issues dealt with by the criminal law. I suppose they involve the moral law. Apparently our people are more concerned about these questions than about, for instance, the budget, economic development, unemployment insurance or those things which go to improve our quality of life. Those are important moral issues of great concern to the people of this country.
I propose to vote for the retention of capital punishment. I would vote for the retention of capital punishment in cases where death results from a premeditated criminal act. In the previous debate I said, on May 22, 1973, that the question of abolition or retention could come up again society had experienced a period of security. I said at that time, I would vote for the abolition of the death penalty. Mr. Speaker, I cannot do that at this time because we have not been given the five-year period of grace provided by the 1973 legislation. Further, society has not experienced a sense of security. I regret having to take this position.
I believe that the first duty of the government is to protect the state and the people of the state. I say that the people of Canada are entitled to feel secure. This government and preceding governments have failed in their efforts to make our people feel secure. Our people are entitled to the secure enjoyment of their standard of living. Legislation this House passes ought to make the people feel secure. Yet society does not feel secure; it feels insecure. Our statistics show an increase in the rate of violent crime. The result is that members of our society have opted for the return of capital punishment.
I do not believe that a member's vote on a bill should necessarily reflect the results of the most recent poll or the opinion of his constituents. I believe a member is elected to exercise judgment. In the present instance, I intend to vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of my constituents. This time I am lucky. Next time I may not be so lucky and may vote in a manner against the wishes of my constituents.
Society's lack of sense of security prompts my voting for the retention of capital punishment. I think the concern of our citizens would be somewhat lessened if the government were to introduce legislation for which I asked in May, 1973. I asked for legislation to shore-up the inadequate bail system, which would give the people of this country a greater sense of security, for amendments which would revoke our ridiculous parole laws and for other legislation which would help the average citizen feel more
June 7, 1976

secure. The government did not do that. Actually, it acted on part of our recommendations by bringing in the peace and security legislation, Bill C-83. Previously, I criticized the 25 per cent statutory remission provision always being in favour of the criminal. This provision is to be revoked under Bill C-83. In May, 1973, I asked the government to pass such legislation. If the government had listened and the legislation had come into effect, perhaps the attitude of our people would be different. Perhaps our people would feel secure.

One area in which the government has not legislated happens to be in the area of gun control. I know the government has put forward Bill C-83 dealing with gun control, and I have been trying to follow that as best I can, along with other committees in which I am involved. But if we feel guns are so important a cause for criminal acts, if we want to control them, let us get down to the nitty-gritty and try to control their possession by the criminal element, not just their use by law-abiding citizens. Under the present legislation, between section 86 and section 105 a person can be prosecuted for possession of a firearm. That provision is being reintroduced in the new bill, C-83, with a minimum sentence of one year. I would like to see it made mandatory that a person possessing a firearm be prosecuted for possession of that weapon prior to his prosecution for the substantive offence, be it armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, murder, or whatever.
If firearms are so important, let us get down to prosecuting for their possession. As it is today, if a person is picked up by the police for armed robbery and possession of a firearm, I know very well his lawyer will go to the Crown attorney's office and say, "We will plead to armed robbery if you drop the possession charge". The Crown attorney will say "Yes." He does not want to go through a four-day trial. It means a lot of expense. The courts are backlogged. I have been in the position of Crown attorney, and I know this to be true. It is called plea bargaining. What I want to do is take away the right to plea bargaining where armed weapons have been used. I think this would be a very good thing and maybe an effective deterrent.
I feel the people of this country are concerned about the fact that the royal prerogative of mercy has been used 100 per cent since 1962. I do not think 100 per cent of the people convicted of murder in this country were entitled to mercy. The juries did not recommend it in 100 per cent of those cases. The accused were sentenced to death in accordance with the law. But cabinets, acting as a final judicial tribunal, have invoked the royal prerogative of mercy 100 per cent of the time. I believe this has helped to create a disregard for the law in the eyes of the criminal and make the law something of a laughing-stock among both criminals and the law-abiding section of society who do not feel protected. Their sense of security and protection is undermined by the record of 100 per cent commutations.
I think it would be wrong to continue commuting on a 100 per cent basis if this bill fails to pass. The royal prerogative should be retained for truly important cases where mercy is recommended by the jury or the circumstances jump right out and almost plead for mercy. But in the case of people like the Santa Claus murderer who, after shooting a person, came back and machine-gunned the
Capital Punishment
victim further to make sure he was dead, I do not really think there is any call for mercy-and the jury in that case did not recommend mercy. Yet the government of the day commuted that sentence.
Mr. Speaker, I believe capital punishment to be a deterrent. Some abolitionists have written to me and said, "Yes, we believe it is a deterrent, although we don't know how we can prove it statistically", because, of course, we get caught up in cases where it was not a deterrent; we get caught up in statistics which say that it is not. I think statistics can prove anything. Anyone can make statistics say whatever they like. But I believe the fear of excution is a deterrent.
Statistics are not necessarily correct. I would like to quote from evidence given under oath in the case of Her Majesty v. David Brault, David Dwyer and Donald Phillion which was heard about six years ago here in Ottawa-it became known as the Carp murders. These three men followed two separate cars and out on Highway 44, below Carp, without being provoked one bit, they flagged down the two cars. The occupants got out of their cars, like good Samaritans, and these three men shot them to death, pumped their bodies full of lead on Highway 44, about 23 miles from here.
Within a short period of time-as a matter of fact, I think it was about three days-the police had traced the three accused people to various communities. One of them, David Dwyer, was traced to Windsor. He was downstairs in a cellar when a certain constable, Constable Chippit, entered the house, went down the cellar stairs and rounded the corner, at which point Dwyer had a .22 rifle pointed at his head and could have pulled the trigger and killed the constable. I quote from page 252 of the preliminary hearing of the sworn testimony of the constable, evidence which was uncontested. I am excluding certain portions which have no bearing on what I am saying.
Q. What name did you know the accused by at that time?
A. David Dwyer.
Q. When you saw him, how was he dressed?
A. He had a brown jacket on, hair blond and he had what appeared to be a .22 rifle pointed at my head.
Q. How long was this weapon?
A. It was sawed off, cut down.
Q. Was there any struggle?
A. No struggle at all.
Q. Did Dwyer say anything at this point?
A. He just walked out very nonchalantly. After I said "Drop it", he said "All right" and walked out.
Q. Was there any conversation on the way to the station?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. What was the conversation?
A. You are talking about conversation in the car after we left the scene?
Q. Yes.
A. The conversation was, if I remember, we were talking of an armed robbery in the city of Windsor. I stated, "Well, this time don't worry about it," and he said, "No, this is a bad city to pull a robbery. I have had better luck other places."
Q. This was Dwyer; is that correct?
A. This is correct.

June 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
Then at page 254 of the evidence there is this question from the Crown attorney:
All right. Would you like to go back into the box. What was the accused's attitude during the time you were in his company?
A. He was very nonchalant, sir. He asked me for a cigarette, and then when we were leaving the scene, or the car was leaving the scene in the police car W.H.Q.
That is Windsor headquarters. The questioning continued:
Q. Did you get the cigarette?
A. I looked at him-
Meaning Dwyer.
-and said, "You guys are crazy; just had a gun to my head and now you want a cigarette." He said-
Again, meaning Dwyer.
-"I would not shoot you, I would hang for that."
I believe, therefore, that capital punishment is a deterrent. This police officer was alive to tell the tale because he was not shot. He was not shot because Dwyer did not want to hang, and he said so in sworn evidence. I do not care what people say about statistics, Mr. Speaker. I say that if you talk to individual people you will find capital punishment is a deterrent. I am not saying it is a deterrent in 100 per cent of the cases, but here is evidence that at least one person is alive because it was a deterrent.
I want to close by making two further points. I do not believe the government has been honest with the Canadian people because it has not carried out the law during the five-year period of abolition of capital punishment in the case of the murder of police officers and prison guards. They did not give the law a true trial. When the period was extended in 1973, again the government was not honest. In fact, before the bill was out of committee the Solicitor General tried to change it to an abolition bill entirely. The government does not invoke the law and, as a result, it has been laughed at ever since. The government's trickery and manipulation has continued.
In addition, the government has been using the Canadian taxpayers' money to try to force the opinion of cabinet, which is for abolition, on the people. For example, in question No. 5,348 I asked the Solicitor General about the monthly magazine Liaison, volume 2, No. 2 for March, 1976, which dealt with the peace and security legislation, a governmental piece of propaganda if ever there was one. In this magazine the government speaks of capital punishment and its "great" gun control bill, to which the Solicitor General has now introduced 43 amendments since, having listened to people, he has found out it is not so great.
The government has spent $8,252 of the taxpayers' money on trying to convince people that abolition was the right thing and to support the cabinet's case. Some 9,300 copies of this magazine were printed, and a copy was distributed to every member of parliament.
I thought it only fair, if the government wants to be fair and to take a reasoned look at this question, to allow the other side of the coin to be explained also at taxpayers' expense, so in the fifth part of my question I asked whether the government intended to publish the next issue containing views contrary to the government's own politi-(Mr. Dick.]
cal views relating to peace and security, as set out in Bill C-83 and Bill C-84. The answer, Mr. Speaker, screams; it is "No". As I say, this is a departmental publication paid by the taxpayers. People who receive Liaison do so free of charge, and it puts only one side of the question, that of abolition, which is the view of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice. The government does not want to discuss and will not provide space at taxpayers' expense for the other side of the question. I think this is cheap, rotten trickery on behalf of the Solicitor General and is completely in line with his own steadfast view on abolition and "I don't want to hear about anything else".
The government would not, of course, want to publish what has been published on other occasions, such as the view of University of Chicago economist Professor Ehrlich that from 1935 to 1969 each additional execution per year may have resulted in seven to eight fewer murders being committed. They do not print such figures because it is contrary to their view. Although this article has been challenged by a number of abolitionists and others who deal with statistics, and indeed has been found to be statistically complicated, it nevertheless happens to be a view. If the government wants to have reasonable discussion of the question it should give us a balanced view, especially when every member in this place knows that 78 per cent of the taxpayers happen to disagree with the government. Yet the government spends taxpayers' money against the taxpayers' wishes.
There is little more that I can say, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to outline the areas that concern me. People continually misrepresent murder. When they should be talking of homicide, they talk of murder. Any death that results from a premeditated criminal act should be classified as a case of murder; this should be so in all cases, not just in the case of prison guards and police officers. I have stated that the government have undermined the judicial system. They have not concentrated upon rehabilitation. Through the parole system and weak bail laws, they have over the years undercut the sense of security that people had. They have commuted 100 per eent of the death sentences that have been handed down-and this is wrong. I believe capital punishment is a deterrent, and I have quoted from a court record evidence that I believe bolsters that opinion. I think the Solicitor General has been absolutely wrong in spending the taxpayers' money to outline his and the cabinet's side of the issue without giving equal time and space to the other side.
I should like to repeat something that I said in 1973. I used to be an abolitionist until I became a Crown attorney and prosecuted criminals every day for almost three years. Having prosecuted and dealt with criminals in that atmosphere, and knowing them as the professionals that they consider themselves to be and their attitude to the law, I reluctantly changed my view. I will become an abolitionist again when the people of this country regain their sense of peace and security.
I believe that if the government implemented many of the protective measures in Bill C-83 and Bill C-84 for the good of society-though I should add there is an awful lot of junk in the bills as well-and allowed a period of, say, five or six years to go by so that society could regain its self-confidence and sense of security, then no matter what
June 7, 1976

my constituents might say to me, presuming I was still a member at that time, I would vote for abolition. But I cannot vote for abolition now, Mr. Speaker, because the government has not put into place effectively the proper laws to bring about what every Canadian citizen is entitled to, namely, a sense of protection and security. If the government were to do that, then somewhere down the line I would support it. But I cannot support it now because it is premature, and for that reason I intend to vote for the retention of capital punishment.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of taking part in this debate, and, I will probably not detain the House of Commons very long in making my remarks. I repeat what is, I am sure, well known to the House, that the point of view I will be expressing will be strictly a personal point of view. I am speaking in this debate for no member of parliament other than myself. We on this side of the House are going to have an absolutely free vote on the question of this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My views, sir, on the question of capital punishment are well known in the country. It would be improper for me, as leader of my party, to attempt to use my position of leadership to impose my views upon others of my colleagues who do not share them on a question involving a free vote. Were I to follow that course, I think it would undermine the principle of a free vote which, while it is resorted to only rarely in parliamentary practice in Canada and elsewhere, is a very important element of our parliamentary system, one that I would not want to jeopardize. I would hope that the determination not to use the office to influence the views of colleagues in a party will be observed as scrupulously by leaders of other parties in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is one other matter to which I want to make some reference, which has to do with an obligation I consider to be a very heavy obligation on the government, to itself obey the law. I want to make it abundantly clear, as I have frequently outside this House, that if the law of the land is a law which supports capital punishment in a time when my party is in office and I am the prime minister, my government will support the law of the land. We will enforce capital punishment even though I, personally, may not agree with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I believe there is a fundamental requirement in our country that has to do with the legitimacy of government; that governments themselves obey the law and be seen to obey the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I have to say, having read much of the debate which has occurred here, and having had a chance to listen to some of my colleagues on all sides of the House join in the debate, that I am pleased at the general tenor of debate
Capital Punishment
here. I think it has generally been a moderate debate in which there has not been an attempt on either side to characterize people who might disagree as being either the enemy of civilization or the enemy of order. I think this indicates a maturity of approach in this chamber to this difficult question, which is commendable and encouraging.
My approach to the question of capital punishment, sir, is that we are not here dealing with a question of principle about the right of the state to take lives. Of course the state has that right. We are dealing, instead, with a much more pragmatic question as to the conditions under which the state is justified in taking life. It is my view that a society which respects human life, as ours does, must be extremely careful as to the occasions on which it takes human life.
There are times when I think the taking of human life can be justified by the state and a society such as ours. The easy example, of course, has to do with war. Had any one of us had the obligation placed upon us to determine whether Canada would have entered the conflict in the second great war, we would have agreed that Canada ought to do so even if it was known that the inevitable consequence of that act would have been the loss of human life. The point we draw from that is that the taking of human life, or the entering into actions which will involve the loss of human life, is something that can be justified only when that is the only means of achieving the necessary and important social goals. In the case of capital punishment, it can be justified, it seems to my view, only under those circumstances when we are sure it is the only way that will achieve the important social goal of stopping potential murderers from committing murder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In my examination of the evidence and, like other members of the House, I have made it my business to look at the evidence as it relates to the deterrent effect of capital punishment-it has been my judgment that capital punishment does not function as a deterrent in the case of those peculiar people who commit murder. There is certainly the argument which would suggest that most of us who consider ourselves normal would consider ourselves to be very much affected by the threat of capital punishment, and the threat would stop most of us from committing murder. The fact is that most of us would not commit murder in any event. What we have to do is determine whether the threat of capital punishment would stop those people who are likely to take human life, or likely to commit murder, from undertaking that act. I have seen no firm evidence to suggest that the threat of capital punishment is a deterrent. Certainly, I have not seen or heard conclusive evidence that I think would warrant the irreversible act of taking life by the state.
What has happened here, and the reason we are debating this issue again, and the reason it has become an issue which has commanded attention and aroused concern across the country, is that capital punishment has become a symbolic issue. We are not dealing simply here with the narrow question of deterrence. We are dealing here with a very real concern that grips many Canadians about order in our society, about their sense of security and their sense of safety. There is no question but that there is now in this
14216

June 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
country a widespread concern about insecurity. That is partly natural and flows in part from the fact that our society is growing larger, growing more complex and growing, I suppose, more dangerous. It is partly induced by the emphasis that has been referred to very eloquently by others in this House; that is, the emphasis in the media on violence and the emphasis on violence in other aspects of life. It is also in this particular case induced, I think, by a very real distrust of the present government and a distrust of the government's attitude in this matter of maintaining public security and order.
My colleague who spoke immediately before me made reference to the use-and I would regard it as an abuse-of the prerogative of mercy. In my judgment, this is a prerogative that must be maintained by any cabinet as there is always a chance that mistakes will be made which will require that prerogative to be exercised. But the prerogative should be exercised rarely, because that is how it was intended to be exercised. Instead of being exercised rarely, it has been the unfortunate practice of the present government to exercise it regularly. There have been consequences from that regular exercise of the prerogative.
One of the consequences has been that many Canadians who are concerned about this question, and many of those who reply to questionnaires and express their concern about capital punishment, simply do not believe this government is serious about enforcing a sense of security or enforcing a society of order. Adding to this general concern about the security of our society, there have also been very real and genuine concerns allowed to develop about the effectiveness of the penal system in Canada. These things have all combined; the natural forces of urbanization, the concern about failure relating to penal institutions, and the concern about the conduct or the seriousness of the government in respect of this matter, and have all contributed to a sense of insecurity in the country, to which capital punishment has unfortunately become symbolic. I think it would have been better if, before proposing a bill to abolish capital punishment, the government had addressed in a serious manner this question of public anxiety and public concern about safety and security.
I think it would have been better if, before a bill to abolish capital punishment had been brought in, there had been a demonstration not simply by proposals but by government action of the seriousness of the government in trying to achieve a more ordered and secure society. Instead of that, we have had brought in, in tandem with the bill to abolish capital punishment, a bill which deals in some degree with gun control and other matters.
I think what is important in this companion piece of legislation is the gun control aspect, which I regard as a very cynical attempt to allay public fears rather than address the source of the public concern. I repeat that it would have been far better if, as a prelude to this bill to abolish capital punishment, there had been some demonstrated determination by the government of Canada to address the very real concern that Canadians, wherever they live, feel now about the question of public security.
We must recognize that the desire for order is a very legitimate desire in our society. It is, in fact, fundamental

to a functioning society. Personally, I am prepared to go some distance toward achieving and encouraging that sense of order, that sense of security. I am prepared, in fact, to move in that direction even at some cost to other important social goals such as rehabilitation and others which might be recommended to us such as our concern with regard to penal reform. I am prepared to go some distance in this direction toward achieving a sense of public security, but I make clear that I am not prepared, in the interest of securing a sense of public security, to go to the length of taking human lives in the name of public policy, or at least to do that without adequate cause.
I repeat what I said at the outset, that the only adequate cause, in my view, would be if it could be demonstrated that that was the way, and the only way, in which we could deter potential murderers from committing murder. I think also, as we consider this matter, we must bear in mind that security-and I am speaking here of a sense of security-might be better served by abolition. Personally, I have a very strong suspicion that juries, knowing that the consequence of their decision is death, would recommend softer penalties in respect of cases which come before them and would therefore perhaps introduce back into society more quickly people who might constitute a real danger to public safety.
I do not wish to deal with that element for too long, but I think it is a very real aspect of the question we must consider. I am speaking, sir, of a sense of security in Canadian society. There is a difference, I believe, between real security, something that will in fact protect people in their homes, and a sense of security in the sense that they will be protected when they are in danger. I believe it is absolutely essential that society demonstrate that for murder and other serious crimes there is a heavy penalty which society will not fail to exact. I think it must be demonstrated that apprehension is close to certain, that conviction naturally follows, and that punishment as described in the law is the inevitable end result. If we are to create some respect for law, some reality of it, we can have no more half-measures, half enforced by a government of Canada.
I think it is clear to others that any further reluctance to demonstrate that crime and punishment are unavoidable companions will be fatal to the evolution, which I and others in this house hope will occur, away from state executions. I should say here, as an observation only, that if we are unable to make that demonstration, this question of capital punishment will be before us again whatever happens in the vote on this particular bill. Indeed, if it comes before us again in those circumstances, in the sense that society remains concerned, the votes of many members of parliament may well change, as some have changed already, because no guarantees have been given to ease the fears of Canadians to whom capital punishment has become a symbol of protection.
I think there is an onus on the abolitionists, particularly those who occupy the treasury benches, to meet the sense and the reality of insecurity in Canada. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), for all his weak good will, has done little to accomplish that goal, in my judgment. As I said earlier these initiatives should have preceded this debate. Canadians have a right to some demonstration of
June 7, 1976

alternatives that work before they are deprived of an instrument which many Canadians believe or, more likely, hope will work. That is what we would like to have seen.
We have a bill before us now recommending a step of which I approve. We all have the obligation to deal with that particular bill. All of us, I think, as we work in parliament and live with law, recognize that there are limits to the effectiveness of laws, and all of us agree that it is foolish to write laws which we cannot enforce. I think it is wrong to write or to keep laws which do not do things people think they will do. I think that is particularly regrettable, and something we should avoid when that kind of law involves the official taking of human lives. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, my personal vote, which I emphasize will be a personal one, exercised as an individual member of parliament, will be to remove capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 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 Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-External Affairs-Israel-Government view of action to establish communities in occupied Arab territory; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Canada-Alleged intention to move finance branch from Winnipeg-Government action; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Manpower-Local Initiatives Program-Request for decision on extension of projects.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the leader of the opposition (Mr. Clark), before he has completed his remarks, would accept a question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
Capital Punishment


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to say that I appreciated the speech the leader of the opposition just made. However, because I know that he least of all people would not want to be thought to be on both sides of any question, I should like to ask him this question: If he were prime minister and the law was for capital punishment, would he like to reconsider his earlier remarks and say whether or not he would bring in legislation to remove capital punishment from the statutes?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that too early in my career I would not have to resort to answering hypothetical questions. I have made it quite clear that as prime minister I would enforce capital punishment if that were the law of the land. I should also like to make it quite clear that important as this question is, I think the country faces other more urgent priorities which will be higher on the agenda of the government we form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that if he would like to make a speech, I would add his name to the list, but right now the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley has been recognized.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, being a retentionist, it is difficult for me to follow our leader. I want to point out that I certainly appreciate his statement made so emphatically on this matter, which is to come to a free vote, as an individual member rather than as a leader. What is more important is that we must all appreciate the fact that our leader stated that regardless of the outcome of this vote, when he becomes the prime minister-which he will two years from now-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: -unlike the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whose time is running out-he will follow the wishes of the people and enforce the laws passed by this parliament, one way or the other. I see I only have a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, but let me begin by saying that naturally we are all aware of the fact that a certain number of members have spoken on this bill on capital punishment, but there are great many more who still wish to speak. A sort of line score is being kept in this regard, and I suppose some pundits are also keeping score of the abolitionists and the retentionists.
We can deduce from these records that the government is in trouble on the issue of capital punishment, but of course that is understandable. The government seems to be in trouble all the time, and from one day to another it is simply a question of what the government is in trouble about on a given day of the week. This should not bother the government too much, because it only works and plans on a day to day basis or, at most, a week to week basis.
95568 - 66)4

June 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
In any case, while the press has kept a pretty good score card on the members who have spoken, I believe they have missed the real point in this whole exercise. What is more important, particularly in this case dealing with such an emotional issue, is that the people of Canada have spoken more strongly than ever before. People are flooding their members' offices daily with demands for a return to the death penalty for the crime of murder. They are not only flooding the offices of Conservative members, or even uncommitted members, but they are calling and writing to all members of every party and applying persuasion. We have also seen a great number of polls on this subject, both on a regional and national basis, polls that were taken by retentionists, by abolitionists and by the uncommitted. Each and every one of these polls, whether they were taken in a riding or nationally, indicates emphatically that a great majority of Canadians-I believe it is over 80 per cent-demand the return to capital punishment, in opposition to the bill before us today.
The imperative question that one must ask oneself is whether or not an elected representative should vote on these important issues relating to law and order in accordance with the wishes of his constituents, or according to his conscience. It is understandable that in fiscal and monetary areas, where a member of parliament has available to him statistics and all other pertinent information relating to the issues at hand, he would be in a better position to judge the subject matter and therefore he could make a calculated decision based on the information available to him. However, if the issue is an emotional one-and certainly there is no more emotional issue than the one on capital punishment-then it is my strong belief that an elected representative should, and indeed must, vote in accordance with the wishes of his constituents. I, personally, cannot understand the attitude that certain members on both sides of the House are taking when they know that more than 80 per cent of their constituents favour capital punishment and yet they still insist on playing the role of the Almighty by voting against the wishes of the same people who gave them the power to vote in the first place.
On an issue of this type, an issue that is probably more emotional than any other, the government cannot afford to ignore the will of the people. No government has the right to ignore the voice of the people, especially when that voice is raised to the level that we hear on the issue of capital punishment. If this government chooses to ignore this call for action to combat the rise of violent crime in Canada today, I believe it will do so at its peril.
Judging from the tone of the vast majority of speeches in the House so far on this bill, the government seems to have boxed itself in with no visible avenues of escape. They have outsmarted themselves in the past ten years by abusing the cabinet's right to commute the death sentence, and they have chosen to ignore the law passed by the majority of members in the House, a law which prescribes the death penalty for convicted murderers of police officers and prison guards. This government, and particularly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), has introduced its own law. They govern self-righteously by the rule of the conscience instead of the rules laid down by this parliament. Imagine all of us governing our lives by the rule of our conscience even when our own rules run counter to the law!
[Mr. Jelinek.J
Many times, when I have waited for a red light to turn to green, my rule of conscience would tell me to go through the red light, but because the law of the land forbids me to do so, I wait for the light to turn to green before I go forward. This is not what the cabinet has been doing for the last five years. We see the government breaking its own laws in other areas as well, not only capital punishment. It is breaking its own laws in respect of legal strikes and in respect of immigration. However, I shall not dwell on these subjects today.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The first is motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Shall that motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall motion No. 15, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan), stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall motion No. 19, in the name of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall motion No. 20, in the name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall motion No. 4, in the name of the former member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall motion No. 10, in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall motion No. 48, in the name of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine), stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 7, 1976


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there has been agreement to deal with item No. 25, a motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: If that is agreed, we will resume debate on the motion of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston).


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should investigate the severe shortage of lids and jars used in home canning of fruits and vegetables and should instigate measures to ensure that a sufficient supply will be available to the Canadian market next year.
Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the whims and rules of this House never cease to amaze me, for due to the length of this session the roulette-wheel of private members' bills has given the House the opportunity to debate once again the matter of canning lids. I see some hon. members smiling at the mention of canning lids, but I recognize that at least the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) is not smiling.
It seems rather strange that something so small should be a matter of national attention. It is a national issue, and this House is indebted to the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay for putting forward his motion, thus allowing hon. members to discuss the difficulty of obtaining home canning lids and what this has meant to thousands of concerned people across the country who seek the thriftiness and good health of home-processed foods. The motion which the hon. member has placed before us is that an investigation be carried out into the access in this country to home canning lids.
It is a rather interesting thing that of all the various calls we hear from the opposition for investigations into this and that, this particular one has been investigated very thoroughly and it has been very well documented. The intervening year has been one in which we have been able to discern exactly what the situation is with regard to the purchase of can lids, where the access is and what the problem is with that accessibility. The shortage of jar lids for use in home canning in Canada occurred as a result of a shortage of tin plate used in the manufacture of these lids, and this was compounded by an unprecedented consumer demand. This was instigated by fear, almost hysteria, that there was not going to be a sufficient supply available. However, a great effort was made. The shortage existed throughout North America, and consumers in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia, had difficulty in obtaining proper supplies.
Home Canning
Special difficulty was encountered in obtaining wider-mouth Mason lids. This is the size which traditionally is used by consumers in British Columbia. Although consumer demand for lids has been difficult to predict precisely, this year's demand, for instance, is a very heavy one, and the continuing trend toward an increase in home canning requires that there be sufficient lids available to people in this country.
A close watch has been kept on the American situation since part of the Canadian supply of lids is manufactured in the U.S., and the office of consumer affairs in Washington, D.C., reports that the U.S. situation is similar to that in Canada. Both Anchor Cap and Closure and Bernadin, the two Canadian manufacturers of the product, have produced to absolutely maximum capacity due, in part, to efforts made on their behalf by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce of this government. Furthermore, the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs took a very personal interest in this problem and made it possible for the two companies in Canada to receive incentive and encouragement to increase their production so that they could meet consumer demand. As a result of these contacts, the Canadian manufacturers installed additional machinery and personnel and were able, by working double and triple shifts on their production lines, finally to meet the public demand. Previous statements from these firms indicated that they would be able to meet consumer demand in western Canada as well as their traditional eastern markets. However, distribution was uneven and there were pockets of over supply in some parts of Canada, and in other areas shortages resulted.
In May of 1975, however, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs began to receive conflicting information as to the availability of these supplies to distributors, retailers and consumers. In this connection, the department once again met with the two Canadian manufacturers a year ago to verify information which had been previously received on this situation. Both manufacturers produced to capacity, and these firms provided figures which indicated a substantial production increase over the previous year. In fact, the total supply for 1974 for Bernadin of Canada, for instance, was 17,087 cases which went to B.C. and in 1975 50,000 cases of Bernadin went to British Columbia. Anchor Cap and Closure, of Toronto, produced only 908 cases in 1974, and in 1975 there were 18,500 cases.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Nothing in Alberta.


Iona Campagnolo: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) is very much interested in-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.


Iona Campagnolo: I know how great the interest of people in Alberta is in being thrifty and eating well, and I find the objections of the hon. member well taken. The people in Alberta can look forward to a major supply this year.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear! It is about time.

June 7, 1976
Home Canning


Iona Campagnolo: In May of 1975, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs found that there was an uneven distribution, and the department worked to see that this was made much more equitable across the country. However, even as the production was increased and made adequate to fill all the distributors' orders-one may assume that local distributors have a good indication of required supplies, in view of their close contacts with wholesalers and retailers in the local areas-the distributors' orders were based on sales requests from retailers.
Furthermore, in the case of Anchor Cap and Closure, the firm's first priority has been in filling orders from the glass-jar companies who market their jars complete with fittings, that is, the jar with the top in a total kit. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs then again contacted the two major Canadian producers of glass preserving jars, Dominion Glass in Montreal and Consumer Glass in Toronto, and was told that Dominion Glass produced approximately 50 per cent more glass jars in 1975 than it did the previous year. It purchased lids from both Anchor and Bernadin, and the availability of these lids has been a limiting factor in the production increase for jars. Consumer Glass obtains lids from Anchor and took steps to catch up on its production schedule, which was delayed as a result of a 13-week strike in its plant at Lavington, B.C., in 1975.
An additional factor which has contributed to a shortage is brand loyalty, particularly in B.C. where consumers have traditionally used Kerr Products, and to a lesser degree, Ball wide-mouth fittings. Consumers are aware that lids made by different manufacturers are interchangeable, but generally remain, if at all possible, with their favourite brand name. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs once again advertised to make sure that people were aware of the fact that they could use other types of jar fittings for their favourite types of jars, and advised that by following the instructions on the box they could be assured of excellent results because canning procedures vary sometimes with different brands.
The two American manufacturers of jars and jar fittings, Kerr Glass Manufacturing Corporation and Ball Corporation, have traditionally been major suppliers for the B.C. market. Representation was therefore made to these companies in June of 1975 for updated information as to supplies for British Columbia. The figures from Kerr Glass indicated a 27.5 per cent increase in supplies over 1974 with heavier shipments of lids in the wide-mouth size. It is estimated that Kerr had traditionally supplied approximately 70 per cent of the B.C. market prior to 1974. Figures provided by the Ball Corporation indicated that there was approximately a 34 per cent increase in supplies to B.C. in that year. Production and distribution of fittings by all manufacturers continued throughout last year's canning season. Supplies were shipped to various regions of Canada, and as they came off the production line many of them headed for British Columbia. This ensured to the maximum extent possible a continuity of supply which built up to a peak at the height of the canning season.
Jar lids and jar finishes-mouths-are manufactured in four sizes: 63 millimetres; 70 millimetres, which is standard; 78 millimetres and 86 millimetres, which is the wide-mouth size and which is generally favoured by canners

across Canada. The figures show that more lids were shipped to British Columbia than to any other part of Canada in that year. As I told hon. members, there are two domestic suppliers in Canada, Bernadin of Toronto and Anchor Cap and Closure Limited, also of that city. From the United States there are supplies from Kerr Glass Manufacturing Company, of Oklahoma, and the Ball Corporation of Indiana. There are two companies in Taiwan which in the past have supplied our market as well, until last year when a major supermarket had to recall one of the Taiwan brands due to imperfections in its manufacture which might possibly have led to botulism if used. However, the other brand is perfectly suitable for use and it continues on the North American market at this time.
The problem is one of distribution rather than supply, and I should like once again to commend the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay for bringing this to our attention. I know that in my own area canning is not a forgotten art. It has not given way to the freezer. Naturally, coming from northern British Columbia I know that the product which is canned most often is the seafood of the west coast- salmon. In Canada there are many difficulties in canning salmon. Proper fittings on jars are imperative so that there will not be any possibility of botulism resulting. I think we can safely say that this has been investigated to a large degree and that the facts and figures are before us and are irrefutable. In my area I was perplexed to see in a small store in Iskut, on the Stewart-Cassiar highway, a huge supply of current, wide-mouth Mason jar lids. The store manager said there must have been some kind of mistake because the lids had arrived almost unbidden. He had only wanted one or two cases, but had received many more. Fortunately it was possible to arrange for them to go where they could be better utilized.
While those around me are laughing at the possibility of being involved nationally with canning lids, I would remind them that it is not amusing when people in Canada strive to make good use of the fruit and vegetables they grow. Where the hon. member makes his home, he has access to all sorts of fruit and vegetables and this is the kind of thing our society is going to have to spend more time on. If the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is going to be able to get prices high enough for farmers, we are going to have to do some of the work ourselves.
I suggest the canning industry is not going to be able to keep up unless they have a full supply of lids. The manufacturers of jar lids are to be commended for rising to the occasion and making certain that people have access to the products they want. Our Canadian ingenuity is such that we should be able to manufacture Canadian products and not have to look for them abroad in sufficient quantity to supply our own people.
I appreciate this motion very much and look forward to seeing no hazard in this year's canning season as we approach it. I think we begin somewhat earlier on the northwest coast of British Columbia. We are almost into the canning season now, and I have not had one letter of complaint from any constituent saying that not enough lids are available. I believe I can safely say there are sufficient lids to meet the demand at this time. We look forward to a canning season that will have sufficient
June 7, 1976

supply, and I thank the hon. member opposite for bringing this particular problem to our attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) for bringing this matter before the House in the form of the motion that stands in his name. We will remember that this matter was raised on many occasions in the past year, but in spite of all the assurances we had to the contrary there are still shortages, and shortages are anticipated for the coming canning season.
The problem of severe shortages of wide-mouth Mason jar lids seems to be a continuing one, at least as far as western Canada is concerned. Every winter and spring for the past few years we have had members rising in the House asking the government to take measures to ensure an adequate supply of these materials for home canning purposes. Unfortunately, the result is usually the same. Members voice their concern about shortages and warn the government about the critical situation. The government responds by assuring the House that everything is under control, that manufacturers are stepping up production and there will be no shortages. Then summer comes, the canning season begins, and lids are nowhere to be found.
It is expected that we will face the same situation this year. On January 30 my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay, asked the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs what steps the government was taking to monitor supplies for this summer in order to reassure consumers in British Columbia who wanted to can their own produce. In true form, the minister stated the same thing that we have been hearing for the last several years. As reported at page 10480 of Hansard, he said:
Mr. Speaker, the latest information I received from the officials of my department was that two Canadian manufacturers have increased their production of canning jar lids. On the other hand, I am informed that two American companies which supply more particularly the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia have also stepped up production. Moreover, one importer in British Columbia has already found on the foreign market canning jar lids which he intends to import to meet the demand during the current year.
The same assurance has been given to us today by the parliamentary secretary. Once again we have the record of the assurances of the government that there is not going to be any problem and there will be a supply for this coming season. The facts are that summer is here and there is once again a shortage of wide-mouth Mason jar lids, so that answers the minister's promises. I cannot help but wonder about the competence of the investigation allegedly carried out by the minister's officials in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
I have already received some representation from my constituency about shortages, and we are only starting to get into the canning season in British Columbia. What will be the situation in two months' time? I have contacted a number of outlets in the major population centres of my constituency, and this is what I find, Mr. Speaker: three of the stores surveyed did not have any Mason jar lids and claimed they could not get them; three other stores claimed they had a limited supply or lids at the present time, but
Home Canning
only one of the three claimed that they were sure of future supplies.
This last store manager stated that he was unable to obtain the No. 3 size lids-the "gem" size that replaces glass lids for Mason jars. Another large store in my home town had the largest supply when I took the survey. The manager had 75 cases on hand, but he stated he had an unofficial limit of one case per month when ordering. The manager of a store in a small city in my constituency stated he had none in stock, and although he orders them every week, he rarely gets them. Sometimes he is able to get one case a month, but the supply is uncertain, to say the least.
I could give a list of other stores contacted, but in the majority of cases it was the same store. I compiled a list, and under the heading "Available stock" the note against the list of stores reads: none; good; none; very poor; fair supply; good; and none. Under the heading "Future possibility" are the notations: same problem as last year; poor prospect; good; poor; same as last year, poor; okay; looks all right; poor. That indicates the number of contacts I was able to make in my constituency.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned the problem of imported lids. One of those she referred to was apparently recalled according to a store in my constituency. I might say they were somewhat different. One shipment of lids came from Japan, but the other one came from Taiwan. At any rate, he was reluctant to purchase those lids because some had been found defective in that they would not seal properly. Some were sold. After tests had been run on them, it was decided to recall them. I got in touch with the manager of one of the stores, who said that it was not worth the risk to order these Metro lids, even though he could obtain as many as he wanted. That will show hon. members the difficulties with which we have been confronted in making inquiries about these lids.
On January 30, my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay, also asked the minister about the inferior quality of some lids on the market at that time. Since the minister, in his reply to my colleague's first question, referred to the importation of lids, I wonder if the recently appointed Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Mackasey) has been able to acquaint himself with these matters; because, surely, defective Mason jar lids on the Canadian market give rise not only to the problem of food preservation but, as well, to the more important hazard of food poisoning which can occur when the seal breaks and bacteria spoils food.
Perhaps I might intimate the results of a survey recently conducted by my colleague from Okanagan-Kootenay in the north Okanagan. For example, in the city of Vernon a large supermarket reported that it had no lids at all in stock; they were on order, but there was no guarantee of shipment. A large supermarket in Salmon Arm reported that it had some Taiwan lids in stock, that a shortage of lids is expected, that no Canadian lids were available and that a standing order has been placed for them. In Armstrong, a few were available but the people there were not sure of future supplies. In Endersby, no shortage is expect-

June 7, 1976
Home Canning
ed. In Revelstoke, a shortage is expected and orders are filled slowly. So it goes, Mr. Speaker.
The parliamentary secretary stated that there appears to be an adequate supply in British Columbia. I suggest, with respect, that surveys taken in my constituency and in the constituency of Okanagan-Kootenay indicate the contrary.
The canning season is about to begin. Before it actually opens, I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson), who I believe has some interest in this matter as well to make every effort to ensure that there is a sufficiency of these lids for canners in British Columbia particularly and for those in other areas as well. I am sure hon. members appreciate that because many people wish to do their own canning, prefer home-canned goods, and because of inflationary pressures, a great many additional people are taking up home canning, thereby making ends meet and stretching incomes. That is why we are making our request. The parliamentary secretary suggested that the government is fully conversant with the situation and that supplies are adequate. I say, with respect, that supplies are not adequate and that every effort must be made to ensure there is an adequate distribution of lids. Above all, adequate supplies should be available for meeting the needs of the new canning season.


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I enter the debate this afternoon somewhat reluctantly.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The hon. member is far too modest.


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: I have had considerable dealings with the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) and have worked with him on many committees. I respect his position, regret I cannot go all the way with him, but say that I am prepared to support most of the things he said.


Mr. Friesen:: That sounds like a true Liberal.


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: In response to the suggestion that the government should investigate the shortage of lids and jars used in home canning, the government has investigated these alleged shortages and will continue to do so. Today I wish to clarify one point raised by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay: there is no shortage of canning jars. Let me make that clear.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do you want to bet?


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: There is a shortage of lids. Perhaps the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has run out of glass. Seriously, I say to that hon. member, and to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), there is a shortage of lids, a shortage about which I shall talk. The past three years have witnessed a tremendous growth of consumer interest in home food preservation due to the rising costs of food products on retail shelves and the changing lifestyle of many Canadians who recognize the importance of our becoming a conserving society.
Mr. Speaker, this increase in home canning has resulted in unprecedented consumer demand throughout North America for canning jar lids. Since 1974, consumers in Canada, particularly in British Columbia, have encountered difficulties in obtaining adequate supplies to meet

their demands. The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Cam-pagnolo) dealt with this matter when she spoke. Most members, particularly those from British Columbia, know of the special difficulties in obtaining wide-mouth lids of the kind generally used by most consumers in British Columbia. Compounding the problem has been hoarding and unnecessary panic buying of lids by consumers in anticipation of future need. This has been happening for about the last two years. I am sure most hon. members can tell this House of people who entered a store to buy wide-mouth lids and bought the entire stock of lids. This sort of thing has created tremendous difficulties. The shortage was created in part by panic buying.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) spoke of lids imported from Taiwan. I want to put on record some facts about those particular closure discs, as they are known, with the hope that these facts will become known to people across Canada. When we encountered shortages one year or so ago, some importers imported these discs from Taiwan. It became apparent after some discs were tested that when used in the conventional home canning process they failed to seal correctly. One particular disc imported from Taiwan, known as the Rosewood disc, was suspected of being faulty. This brand was distributed only by Safeway Limited in British Columbia. Sales of Rosewood discs had been stopped by Safeway themselves. The company is recalling these products from the market. I ask my colleagues from British Columbia, and others who are concerned, to please make sure that these discs are returned to Safeway. They are faulty and should not be used under any condition. Accordingly, arrangements have been made to obtain samples of all closure discs offered for sale in Canada. Testing is being performed in co-operation with the agriculture Canada-food advisory services.
It is recognized that faulty closure discs, particularly when used by home canners to preserve non-acidic vegetables such as carrots, beets and beans, present a real possibility of botulism poisoning. I wanted to bring that point up, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure all hon. members would wish to be aware of the canning products we turn out in British Columbia. The whole province grows a variety of fruits and vegetables, and home canning is one thing we all do.
Until this year, as has been mentioned previously, we have run into the problem of the tremendous growth of consumer interest in home food preservation. The special difficulty we have experienced, as I mentioned earlier, is in connection with the wide-mouth jar lids. Until this year there were only four companies supplying the Canadian market. They have been mentioned previously. There was the Anchor Cap and Closure company, Bernardin of Canada, and two American companies, Kerr Glass and Ball Corporation, both of which have been major suppliers, particularly to the British Columbia market. Figures provided by these four firms to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have shown significant annual production increases. But even the vastly increased supply in 1975 did not meet the consumer demand which continued to rise to unpredictable levels.
June 7, 1976

Since the federal government became aware of this problem a number of measures have been instigated with a view to alleviating and ultimately eliminating the shortage. I sympathize with the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) in his concern. I want to go on to mention another thing which I think should be known. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has maintained liaison with its counterpart in the United States, the Office of Consumer Affairs in Washington, since a portion of the Canadian lid supply is manufactured in the U.S.A. and the shortage of lids in the United States has followed a similar pattern to that of Canada. The U.S. government reports that the supply for its country in 1976 will be more than four billion replacement lids; I repeat, more than four billion replacement lids.
I do not wish to place a lot of detail on the record, but I do feel that one or two facts should be brought to the attention of all hon. members here this afternoon. The availability of canning lids in 1976 will depend greatly on the continued output which I have just mentioned, and this is something which is fairly dependable. It will depend also upon the activities of the consumer public, something which we cannot forecast with a high degree of certainty. However, the federal government will continue to be actively involved as a watchdog over supplies of lids available to Canadian families who wish to protect themselves from the adverse effects of rising food prices by engaging in home canning.
I will take my seat at this point as I know there are other members who wish to contribute to this important discussion on home canning made possible this afternoon by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay Boundary (Mr. Johnston).


Benno Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lee) is not here and had graciously passed on his notes to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mrs. Campagnolo). And I suppose they came originally from the deputy minister or one of his aides. That very effectively put the lid on the usual-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another of those wide mouths.


Benno Friesen: It put the lid on the usual gust or cacopha-nous images and twisted metaphors which come from that parliamentary secretary. But I must admit she is a good reader. She reads bureaucratic language very well. She doesn't even need stage direction. I appreciate all the statistics she left with us and the running account of the work of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. But the situation is reminiscent of another, a few years ago, when there was an extreme shortage of jeans in the country. It was almost impossible to buy certain brands of jeans. Until the companies presumably felt justified in raising the price of jeans high enough to allow them to make a handsome profit, the shortage continued. This makes one suspect that the shortages experienced in sup-
Home Canning
plies of isolated commodities are contrived rather than real.
The hon. lady's speech was long on statistics but very short on answers. She did say there had been a shortage of tin plate-this is supposed to excuse the companies for failure to produce these jar lids. But she never explained the reason for that shortage. Could it be that there was a better profit to be made by the steel companies or the suppliers? Or could it be that a better profit could be made by manufacturing products other than jar lids? This was something the hon. lady did not explain. Maybe the deputy minister did not write that out for her.


Mr. Anderson:: So you want us to interfere with the economy now?


Benno Friesen: There are members on that side who would love to have a planned economy and, if this an example of it, Heaven forbid we should ever have an economy which is totally planned.
The parliamentary secretary told us that one of the companies was supplying lids but felt obliged to supply them first to the companies making jars so that all the jars would come complete with lids. That seems reasonable. But is the responsibility of the lid companies to the jar companies first, or is it to the consumers? There are thousands of Canadian consumers who have a good supply of jars but who are looking for lids. Yet that lid company felt its first obligation was to the other companies, those making jars. And it seems to me that the Department of Consumer Affairs is not arranging its priorities correctly.


Hugh Alan Anderson: So you would advocate more government interference?


Benno Friesen: Well, hon. members have heard that wonderful explosion coming from the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) about government interference. I could give some wonderful examples of that, if he wants a catalogue.


Hugh Alan Anderson: First you say we should do it, and then you say we should not. Make up your mind.


Benno Friesen: That sounds like a Liberal. Looks like an old Edsel. You don't know which way it's going.
It seems to me that if there is no shortage, as the parliamentary secretary assures us is the situation, that the retailers know something the minister does not know about. I go to the local store and I see signs in the window-written on cardboard-"There is no shortage here of wide-mouthed Mason jar lids, now." Mr. Speaker, if there is no shortage, the consumer doesn't know about it, because the retailer has to advertise the fact.
I go out to Bells Corners and I see a 5-acre plot, subdivided into plots just a few square yards, and rented out to local home-owners. Then I go over to the area in which I live, I drive through Richmond and I see a 10-acre plot beside the freeway whose owner is doing the same thing- renting out small garden plots to home-owners. Practically every one of those plots has been rented out. It is evident that home-owners are trying to beat inflation, while at the same time enjoying home-grown products which they probably prefer.
14224

June 7, 1976
Home Canning
Consumers are trying to save by raising their own garden products and doing their own canning in readiness for the winter months. At the same time the government, which has manufactured inflation, is failing to protect the consumer from another angle. I hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) saying that you cannot have it both ways, but there is one thing that we would like to have, and that is an opportunity for the consumer to save a few bucks.
It gives me no assurance to hear the parliamentary secretary read out a statement from the bureaucracy saying that everything will be hunky-dory because they have gone hat in hand to all these companies and said, "Please give us a polite explanation of why there is a shortage". Any explanation that these companies gave to the minister was said to be a good one and we are now supposed to be encouraged. That is not enough. We can anticipate another shortage this year. As hon. members from British Columbia have already indicated, British Columbia suffers more than any other province from this particular shortage. There is going to be a shortage again this summer despite the assurances of the hon. member for Skeena.
I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) for giving us this opportunity to debate the issue and to bring it to the conscience of the government. If it did not know before it certainly knows now that once more this problem is an impending one for consumers this summer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say only a few words on the motion of the hon, member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston). I am very happy that he has moved it. It is three years since I ran into complaints from my constituents, including my own wife, about the unavailability of materials for home canning, and the problem has become more severe in the last two years with the rising cost of living. People are trying to can the products of their own gardens, or they go to a farmers' market on a Saturday and take home a car trunk load of vegetables and fruit to can.
I myself have noticed, on going both to the co-operative supermarket and to three private enterprise supermarkets in my city, that on a given Saturday you can get one part of what you require for home canning but not the other two parts. I am speaking here of the old-fashioned pint, quart, two quart sealers. I do not know whether the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) has ever done any home canning but I am sure her mother has. These old-fashioned sealers require three components-a rubber ring, a glass top, and a metal screw top. You could get the rubber ring one week but not the glass top. Or you get the glass top but not the metal screw top and rubber ring. This sort of thing has gone on for the past three years.
I particularly welcome the hon. member's motion because I think that some inquiries should be made not only as to the supply and distribution of these particular items but also as to who manufactures and owns them. I do not want to sound paranoid about this, but I have the feeling that the canners of fruits and vegetables are not particularly happy about housewives and families canning

their own fruit and vegetables. They would rather housewives bought the canned goods which they produce. But judging from the way the price of these canned goods has risen in the last two years, more and more families will want to put their own fruit and vegetables in their own glass jars.
I listened to the hon. member for Skeena recite statistics, which I hope were not written out for her by the deputy minister of her department but were obtained by herself. As one hon. member said earlier, she read them well; but if she had composed them all by herself she would not have had to read them. If I heard her properly, she said something about increased production of 17,000 cases of one kind of tops and 18,000 of another kind. I think that those figures are reasonably close, but that would make 35,000 cases in all. That would satisfy perhaps 35,000 families, but there are hundreds of thousands of families in this country who want to can their own fruits and vegetables.
This stuff that the hon. member for Skeena read off is just not good enough. There is not an adequate supply either of the modern glass jar tops, to which I am sure the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay is referring, or sufficient supply in some parts of the country of the old-fashioned half pint, pint, quart and two quart sealers. Although you can get one part, you cannot get the other two. Supply varies from one store to the next and from one city to the next. If a housewife wants to spend a day or two canning products from her own garden, it means she may have to go to a dozen stores in order to find the three components that are required.
The hon. member for Skeena can read off all those figures that were sent over to her all she likes, but the fact of the matter is that hundreds of thousands of families over the last three years have been unable to buy components for home canning. Whether or not this motion passes, I hope that the hon. member for Skeena will get the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Mack-asey) and the combines investigation branch to determine who owns the canning industry and the manufacturing plant that produces these components that are required for home canning. They ought to determine what happens among the food chains in terms of carrying supplies of these rubber<rings, glass tops, and metal screw tops. Let them find out how much they are into this and how much they are not. I am sure that hundreds of thousands of housewives all over the country would be happy to hear more than this House has been told this afternoon.
For years, Mr. Speaker, people have been making efforts to provide for themselves out of their own gardens and their neighbour's gardens. Our great-grandmothers, grandmothers, and mothers canned, and now our wives are doing their own canning. But the necessary supplies are not available. I hope the hon. member for Skeena tries to make some last gasp efforts to save what she, her colleagues, and my friends to my right claim is this great, foolproof system known as free enterprise, a system that relies upon competition and so on for the good of Canadian consumers. This is just not happening, Mr. Speaker.
This may not be a great national issue but it does affect hundreds of thousands of families for many weeks of the year. Yet all we can get from the hon. member for Skeena are some statistics. I am quite certain they are accurate,
June 7, 1976

but all that these statistics mean is that the production of components required for home canning is about one tenth, to put it modestly, of the amount that is required.
I hope that the House will approve this motion and that the government will look at this matter more closely than it has in the past. I also hope it will inquire as to the possibility of additional production in this country instead of relying on the excuses that the hon. member for Skeena gave regarding U.S. manufacturers. That is not good enough either. As I say, I hope the motion will pass and that the government will take a much more serious look at this question than has been the case so far.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) on his motion. I know that for a considerable amount of time he has pursued this question of the shortage of rings in Canada. The explanation that I received when I first came to Ottawa in the latter part of 1974 was that there was a shortage of material for the lids.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) questioned where this shortage arose. Nevertheless I accept the fact that a shortage did occur, as a shortage has occurred of many items during the same period. I am somewhat surprised that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock should criticize the government for not taking an active role in controlling this industry. This to me seems to be applying a double standard. Many times in the House and over the media 1 hear it said that the government interferes too much in the business community, yet if something goes wrong in the business community it is said that we are wrong because we have not passed certain regulations, or carried out inspections or, in other words looked into the distribution of products to the Canadian consumer.
I was very happy to be informed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that there are three new outfits in Canada that will be in the business of producing rings. Rockwell International has apparently established an operation in Ontario and will be producing a stainless steel ring. This ring will apparently be reuseable, which I think is an excellent idea because all of us know that rings up to this time have had to be replaced after one use. If we had one that was reuseable perhaps this would be one method of solving the problem, since they will not have to be thrown away and can be used on a year to year basis.
I understand also that Kraft Foods is going to get into the production of lids, and this should also help the situation. There is apparently a company in British Columbia called CFB Trading which will be importing lids from New Zealand. If this takes place this year, this again should give us a better situation in respect of lids, because these will be in addition to the lids produced here in Canada and in the United States.
It would appear that several things have happened in the last few years. One is that many people have rediscovered the joy of working with the soil. I suppose people have decided, because of city life with its concrete, steel, etc., that they want to work with the soil. This is in addition to
Home Canning
the fact that they can save money. They take pleasure in being out in the open air, and so forth.
This is not something unique in Canada, but is something that has occurred in the United States and perhaps in other parts of the world. As a result there has been an unprecedented demand for these lids. The same occurrence in demand all of a sudden has taken place in the United States within the last few years, and some of the lids that were produced in the United States were diverted in 197475 to that U.S. market.
It seems to me that in the type of society we live in, surely if there is a demand for lids, or other goods, this creates an unprecedented opportunity for Canadian companies to manufacture those lids or goods. Quite honestly I feel that rather than trying to become involved in discovering the causes of what has gone wrong, new companies should come in and manufacture the lids. When a shortage is noticed and these companies such as Kerr Glass, Berna-dine, Anchor and Ball cannot supply the demand, this gives an opportunity for new entrepreneurs to enter the market and provide a product that will be used by the Canadian consumer.
It is my understanding that the problem of under-stimating demand, coupled with the problem of distribution which occurred in 1974-75, has caused distortions. However, in 1976 there will be approximately one million cases produced in Canada and in the United States which will come into the Canadian market, as opposed to approximately 530,000 cases in 1975. If that is in fact the case we will be doubling production and doubling the number of lids available. I am sure that, like the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), my wife will also give me a much easier time, because I can assure the House that in 1974-75 my wife had me shopping in Ottawa for rings to be sent to British Columbia because they were unavailable there.
I hope that with the new manufacturers entering the market, and with the importation of rings or lids, this will reduce the number of people in Canada who will be without this product. I hope that in this day and age a problem in respect of a simple thing like a jar lid can be solved by Canadian industry without government intercession. I believe this can be the case. Certainly the people in the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Industry, Trade and Commerce will be monitoring the situation, but I do not believe they should enter into this.
I trust that the comments regarding the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) will be taken in jest. We all have research facilities on both sides of the House. We ourselves use those facilities and I would suggest other hon. members also use their own facilities. I think it was a rather narrow and petty tirade against the hon. member because she did quote statistics. She did have the facts at hand, and surely debate to be meaningful in this House must include statistics, facts, and figures.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of those western members of parliament, mainly from British Columbia. I think a few remarks from someone in the east representing a constituency in the small province of
14226

June 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
Ontario, where presumably there could be some views, would be in order.
I listened with great interest to the last speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), who referred in his remarks to the Rockwell International firm in Ontario. It is a coincidence that on June 3 I received a telephone call from the manager of the Rockwell International plant situated in the great riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka in the town of Bracebridge. Mr. Gerry Morrows of that plant phoned to see if any offices of a member of parliament could be used to assist that firm in getting into the manufacture of a component part for these sealers. He stated they were starting production and tooling up for these components. He said they had to get into production immediately. He informed me they have orders at the present time from A & P, and Dominion Stores of Toronto for these parts, and that Home Hardware was also interested.
Mr. Morrows told me that the component they intended to make would be of stainless steel, grade 302. They will be 6/l,OOOths thick, so they will be relatively thin. In order to produce these components they must get this steel. They have orders for seven million parts. They have contacted Atlas Steel in Welland, which is not able to supply the requirement. As a result the company will have to go the United States and purchase from a firm in Pittsburgh.
What the company is hoping is that the Department of Finance will be able to provide some relief by a remission of the duty on this particular steel, allowing it in so that these parts can be manufactured in Canada rather than imported from the States. We heard statistics earlier about the number brought in from the United States last year. I am wondering whether those members on the government side who have some influence with the Department of Finance will use their good offices to see that this necessary steel is brought into Canada duty-free, or at least that there is a remission of the duty once it is allowed in. I understand they are going to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in

relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, before the evening break I had hardly begun my speech on capital punishment. However, I did point out that the cabinet, and certainly members of parliament who are abolitionists, do not seem to want to listen to the public opinion of the large majority of the Canadian population. I also raised the question of whether a member of parliament should vote in accordance with his conscience or that of his constituents. It is my very strong opinion that on an emotional issue such as capital punishment, as opposed to, let us say a fiscal or monetary issue, where pertinent information and data are at the fingertips of the member of parliament rather than at the fingertips of his constituents, the member should and must vote in accordance with the wishes of his constituents.
Then I pointed out what every other retentionist before me would have pointed out, which is that the government has not abided by the law of the land, specifically the law as it relates to capital punishment or other issues such as illegal strikes, immigration, and so on. For a number of years we saw what can happen when people in any society decide to live according to their own laws, as the government seems to be doing, scorning the laws laid down by their peers to ensure peace and order in our society. Some of these people were called hippies, and yippies and other assorted titles. The plain fact is that they are misfits, unable to cope with reality, and unwilling to conform to even the minimum standards of normal social behaviour. They will probably never realize that they have in fact proven the point that we have tried to make.
Laws and standards are necessary, and in fact vital to the survival of any society, and all peoples' actions and conduct must not only serve their own individual purposes but must also serve the collective needs of their society. Those people who follow the advice of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and concentrate on doing their own thing become a drag on society, leeches who take all they can get and give as little as they can.
The advantage that is being taken of the unemployment insurance commission fund is just one example. We can be thankful, Mr. Speaker, that the number of people who think and act in this way is still relatively small, and that the majority of Canadian people want to provide for themselves, and also to contribute to their society. The problem is, however, that the federal cabinet has chosen to do its own thing over the years with respect to capital punishment, and we have seen what the result has been.
People are writing and asking what is wrong with the cabinet in Ottawa. They write not only to cabinet ministers but to members on either side of the House. They ask why the cabinet continually commutes all death sentences imposed by our courts according to the law of the land, even where there are no recommendations for mercy. People write and demand the resignations of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to make room for ministers who will live up to the laws of the land.
June 7, 1976

The public begs and pleads but the Prime Minister, and therefore his cabinet, simply do not listen nor care. What kind of security and protection does the public have when the Prime Minister and his fawning sycophants, who dare call themselves the cabinet, simply continue to ignore the public at large? What kind of security and protection do we have when this self-imposed dictator, along with his band of followers, continues to break the laws of the land? There is no protection in a law that the federal government ignores, Mr. Speaker. There is no protection in a law that the Solicitor General vows publicly that he will not obey, and there is no protection in a law that even the murderers know will never be applied as long as the present Minister of Justice and Solicitor General retain their cabinet posts.
The Solicitor General knew that the House had approved the law calling for the death penalty, on conviction for the murder of a policeman or prison guard, when he accepted his cabinet post, and so he accepted that high office with false credentials. He knew at the outset that he would not obey the laws that he swore to uphold as a condition of his office.
It is unthinkable and unacceptable to me and to others, Mr. Speaker, that a member of this House would accept a cabinet post, swear an oath to uphold the laws of our country, and then say out the other side of his mouth that he would resign if his cabinet colleagues forced him to carry out the laws of Canada respecting the application of the death penalty for capital murder.
His cabinet colleagues should have told the minister at that time that if he wanted the power and the prestige and the financial advantage of cabinet rank, then he should be prepared to accept the responsibilities that go with the rank, and follow the laws as set forth by parliament. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, on July 2, 1975, I rose in this House and moved a motion under Standing Order 43 in which I called upon the Solicitor General to resign from the cabinet and make way for a minister who would respect the laws as laid down by this parliament, and follow them accordingly. Of course there were the usual Liberal dissenters who do not attach any real importance to discussions on topics of interest to our people. I was not able to have the House adjourn to debate the question, but the question is under debate at this moment.
Member after member has asked for the minister's resignation, and it looks as though the only way we will get rid of him is for the Prime Minister to listen to the voices of the people and fire him. But we already know that the Prime Minister does not listen to any voice, and therefore such a proposition immediately becomes a hopeless one. But the weight of public opinion continues to be against the position being maintained by the government with respect to capital punishment. There cannot be the slightest doubt on that score.
This brings to mind another motion I moved in this House last year. Taking into account the intense feeling of the people of Canada, as evidenced by the tone of majority comment on this subject, this would be an appropriate time to repeat the words in my motion of June 9, 1975. I rose and moved, "That this Parliament instruct the Prime Minister to initiate a national referendum with regard to capital punishment." I pointed out that the government was obviously incapable of coping with the emotional issue
Capital Punishment
of capital punishment, and I suggested that the government was in fact asking the Canadian people to accept the present alarming rate of increase in violent crime as a way of life.
If we, as the elected representatives of all of the people, cannot come up with a reasonable solution in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of Canadians then there is no other way that this issue can be settled to the satisfaction of the people, and in the interests of peace and security, except by allowing the people of Canada to vote on the issue in a national referendum.
If the government cannot allow itself to be bound by the will of parliament, and if it cannot bring itself to the point of tabling legislation that it will abide by, then it should dissolve parliament, call a national general election, and place capital punishment on the ballot. We simply cannot continue year after year in a legislative vacuum where capital punishment is concerned. It cannot be kicked around year after year on an ad hoc basis as though it were a football, while violent crime continues to rise.
Many of my colleagues in this House have quoted statistics to support their cases, Mr. Speaker, both for and against capital punishment, and for myself I choose to believe that the statistics on violent crime in Canada since the cabinet effectively abolished the death penalty by commutation speak for themselves and point out the need for severe remedies. There are presently a number of murderers awaiting the death penalty.
One of these cases has been carried over from 1972, two from 1973, and two from 1974. Four have been carried over from 1975, and yet another involves a conviction on February 10 of this year. Eight of these people were convicted of murdering police officers, and two were convicted of murdering police officials. I am not even talking about the scores of murderers who have committed brutal crimes that did not fall into the category of murder of policemen and prison guards. According to the law as it stands today, these people were convicted of capital murder, and capital murder calls for the death penalty. I have no doubt that, even if this bill fails to pass and we have to fall back on the existing law, none of the people presently awaiting execution will in fact be executed. In fact in time they will be allowed to roam our streets at random only to commit crimes again and again, as has happened in the past.
I need only to mention Charles Manson as one example who will be released shortly, after having committed a multiple number of horrendous crimes, and in fact is threatening to continue to do likewise upon his release. But we do not have to single out Charles Manson alone- we have our own variety of Charles Mansons in Canada.
I have mentioned in my previous speeches on this subject that many people complain that capital punishment is cruel and inhumane punishment. Even if I accept that as valid, Mr. Speaker, I have to counter with the charge that it is far more cruel and inhumane for a person to roam the streets preying on innocent and helpless citizens. It is far more cruel to seek out a man or woman, or a small child, and murder that person for a few dollars, for sexual desires, or simply for kicks. What is more cruel than to lure a small girl, not even in her teens, away from home or

June 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
school, molest her sexually, and then murder her horribly and viciously? When I hear someone who really should know better pleading for the life of such a murderer, I wonder what our society is coming to.
If the manner of carrying out executions stands in the way of getting a consensus on retaining capital punishment, and if there are people who are abolitionists because they feel that hanging is cruel and inhumane, then let us examine the question of the means of carrying out the death penalty. If it is the means and not the death penalty itself that deters some members from voting for capital punishment, then let us by all means find a method that is more humane, more acceptable to the abolitionists. I do not hold that hanging is the only method of execution that could or should be considered by this House when debating capital punishment. For example, in a recent opinion poll put out by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association there were thousands of replies to their questionnaire which suggested the electric chair, the gas chamber, medical drugging, and many other methods of execution, so that is not an excuse for those who do not vote on this matter because of hanging as the means of execution in this country.
My mind is open on the question of method, but it is closed on the question of capital punishment itself. I cannot vote in good conscience to save the life of a person who deliberately, calculatedly, carries out a murder, and then throws himself or herself on the mercy of the courts, and on the mercy of the society that that person scorns. They scorn our laws, they scorn our way of life, and they scorn our efforts to maintain order, peace and security for our people. Then when they are caught and convicted of committing a brutal and vicious crime, they expect more consideration and compassion than that accorded to their victims.
The sad truth of the matter is that the criminal gets far more consideration than do the victims of crime, and I cannot accept this as a natural and normal response from those in an official capacity in our political and judicial systems. Here in the House of Commons we hear all kinds of arguments in support of saving the lives of convicted murderers; we hear that long prison sentences are inhumane; and we hear that our primary responsibility to convicted felons is to rehabilitate them. I reject those arguments, Mr. Speaker. I reject them most emphatically on the basis that once an individual has lowered himself to the level of being able to commit a premeditated murder there is absolutely no way that he should be permitted to make his way back into society-a society which he rejected by committing the worst of all crimes-a society which he obviously did not respect or like-a society of which he would take advantage once given a second chance, as has been statistically proven over and over again.
There is no question that capital crimes are being committed in our society, premeditated murder, and treason against our country. Those crimes should carry the death penalty upon conviction. Where it can be demonstrated that a murder has been committed, but not planned, then a long prison sentence should be the penalty, and this penalty too should be carried out to the full extent called for in the law.

We have been too soft on criminals as we have been in other aspects of our society, Mr. Speaker, and therefore we are beginning to pay the price. Someone said that the chickens hatched by the cabinet in its abuse of the privilege of clemency have come home to roost. I believe very strongly that that is so. The Canadian people place the blame for the present high rate of violent crime squarely at the feet of the cabinet. In their wisdom the Canadian people have placed the blame for the decline in respect for law and order on the government, and the government can no longer shift the onus on to the courts or on the parole board. But I believe there will be a sufficient number of Liberal backbenchers who will have the guts to act according to their own conviction when the vote takes place.
Hardly anyone today can accept the government's alternative of a long prison sentence in place of the death penalty for capital murder. We have watched the government turn convicted felons, dangerous offenders, loose on society after ridiculously short-terms in prison. As I said earlier, a large number of those have then committed new crimes, up to and including murder. We do not trust the government to keep dangerous offenders in prison. If the government has commuted all death penalties imposed by the courts since the present law was passed, thereby breaking the very law it itself set, and if the government persists in releasing criminals into society on day passes and week end leaves only to commit further crimes, then how can we have any faith in its new proposals?
I must conclude my remarks by saying to the government that it has provided the best possible evidence, by its own actions and by its own attitude towards violent crime in Canada, that there can be no acceptable alternative to the death penalty. The death penalty must be reinstated, and it must be applied without fail unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a recommendation for clemency by a judge or jury. The government has made the best possible case for capital punishment by refusing to honour the mandate given it by parliament, and by ignoring the rights of law-abiding Canadians to protection of life and property.
The cracks are showing up daily in Liberal ranks over this issue, and the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice must surely know by now that their policies, or non policies, with respect to crime and criminals are not finding any more favour among Liberals than among other parties. It is time for both ministers to stand aside and make room for ministers who will obey and honour the oaths of their office when it comes to this issue of capital punishment.
It is time for action in dealing with violent crime in Canada in a direct, serious, and realistic manner, rather than by means of this phony method. This is the phony method by which the government first brought in a decoy bill. I refer, of course, to Bill C-83, the first part of the so-called peace and security package, which was meant to justify this bill and the abolition of capital punishment. However, I do not think it is working the way it was meant to work. The smokescreen set up by the two ministers responsible, for the sole purpose of reducing or even eliminating any opposition to their egotistical goals, has suddenly, to their surprise, been penetrated by members of all
June 7, 1976

parties. Certainly my own personal wish is for this smokescreen to collapse totally and for this parliament to regain some of the dignity and prestige it has been losing in past years by voting in accordance with the wishes of the majority of Canadians.
In any case, as I was saying earlier in my remarks, it is time for action in dealing with violent crime in Canada, and it is also time for the Prime Minister to appoint people to those two ministries who will do more than just stand around wringing their hands over the fate of the poor, misunderstood murderers. If these actions are not dealt with, and if the government, starting with the Prime Minister himself, does not begin, first, to follow the laws of the land as set out by parliament, and second, to abide by the wishes of the great majority of Canadians when it comes to an emotional issue such as this, then there certainly should be no other alternative but, as I said earlier, to dissolve parliament, call a general election, and place capital punishment on the ballot for the good and well-being of all Canadians.
The Canadian people want action, and they want it now, and I can only say to hon. members on either side of the House who will vote for the abolition of capital punishment that they should live with their consciences over the the death of each innocent man, woman and child who has been brutally murdered by individuals who need not have respect for the law because all they have to do is follow the example of the cabinet.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate will be brief. While I agree that there is nothing of greater importance to discuss and decide than the matter of life and death, nevertheless I feel too much of the time, attention, effort and energy of this House and of Canadians generally are being devoted to the question of abolition or retention of capital punishment, and not nearly enough to the causes and eradication of crime.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In 1973 I voted for Bill C-2 with reluctance, stating that I would much prefer to have seen legislation introduced at that time which would abolish capital punishment totally. This time I shall vote for Bill C-84 with reservations, not because I have in any way changed my views as to the necessity for total abolition, but because I am gravely concerned about those clauses of the bill which call for the establishment of mandatory minimum sentences. To my mind, that aspect of the bill makes it a very retrogressive piece of legislation.
Surely everyone in this House and every responsible member of society is deeply concerned about protecting society from the crime of murder. The protection of the public takes precedence over every other concern. The question is, then, how best can we ensure that protection? What are the means to enforce it? Is capital punishment a protective measure? While statistics have been cited to show that it is a deterrent, as often as not those same statistics are used to show that capital punishment has no deterrent value.
Many organizations and studies have been quoted on this matter. Let me add one more. It is from the Canadian
Capital Punishment
Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and that association states:
The most frequently used argument in favour of capital punishment is that it serves as a deterrent. Many studies, including recent ones at the University of Montreal and the University of Toronto, have shown that this is not so. While the murder rate in Canada has risen in the past five years, during the temporary suspension of capital punishment, the rate of other crimes of violence has increased even more quickly in this same period. The incidence of murders in many countries around the world indicates that the number of murders is related to economic conditions and the temper of the times, but has no relationship to whether or not the death penalty is used.
Another common argument in favour of capital punishment is that it serves to protect society. We point out that such protection is not necessarily complete, because even if the death penalty is retained the courts might often accept the plea of manslaughter to avoid a capital sentence. On the other hand, if adequate safeguards are built into the parole system, it should be possible to protect society without having to resort to capital punishment.
I believe that capital punishment is ineffective as a deterrent, and I also believe that Bill C-84 in its present form is largely ineffective as a measure for the better protection of society.
Let me elaborate. First of all, I believe the arbitrary nature of some of the distinctions between first and second degree murder is counter productive to the intent of the legislation to protect members of society. A planned or deliberate murder would be considered first degree murder under this legislation and would carry a penalty of a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years. Thus an individual convicted under this charge, involved in a single act against one individual, would be imprisoned for 25 years. Yet scientific evidence in recent years-in particular, two specific findings of criminal research-shows, first, that convicted murderers have low recidivism rates, and second, the longer the imprisonment, the slimmer the chances of rehabilitation.
However, let us consider the case of an unstable individual who, in a rage or acting on an impulse, murders several people, an occurrence which has been too sadly familiar in recent years in this country. This individual would be considered subject to the charge of second degree murder, and the terms of this bill would make that person a less dangerous threat to society. In reality the risk to society is often higher in the case of impulsive, irrational behaviour, yet the arbitrary nature of this legislation creates more stringent restrictions against those who plan one act.
Another questionable point of arbitrary classification in this legislation is the charge of first degree murder in cases where murder is committed during an attempted rape, indecent assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, or hijacking. I do not for one single moment underestimate or underrate the heinous nature of these crimes and the abhorrence of murder under these circumstances, but by what criterion is a life taken during an attempted robbery less valuable than one taken during an indecent assault?
In terms of the protection of society this distinction is just not valid. According to a publication from the minister's own office, 66 per cent of murders committed during the commission of other criminal acts between 1961 and 1974 were murders associated with property and monetary crimes. Yet these murders, under this new legislation, would be deemed less threatening to society and have less

June 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
stringest measures against them than the 23 per cent of murders committed during sex crimes.
One other point that gives me serious misgivings as to the potential of this bill to protect society is the application of first degree murder to those who murder prison guards and policemen. I have discussed this aspect of the bill at length with persons employed in the penitentiary service in my own constituency. While we may not agree on certain aspects of the bill, there are many in that employ who question the imposition of a 25 year sentence and its resulting effects. It is vital-it is important that we support in every way possible the work being done by our security officers throughout Canada. It goes without saying that I am committed to that principle. I have some grave doubts that the arbitrary nature of the mandatory sentence proposed by this bill will achieve this aim. In fact there is good reason to believe it may hinder it.
Let me quote from an article by Dr. E. A. Fattah, Chairman of the Criminology Department at the Simon Fraser University. He said:
Those familiar with the situation of inmates in penal institutions know well that the real incentive for obeying stringent institution rules lies not in the fear of punishment, but in the prospect of earning time off for good behaviour and the hope of getting parole. Take away these prospects and you have taken away any incentive for change or good conduct. A minimum of 25 years creates a distinct category of men without hope, and a man without hope is capable of doing anything and everything to draw attention to his cause and to his condition.
It is that last thought, a man without hope, that I have heard echoed by many employees in the penitentiary service.
I would say to the minister, who first declared his opposition to the 25 year sentence in January, 1973, that it is discouraging to see him now abandon this principle. How much better it would be if he and his colleagues showed more interest, indeed urgency, in addressing themselves to the root problem, the social conditions that breed crime.
Three years ago members in this House went through the same lengthy and emotional debate. Three years have passed and the government has done little to eradicate the fertile breeding ground of crime in a society plagued with high inflation, high unemployment, economic and regional disparity.
I very much fear the extent of the unrest and discontent in this country because these problems of high inflation and high unemployment are growing worse, and because of them violent crime is on the increase. Where in any of the proposals or background notes for this legislation is there a commitment by the government to undertake to gain insight into the causes and process of violent crime in our society, and to attempt seriously to counteract this process?
I shall vote for this bill because I sincerely believe that capital punishment is not the answer to prevent or deter murder, and while I am committed to support any measure that increases the protection of innocent citizens from violence at the hands of others I seriously question that the principle of minimum mandatory sentences will help achieve this objective; rather, these proposals could have the opposite effect.

I would strongly urge the minister to reconsider this aspect of Bill C-84, and to introduce amendments at committee stage that would remove the arbitrary and universal application of mandatory minimum sentences so that each case can be considered on its own for the sentence it merits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, as many hon. members have said in this debate, this bill has been before the House on four or five occasions since 1961. I am not going to go into detail on each of those debates, however. What I want to say is that I have read most of the speeches made on this subject in the House of Commons to date, and I should like to compliment some of the members who have spoken for abolition, and some in the Liberal party who have been brave enough to speak out for retention of capital punishment.
We in this country are deeply concerned with the prevention and control of violent crime. I think that concern has brought out a desire on the part of many members on the government side to speak up even though they may well risk promotion or favour within the government in their chosen field of interest. I think it takes a great deal of courage and a great deal of determination on their part to represent the people they chose to represent. When they went before the people in 1974 and 1972, they said they would represent, they would serve. I want to emphasize those two phrases, Mr. Speaker-"they will represent and they will serve". Some have spoken out and have proved they have a determination to represent and a determination to serve.
I am particularly regretful that this speaking out by government members on the side of retention ended on Thursday last week. No government members on Friday, and hardly any today, have spoken on behalf of the government for retention or abolition. That suggests to me-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That is not so!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I understand that is not so and I accept the correction of the government Whip.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is not true at all. In fact we were told by the loyal opposition that they had numerous speakers, well beyond what we have. We are trying to give them a break so that we can get their speakers to go through. Our speakers will come up just the same. We are giving a break to the opposition, and we do not want the record to show that we have no speakers. I am a retentionist myself. I am not afraid to speak out, and I am sure many others on this side will do likewise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Railton:: I am saving time or I would speak.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member is in a particular position to lend a great deal of wisdom to this subject, Mr. Speaker. Rather than save time, if he had told his constituents in 1972 and 1974 that he would not speak out in the House of Commons because he believes time is more important and he is not needed to represent them, and that Trudeau and
June 7, 1976

the cabinet represent him on government issues and he need not speak out at all, they would not have sent him to Ottawa. He is a member in a position to lend some wisdom to this debate.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) on a point of order. I would suggest we all get back to the subject of debate.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I think we will have to correct some misstatements. It is too bad. I have spoken on this subject twice before, but I have not spoken this time because I thought we were trying to save time. Nobody has brought forward any new ideas on this subject. I hope the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) will, but even if he does not I think it is regrettable that we have so much misstatement and talking around the subject. I hope he will give us some new ideas.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. The last thing I wanted him to do was rise, bare his soul, and tell the House he had no new ideas to offer. But he interrupted me. I shall forever let it be known that he has no new ideas to offer this House, and his constituents can judge him accordingly. So long as he represents his constituency I will not mention his name again in the House. I know he has nothing new to offer.
I have been interrupted several times. I do not mind interruptions.


Samuel Victor Railton: Good going, Jack!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But it is difficult to maintain one's continuity of thought. As I was saying before the interruption, we are concerned about preventing the incidence of violent crime in this country and we must exercise our responsibilities to the full, to eliminate the difficulty confronting Canada.
This has been an interesting debate, and I have read most of the speeches. There have been worth-while contributions on the side of abolition and on the side of retention. To me, it is glaringly obvious that all members of the socialist party believe in abolition, that most Progressive Conservatives believe in retention-


An hon. Member:: What about your leader?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said most-and that most members of the Liberal party believe in retaining power and in doing what is necessary to retain power. Therefore we must approach this question philosophically. Why do socialists, the NDP group included, believe in abolition?


An hon. Member:: Ask Joe Clark.


An hon. Member:: Ask Trudeau.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is apparent that socialists support evermore controls over the individual.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Capital Punishment


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, if any hon. members interrupting me have something new to suggest, perhaps they can speak after I have finished. I am trying to put forward new thoughts which may invigorate the minds of some hon. members for the first time since their election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Let's hear them.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The socialists believe in more state control over the individual. That may be oversimplifying the position but that, I believe, is a broad statement which socialists find acceptable. They think private enterprise cannot do the job, that the state knows best, that the state should control the people, and that it should therefore have absolute control. In exercising absolute control it must restrict the individual in every nook and cranny of activity. But this restraint of the individual makes the individual rebellious.
Far be it from me to suggest that the spirit of rebelliousness is more prevalent today than it was ten or 20 years ago; the fact remains that the spirit of rebelliousness is ever more evident. Therefore it is not surprising to note that crime rates are higher than they were ten years or 20 years ago. As I said, the more controls the state imposes on the individual, the more rebellious will the individual become. He rebels against the state. The rebellious action might take the form of crime committed against our wives or loved ones.
The fundamental question we must answer is: how are we to curb this rebelliousness? Are we, as legislators, doing everything we can to give the individual freedom to do what he wants to do in society, freedom to better his community and country; or are we imposing so many restrictions on the individual that he tends to rebel? If we are to cure the ever-increasing incidence of violent crime, we, as legislators, must answer that question. Of course the socialists think the state knows best. Their position is almost religious: the state knows best, does everything best, and we should all be controlled by the state. This experiment has been tried in Russia, with not too much success. I doubt if it will succeed in the end, just as I doubt if it will succeed in any other relatively affluent country. It succeeded in mainland China for a number of years, a country suffering from great poverty and distress. There the state managed the economy more efficiently than the individual could have managed it; but I do not expect that experiment to last for many years in the future. I think in the years ahead the present system of authority in mainland China will decay.
Putting it simply, when the state imposes its external discipline on the individual, the individual tends to rebel. As legislators we must encourage the individual to exercise self-discipline, self-restraint, for his own betterment and that of his community. In the long run state imposed discipline on the individual creates rebellion, upheaval, and an increase in violent crime. Therefore I am not surprised at what has happened in this country. The government is imposing ever more external pressure on the individual and fostering the spirit of rebellion.
Let us examine certain statistics relating to Canada. In 1954, when our population was some 15 million, there were

Capital Punishment
125 murders in this country. By 1964 our population had risen to over 19 million, and there were 218 murders. In 1974, when ever more restrictions had been placed on the individual, we experienced 545 murders. That represents an increase in the murder rate of well over 100 per cent between 1964 and 1974. Why did the murder rate increase so dramatically? Part of the reason is that the government took more and more decisions unto itself and left fewer to the individual.
I think many members misunderstand the history of this bill. In 1967 we embarked on a trial period during which capital punishment was to be abolished, except in cases involving the killing of a prison guard or policeman. I did not vote in support of that bill because I felt my wife, granddaughter and loved ones were entitled to as much protection as was being afforded to policemen and to prison guards. I felt that the trial period was not good for Canada. Since 1967 the government has fully demonstrated that it does not intend to carry out the will of parliament, the will enshrined in the 1967 legislation.
That provision was reinstated in 1972, and again the same thing held true. Since 1972 the government has deliberately demonstrated to the people of Canada that it has no intention of carrying out the will of parliament. What does this mean for Canadians? Many abolitionists have argued that capital punishment has no deterrent effect and that the retentionists have never proved the contrary. Mr. Speaker, we have never been given the chance to prove that it has a deterrent effect because the government has deliberately gone out of its way to commute all death sentences.
I know there are cabinet ministers who will argue that they have a right to commute death sentences and that, this being the case, they did not deliberately disobey the law. My interpretation of the record leads me to an opposite conclusion. In my view the very fact that they are bringing forward this bill at the present time before the trial period is ended proves my case. Why are they bringing it forward now? It is because their conscience is bothering them. They cannot continue to disobey the legislation which was passed in 1972 by commuting all the death sentences which come before them.
If ministers could stand in their places and say they never deliberately disobeyed the will of parliament, but had logically studied every case individually before reaching a decision to commute, that would be one thing. But they do not. Perhaps my judgment is caustic. Perhaps I ought not to accuse them of deliberately taking the action they did. Well, let them rise and say now that they will continue to commute all the sentences which come before them for review or, on the other hand, that they will not. But ministers will not make such a statement. They want to abolish capital punishment.
What we are contemplating now is not a free vote of the House of Commons but the imposition of the will of the cabinet on backbenchers on the government side. It is an attempt to hoodwink members of the opposition into believing this is a free vote. I know the whip is looking at me with an angry eye.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am not.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They may well be hoodwinking even him.


An hon. Member:: That would be easy!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I maintain that the conscience, even of this cabinet, is becoming uneasy. Ministers feel they cannot commute all the death sentences which come before them and they want "off the hook". I say to members on all sides: do not let the government off the hook. This is a government which undertook to govern for the good of the people and by the consent of the people. There can be no question as to the wish of the Canadian people. They are opting from 70 to 80 per cent across Canada for the retention of capital punishment in cases of heinous crimes.
I should like to turn to one other aspect of the subject, one which is often debated in the House, the subject of rehabilitation. A former colleague of mine in this Chamber, now the ombudsman for the Province of Ontario, often spoke on this topic and his speeches were always very moving; they commanded a good deal of attention. He was a believer in rehabilitation. He would say, "Never give up hope for your fellow man; always hold out some hope of rehabilitation for him." I found that point of view hard to argue against whenever I discussed the matter with him. Now look at the bill before us.
Where do we find any hope for the rehabilitation of persons who commit a violent crime, the crime which is called capital murder? I see no hope for them. A man is sentenced to 25 years and it is true that possibly, following judicial inquiry, he can be released after serving 15. I see no hope for a man who commits a murder, now called non-capital murder, and who is sentenced to ten years because he loses his temper, or because in a fit of rage or passion he kills a loved one, or someone near to him.
Where are the true abolitionists in this House who can support this legislation, a bill which would destroy all hope of rehabilitation? I doubt very much whether my former colleague, the present ombudsman for Ontario, would support this measure.


An hon. Member:: Yes, he would.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In that case, he would not really believe it. It is possible to support this legislation if you do not really believe it will be carried out. But if you really believe the letter of the law will be obeyed, then how can you support this legislation if you are an abolitionist? It leaves no room for rehabilitation.
One government member who has spoken in this debate says he intends to move an amendment to the legislation in committee. He admitted in his speech that the bill destroys all hope for certain persons. He maintains that in all cases where hope is destroyed and a second murder is committed, capital punishment should be enforced. Speaking to him privately he tells me that many hon. members support such a stand. This goes to prove that many of us accept that any hope for rehabilitation is destroyed if the letter of the law is applied. Mr. Speaker, we cannot buy this piece of poorly-drafted legislation which is put forward in an attempt to force parliament to get the cabinet off the hook. I do not want to get any government off the hook when it does not have the courage to obey the law of the land and the will of the people.
June 7, 1976

This is the fifth debate on this subject in which I have taken part in the House of Commons, and to my mind it is the worst. It is true that some of the best speeches might have been made in it, but the subject matter is the worst. The government is not asking parliament to return to the use of capital punishment. It is asking for its abolition even in the case of the murder of policemen and prison guards.


An hon. Member:: And treason.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: "And treason", as correctly stated by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie). Policemen and prison guards have asked that this legislation be voted down. Who knows best? Let hon. members answer to their constituents. This is an important piece of legislation about which I wish there were more new thought on the part of the backbenchers of the Liberal party who rise to speak and represent their constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have not finished, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, pursuant to order made earlier this day it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings now before the House so that we may resume debate on the motion moved earlier this day, upon which debate was adjourned.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, for the remainder of the session, no private members' business shall be taken up, and on Tuesdays and Thursdays the House shall sit from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. to consider government bills, provided that, on those days, the normal daily routine of business shall be taken up at 2.00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the President of the Privy Council rising on a point of order?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that you very wisely made the suggestion that the House leaders might assemble again to consider the situation that had arisen during the exchange of pleasantries earlier this day. I should like to inform the House, through you, that we have had some further discussions.
The government is now in a position to agree not to insist on proceeding with Bill C-87, regarding expenditure restraints-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I had not quite finished the sentence, Mr. Speaker. The government is now in a position to agree not
Extended Sittings
to insist on proceeding with Bill C-87, regarding expenditure restraints, before the summer adjournment. If it is not approved in the fall before prorogation it will, however, be brought back in the next session for passage before the end of the year.
Bill C-83 causes greater difficulty, however, since we do not have a clear indication of when it may be reported from committee. If it is reported comparatively early and if there are signs that its passage will not be much delayed, there is a chance that we shall endeavour to make further progress on it before the break. I say this because the committee is hard at work. In any case, if it is not passed before then it will have the very highest priority in the autumn, whether in a brief continuation of this session or at a reinstated stage in the next one.
We will not adjourn until Bill C-84, regarding capital punishment, is disposed of-either way-at all stages.
I must also inform the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we must also seek third reading of Bill C-68, regarding medicare, for this bill emanates from the budget of almost one year ago, has been debated at great length, and is now at third reading stage. In addition, Bill S-35, respecting proprietary and patent medicines, and Bill S-88, amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act, are needed before we adjourn. I understand as well that there may be a mutual desire to complete Bill S-32, regarding certain tax conventions. I say this because I have had representations from other countries, and from Canadian businessmen who would like to have that bill approved so that they can proceed with some transactions that are now underway. When royal assent has been given to these items, even if it is before June 30, we should be in a position to begin the summer break.
Many members have expressed concern about the timing of a division on second reading of Bill C-84. The House, of course, has made a special order providing for a negotiated timing of that division within one week of the conclusion of the debate. We had a discussion among the House leaders in an effort to see if we could pinpoint a time when a division might take place, since it is desirable that as much notice as possible should be given to members, regardless of their views on this bill, so they can be here when the division takes place. We looked at the schedule, and most especially the schedule of budget debate and supply days, and we came to the conclusion-I hope I am expressing the views of all my colleagues-that it would not be unrealistic for members to plan on the division occurring on the morning of June 22. We could not make that an order; it is simply-


Walter David Baker: That is second reading?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, that is the division on second reading. That seems to be the most likely date, given all the considerations and all the time constraints. This is the basis upon which we met and, I hope, agreed, Mr. Speaker, and it is my understanding that on this basis we can now proceed to take a vote on the motion that is before the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, just a brief reply to the government House leader. He has correctly put forth the understanding that we reached at the meeting today, except for S-32, which he is not pressing in

June 7, 1976
Extended Sittings
any event and which I undertake to look into from our point of view. That being the case, we are quite prepared now to allow the motion standing in his name to proceed without further debate.
Mb. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has pointed out, the government House leader has given a correct summary of the understanding that we had at our meeting in his office at 6.15 this evening. I should like to say that once again it has been proven that discussion does have value and that compromise here and there sometimes brings results.
It had been our hope that the government would agree not to proceed before the adjournment with either Bill C-87 or Bill C-68. For a while the government House leader seemed to hope that he might have to postpone only part of Bill C-87, the restraint package, but in the end he agreed to postpone the whole of Bill C-87. But as he has already said, he could not meet me with respect to Bill C-68, which relates to medicare. Well, Mr. Speaker, in the process of give and take, we concurred in the agreement, though I point out to him that when Bill C-68 is called for third reading we shall debate the bill in the hope that we may yet be able to persuade the government that it is a bad piece of legislation to proceed with at this time.
With that understanding I concur with what was said by the two previous speakers, and we are now prepared for the motion respecting extra hours to be passed without further debate.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, the comments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and the two previous speakers prove that when we have discussions with the leaders of all parties in the House, an agreement is reached without resorting to closure and without warming our ears too much, as we say in Quebec. I think it is quite fair to co-operate with the government and adjourn at a reasonable date for the summer holidays. We agree with the comments of the President of the Privy Council.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the motion put earlier this day by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, before the interruption at nine o'clock I was speaking at length about the philosophical side of the question before the House, and the neglect of members on the government side to represent and serve their constituents as they said they would in the 1972 and 1974 election campaigns, and that should encompass most of the backbenchers on that side of the House.
Let me now deal with a matter that may be difficult to prove, and that is the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Many members, including the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), have said they do not believe there is any deterrent value in the retention of capital punishment. I would be the first to admit there is no deterrent value in retention of capital punishment in respect of those crimes committed in a fit of passion or in the heat of an argument. There can be a deterrent value where a crime is deliberately planned by a person against another person or persons. It is really that simple.
The minister said the deterrent value had never been proven. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt) made a speech in which he recalled a number of murder cases where there was some question about the actual justness of sentencing individuals to the death penalty. He mentioned the Coffin case, the Raymond Cook case, and a number of others. Many of the people who have mentioned those cases and have put forward that argument did not take into consideration the changes in the legislation in September 1961. Those changes in essence established non-capital and capital murder.
Before the non-capital and capital murder trial period we are now embarked upon, murder was defined as being premeditated, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Murder was a premeditated and deliberate taking of somebody's life. The government came along in 1967 and changed the essence of capital murder to being that of killing a policeman or a prison guard. Murder then did not have to be premeditated, preconceived, or deliberate. As the law now exists, a frightened 17-year old youth with a heavy flashlight in his hand who hits a policeman over the head and kills him accidentally would be committing murder. Perhaps the cabinet would commute the sentence in such a case, and I would agree with that commutation.
The path we are embarking upon through this legislation is one that will lay down the penalty for murder, namely, ten years for non-capital and 25 years for capital murder. I assume that will be under the 1961 definition and not murder in respect of policemen and prison guards. That
June 7, 1976

being the case, the 17-year old who hits the policeman with a heavy flashlight, killing him, could serve 25 years unless the government commuted his sentence. This means that the 17-year old youth, stronger than he might think, who hit the policeman could serve 25 years without commutation following a judicial inquiry or something of that sort. To my way of thinking that is not justifiable legislation.
The 1962 legislation, which set up two degrees of capital murder, was never given a fair trial in this country because the government changed hands and the next Prime Minister commuted every sentence. It was conceived in the minds of those people who might commit murder that their sentence would be commuted and they would not have to forfeit their lives. For that reason it was impossible to prove or disprove the value of capital punishment as a deterrent. It has been impossible in the last 15 years to determine the deterrent effect of capital punishment because this government and the government before it demonstrated to the country at large that there was no intention to carry out the death penalty.
Before 1961 we had a different situation altogether because we did not have two degrees of murder. There was a sentence for murder, and whenever the courts recommended a plea for leniency the cabinet commuted the sentence. In some cases when the courts did not pass on a recommendation the cabinet commuted the sentence anyway. I am thinking particularly of the case referred to by the hon. member for New Westminster of Steven Trus-cott, a boy of 14 years of age. Under the law passed in 1961 he would never have been subject to capital punishment.
Many cases prior to 1961 would not have been subject to the death penalty under the law as it stood from September 1961 on, and there would have been no necessity for commutation. These were cases that involved deliberate murder. Each one of these cases since 1961 was subject to commutation, therefore any attempt to prove the deterrent value of capital punishment has been impossible in Canada.
It is the knowledge of the risk one is taking that really is the measure of deterrence. If one believes he will never be caught he might go out and rob a store. Perhaps one will go out and commit a murder if he knows he will never be caught. It is the degree of risk of being convicted and punished that deters one from committing the offence. One can use many examples to show this, some of them regarding the penal system within this country of ours. Let us take the speed limit in a specific area as an example. We do not have to use even the breathalyzer case.
If there is a 30-mile an hour speed zone and one knows he will never be caught, he will more than likely travel through that zone at 40 miles an hour. If he knows there is a speed trap around the next corner or in the next block he will travel through that speed zone at 30 miles an hour. It is not the speed zone that stops him from going faster than 30 miles an hour, it is the risk of being caught that holds him to 30 miles an hour.
The government has demonstrated to Canadian society that it is not prepared to use capital punishment.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!
Capital Punishment


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If a new thought has struck you, then rise in your place and make a speech. I will listen to you, as I am sure other members in the House will. We will welcome your speech as I am sure your constituents would welcome it.
It has been impossible to prove the deterrent value of capital punishment in this country since the change in the law because the government of Mr. Pearson and this government have commuted every sentence. This government has used the trial period as a hoax on parliament. Do hon. members realize what happened to them in 1967? The Liberal government conned them as it conned parliament in 1972. Hon. members who vote on this legislation, no matter on which side of the House they sit, will be allowing themselves to be conned again because the government does not intend to carry out the measure it is asking us to pass. By that I mean the government does not intend to make sure that any convicted murderer stays in jail for 25 years. I know, and everyone in this country knows, that members of the cabinet are not that inhumane. They will let them out before their 25-year sentence has been served. I would hope they would let non-capital murderers out before ten years. They do not believe in their own legislation.
If the legislation should be defeated we will go back into a trial period. If we go back into a trial period the government can commute every sentence from now until the next election. I expect it. All those who would be subject to it will expect it, and the electors will make a new decision in 1978. They may make a new decision in any event in the constituency of the hon. member opposite who is interjecting, because they already know he has nothing new to offer. They will make a new decision in respect of many seats in this House of Commons if the government continues to commute every sentence between now and 1978. But if the legislation is accepted, the government does not intend to follow it, and if the legislation is defeated the government will continue not to obey the wishes of the Canadian people.
I shall conclude by saying to all members of this House of Commons that they have been conned twice. If they allow themselves to be conned a third time I can only say that the people of Canada should take a look at those who represent them in this House and see how they are conned and how little they really are prepared to serve the will of the Canadian people. In all the speeches made in this debate no one has disagreed in respect of the will of the people. Everyone has said that 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the people of Canada believe in the retention of capital punishment. Can we be conned into disobeying the will of the people in a democracy? That is the fundamental question. If we are, will the people take it laying down? Mr. Speaker, I hope not.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I must say in participating in the debate on Bill C-84 that I think my remarks will be a little more brief than they sometimes are. It has been stated publicly, although it is open to some interpretation, that this is to be a free vote. Certainly on this side of the House there is a very real intent to have a free vote.

June 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
All of us on all sides who have participated in this debate in terms of the discussion so far have been subjected to what we euphemistically call our own conscience. In such a situation it is rather difficult to try to persuade one's colleagues to switch their conscience and substitute it for your own. On that premise this is a much different debate from what we usually have in this Chamber. There are political cross-currents to it obviously because the government is committed to a peace and order package, Bill C-83 and Bill C-84. Obviously the government would like to get this bill out of the way, and as far away as possible from an election. In that type of scenario there are political crosscurrents, but considering the merits and demerits of the question I do not really think one can put a political stripe on Bill C-84.
In our own ranks there are honest differences of opinion, as I am sure there are on the other side. This is not really a happy debate. It cannot be when we are discussing capital punishment. While I was the opposition spokesman in respect of the office of the Solicitor General I must say although I have a great deal of respect for the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) I was somewhat irritated by a speech that hon. gentleman made before the Bar Association in Montreal, I believe last summer. He became very emotional about this issue and said that capital punishment is not a happy occasion. I quite agree with him. Capital punishment is not a happy time. It is not a happy, festive event. But the events which lead to capital punishment are not happy festive occasions either.
One of the difficulties I had as opposition spokesman in respect of the office of the Solicitor General was in relation to the emotional effect this issue had on the Solicitor General who seemed to wear bifocals or blinkers against the realities of the world. We all would like to have a world in which we did not have to talk about capital punishment. This is neither a happy time nor a happy debate. However, this is a fundamental debate which goes back before the time of Jesus Christ.
There was the code of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, although I do not look at it in terms of retribution or revenge. In 1700 BC the philosophers spoke of the sanctity of the individual versus the protection of the state. When we shake it all down, that is what we are talking about today, the sanctity of the individual balanced against the necessity of laws to protect society.
I have been on the political gallows three times since I have been a member of parliament. Three times I have been confronted with this question. I must say, however, that I do not have the conviction of my colleagues on either side of the House who are either firm retentionists or firm abolitionists because my voting record on this question has switched. I was an abolitionist when I first voted, and the next time I was a retentionist in respect of policemen and prison guards because I voted for that qualifying amendment. This can be interpreted either way. The retentionists say it is qualified retention and the abolitionist say it is qualified abolition, because capital punishment is still in the code.
On the last occasion I voted for an amendment moved by one of my colleagues to the effect that the discrimination be removed in respect of policemen and prison guards. I voted in effect for full retention on the basis that one life is

just as good as any other life because the people working in prisons and/or on the streets policing our neighbourhoods know that that is part of the risk involved in their job. I have said that I do not have the conviction of my colleagues because I have swung back and forth. Perhaps that is not the right way to put it. I have voted on both sides of the issue.
In a sense this parliament is removed from the people. It is not in touch with the people. Here in this peace and order package we have two bills, Bill C-83 and Bill C-84, which to me demonstrate almost more graphically than any words used by anyone in this Chamber how this Chamber is getting away from the people at the grass roots from coast to coast, be they in the city or in the countryside of this grand land of ours.
If we take Bill C-84 first, we might consider the pollsters and the polls which indicate that anywhere from 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the people favour some form of capital punishment. So, what are we doing here? Two years after we debated this issue we are back at it again for several days. In effect we are saying to the people of Canada that they may think they know what they want but we, the representatives, really know what they want and we are coming back to this issue of capital punishment and perhaps will resolve it for all time, not by popular request or because of great public agitation across the country to start it again. If there is anything, it is almost the reverse.
The fact if that the present law has not been fully implemented. I think there has been disenchantment on the part of the public across the land because the people have very real doubts, to put it mildly, as to whether the law is really being followed or whether it is being broken by almost automatic commutation.
You have the fundamental question: life, liberty, and protection of society, a matter which we have debated several times in the House and most of us debated at least two years ago. There was no great public outcry that capital punishment should be abolished. In fact anywhere from 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the population, according to the polls, say there should be some form of capital punishment. Yet this parliament debates a bill which flies right in the face of that solid public opinion.
Let us consider Bill C-83, the other half of this peace and order package. If you put the question to the public in a poll and ask them. "Are you in favour of gun control?" The public, not knowing fully what you mean, will say, most likely, "yea, of course there should be some type of gun control", not appreciating the fact that gun control in a definite form is in existence now. That is the problem with polls; you can phrase the question in such a way as to get the answer you want. The same question to the public at large on capital punishment may bring forth the same response, so that anywhere from 60 per cent to 80 per cent of the population to whom the blanket question "are you in favour of gun control"' is put, will say, "yes". If you tell them that gun control exists, that might change some of the answers.
It is just as fundamentally clear that the three million Canadians who have an interest in guns of one type or

another, in pistol shooting or in hobby gun collecting, are very much against Bill C-83. Already we have the situation of the government moving 44 amendments in committee to try to improve a bill that has so many defects in it. But any logical person, regardless of what he felt about gun control, would not know that this bill would not do the job and would be a fundamental intrusion into the private lives of Canadians. So in these two areas covered by Bill C-84 and Bill C-83 we fly completely against solid public opinion.
While you can have some fun phrasing questions about gun control, it is as clear as the day is hot outside this Chamber that three million Canadians-a pretty sizeable lobby-have real reservations about Bill C-83, and apparently so does the government because it brought in 44 amendments. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) says that another 44 amendments will be coming in to try to make a bill that is riddled with holes like Swiss cheese into a sensible bill.
These two illustrations show why the Canadian public is wondering what its representatives are doing with public time. I know members of parliament have to vote according to their conscience. One could go back to Edmund Burke who was a member of parliament in England and who gave that fine speech in Bristol, but nevertheless, he was defeated in the next election. That is how many people Mr. Burke led many years ago. Regardless of that, I do not stand here tonight and say that the parliament of Canada is not dealing with this question in the best interests of Canada. Obviously we have to make hard laws from time to time and one does not necessarily have to go to polls because, and I said earlier, the questions can affect the answers in a poll.
Having debated this matter several times, and acknowledging the fact that this bill is flying against the weight of Canadian opinion on this fundamental question of capital punishment, I really think that parliamentarians in this House of Commons are treading on dangerous waters in effect by confronting a solid body of public opinion. Having voted on both sides of this question and having practised law many years ago I say that when you change the law there is some onus on those proposing the new laws to say why they are going to change it and to justify the change.
We all know that the matter of deterrents is no proof even though the Solicitor General, when he opened the debate, cited statistics which showed that the rate of crime has increased since the law has been changed. Yet he did say that there has not been enough time to fully assess the effects because the last change took place only two years ago. As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) said, the present law has had no deterrent effect because there has been automatic commutation, so there has not been an honest, full, true trial run on this delicate subject. That is one of the dilemmas confronting hon. members. We are debating something almost in a vacuum. We have had the law but it has not really been applied.
When I am asked to vote for Bill C-84 I look to the Solicitor General to give me some reasons why I should vote to change the law and put in its place something better. He says himself it cannot be proved by statistics but he tells us to take it on faith because we are now humane people, and therefore we should not apply this
Capital Punishment
medieval form of punishment. I feel instinctively that there is something about this argument of deterrents that is completely false, and yet I have full respect for the fervour of abolitionists. I wish I had the convictions of my colleagues who believe firmly in either one side or the other, because unfortunately I appreciate arguments on both sides and in fact I voted both ways on this question.
With regard to deterrents, if you admit that you cannot prove the case on the basis of statistics-and I certainly shoot down the surveys that we have received from the Solicitor General's office which imply that capital punishment has no deterrent value-how do you prove it? Will you go to death row and ask old Joe-


An hon. Member:: Did you say Joe?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If you ask him, "Had you known you were going to swing, would you have done the dirty deed?" that is one of the most fundamental conflicts of interest because dirty old Joe, or great old Joe, who is going to take that final walk-


An hon. Member:: Joe who?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Joe Guay.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This is an allegorical joke. We could just as well say, Peter, Paul or Pierre. Anyway, Peter, Paul or Pierre sitting in death row cannot answer the question objectively because there is a fundamental conflict of interest in what they tell you, if you are a fervent sociologist trying to figure out what they would have done had they known they would take the final walk. That is one side of the argument. The other side, which is more valid, is how many people are roaming the streets who have not done the heinous crime and have never gone to jail. If they had bumped off Pierre, Paul or Peter, they might have had to face the final step. You cannot shake it down on statistics, but my instinct and common sense tell me not to accept some of the inferences in the surveys of the Solicitor General that there is no deterrent value in capital punishment. Just hearing the horrible things we are told in the House, the descriptions we have had about the different types of penalties and the very volume of words used in the House on the subject, are some indication that if you weighed the balance of probabilities you would not prove it by statistics but there may be in someone's mind some deterrent value in this whole operation.
The argument concerning deterrents does not convince me to vote for the bill. It cannot be proved, my instinct says there may be some deterrent there, and if there is a tittle of a chance of deterrence, then I ask, why opt for a change?
There is another reason I cannot vote for Bill C-84 at this time, even if I were a firm abolitionist, but regardless of that believing somewhat in retention, I think it is an absolute cop out to have imprisonment for capital crime of 25 or 35 years, depending on the type of crime, with no hope in effect of rehabilitation. That clause about imprisonment without any parole for a 25 or 35 year period, depending on the type of crime, is a slow death, crueller or worse than hanging. I say that is a cop out, and even if I

June 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
were a firm abolitionist I would have to look at this bill with a most critical eye and face the problem head on: with all the powers of commutation a man should not be sentenced for one crime of passion or for an accidental killing in a bank robbery to a type of imprisonment which will give him no hope at all.
That clause, along with the clause mentioned by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), is not acceptable, although I do agree in part with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau): If you believe fundamentally in abolition, in theory it really should not matter. With respect, this is one of the problems with our Prime Minister; he is a pretty interesting theoretician, but in terms of practical politics and practical realities he creates difficulties for himself.
In theory he is right; if you believe in abolition, what difference whether the crime is treason or murdering your wife, a policeman or a prison guard? The Prime Minister is theoretically right, but at this particular time in Canada with the problems we have, or might inherit from across the seas in view of some of the events which are going to take place, to do more than they have done in Britain and eliminate capital punishment for treason, acts against the Queen and that type of crime, which is fundamentally against the state, I think is just naive.
Since the proponents of the bill cannot show me what good the change is going to do in terms of law and order and/or protection of the state, since the deterrent effect cannot be proven by statistics one way or the other to further the bill-and I say instinctively there is some deterrence-and if there is a tittle of deterrence, hon. members should think about how they vote on this bill.
Then there are two clauses in this bill which were not in other bills: first, definite periods of imprisonment which will cut out the heart of man in terms of the hope of any rehabilitation, which I think is insidious; and second, we are going to eliminate capital punishment for all forms of capital crime at this time. I say that the theoreticians and philosophers may be in great company with the muses of the ages, going back to Hammurabi of the 1700's, but they are not being very realistic.
I do not know how much time I have left. I was going to speak very briefly because I know the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) wants to speak. However, I want to say where I stand fundamentally on this thing, and what bothers me about this bill.
Unfortunately the public has made capital punishment rather symbolic, and there is in that strong poll for capital punishment a symbolism that if you have capital punishment and if there is capital punishment for a capital prime, then ipso facto all problems of law and disturbances in our cities and on our streets are going to vanish. We know that will not happen whether this bill passes or not. The symbolism is not going to be carried through into reality. We will still have difficulties in the administration of justice and on our streets at night and during the day, but I do believe that there are many times when members of parliament have to vote on a bill when the weight of the evidence is not strong one way or the other and the public believes, rightly or wrongly, that there is a very real symbolic effect. I just do not know why members of parliament should fly in the face of that symbolism.

I know this bill will not correct all the problems, but conversely, if there is a large body of the Canadian public-as there is-which either believes in the principle of capital punishment or has the principle of capital punishment associated with the symbolism of having less permissiveness and fewer problems on the streets at night-in effect, I suppose, the cliche of more law and order-and if it honestly believes that and that is part of the psyche, then why should members of parliament vote to cut that symbolism away from the psyche? If that makes law abid-ers more comfortable and is not doing them any harm, I just wonder why this bill is so necessary.
There are many other things I would like to say about this, but it has all been said. There was a little discussion earlier between the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Rail-ton) and others about new ideas. I do not really think there are many new ideas on such a fundamental issue which has been with us and will be with us in one form or another regardless of this bill.
In terms of the administration of justice, in the old days there is no doubt about the chance of an error. That is the fundamental thing which bothers me. There is a chance of an error, that capital punishment might be exacted and that it might be found that there was a mistake. We obviously cannot resurrect the mistake; that certainly is something which bothers all hon. members. However, I think in the administration of justice in our society the pendulum has swung so far that it gives an accused person an exaggerated benefit of doubt, not only in the criminal court but in all courts of appeal. It has swung that way with regard to parole as well. I think the minister's own average is ten years; after a capital crime a criminal can be out on the streets in ten years. There is a chance for another capital crime, and I must say that is really what turned me around in this issue. I know of two cases of killers who killed once, got out on either parole or week end leave and killed again.


Jean-Jacques Blais: How many have there been, Pat?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There have been several.


Jean-Jacques Blais: There have been two.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Two I know of. I said two.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That's all.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) has asked a legitimate question. I can point out at least two situations I know about where there have been killings and chances to kill again because our administration of justice has swung so far in favour of the accused. In all sincerity I suggest to the hon. member for Nipissing that he cannot show me in the last two years or the last five years a mistake which has been carried out. We know that the last capital punishment was carried out in 1962. The hon. member cannot point to a fundamental mistake which has been made.
Each is entitled to his opinion, and my point is that the pendulum has swung so far in favour of the accused that he sometimes has had another chance to kill, and that weighs against the problem which bothers all Canadians about the chance of making a mistake. I think the adminis-
June 7, 1976

tration of justice is very strong in this country, and I do not have blinkers on my eyes when I say that. I know about some of the things which go on in the law courts; there is no doubt that you do have to have money from time to time to get a top criminal lawyer. However, regardless of all that, the administration of justice has really bent over backwards, and I think that is something which must be redressed. It is because of the killings which have been committed by those who have killed before that I have come back to the position where philosophically I believe that the potential of the ultimate penalty should be there for the perpetrator of the ultimate crime, with of course all the powers of commutation and royal prerogative of mercy.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert is concerned about this bill. He has always been concerned about the question, but he is concerned about this bill because of the lack of a clause about treason. He was the last prime minister to sign a final order, in 1962. I think if this bill were defeated and we go back to what is on the statute books now and the trial period that will last for another two or three years with the qualified retention for prison guards and policemen, that any prime minister, on a single killing, is going to take a long time to sign the final order.
Proponents of this bill cannot show me anything more convincing than that things are going to be better-the humanists will say it is to make life better because you do not have an organized killing, but I do not see it that way. In terms of crime, justice, the fears and aspirations of Canadians from coast to coast, the proponents of the bill cannot adduce any positive evidence or even positive logic that things are going to be better.
That is where we come back to the individual conscience. I suggest that the 70 per cent or 80 per cent of Canadians who have an individual conscience want that conscience represented. I am prepared to stand here with my conscience as I have done before. My conscience tells me now, for the reasons that I have tried to give, that the proof is not there that things are going to be better. It cannot be proven statistically. But there is the symbolism for Canadians that with the death penalty things may tighten up and some of the licence and licentiousness and lawlessness may not be on the streets of the land.
Thus I come back to the potential of the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. I should end right there, Mr. Speaker, and I think I will because it is a very individual thing. I hope we can come to grips with this in view of the motion made earlier today to extend the hours, which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has urged in order to try to get several bills through. I compliment him for getting us on extended hours to meet this question. Let the thing come; let us get it over with and let us leave it alone for some years so that we do not have to go through this agony and purgatory and soul-searching again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time I have spoken on the subject of capital punishment and I am a comparative newcomer to parliament, having arrived in 1972. Like the
Adjournment Debate
hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) I hope it is the last time I have to speak on capital punishment.
It was interesting to hear the comments of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) tonight when he asked how many people have committed murder a second time. In Winnipeg, the city that I represent, we have had people commit murders twice. Ten years ago a man took a young lady into a hotel room and murdered her. He was convicted, put away for a short period as they are these days, and came out after eight years. Then we went through the same thing again. He took another young girl to the very same hotel and murdered her. As well, I have read recent statements from California about 12 convicted murderers who were out on parole or because their short term had expired, and they murdered another 22 people. I hope we do not have to see a similar situation where we have a large number of murderers committing murder the second time before we get across to the Liberals that we should have the ultimate penalty.
The Globe and Mail of May 26 ran the following story:
Donald Kelly, convicted of the 1969 murder of two North Bay residents, has quickened heart beats in Ontario again. Armed with what was thought to be a snub-nosed .38 calibre revolver, Kelly isolated himself in a cellblock in the North Bay jail on Monday night and held police at bay for nine tense hours. In the end, Kelly surrendered peacefully. His gun, fished from a toilet tank, was discovered to be only a toy pistol.
Just imagine if it had been a real gun. Kelly would have killed every guard in sight to get out of that jail. If you remember his escapade in North Bay last winter you will know it almost bankrupted the municipality paying for the police to track him down. All that was destroyed in the manhunt was a valuable dog. I should like to see the abolitionists go into the penitentiaries and guard this man Kelly, spend 15 years guarding him, or this man Lucas from Manitoba, the axe murderer. I have spoken to prison guards who look after Lucas and they say you cannot even turn your back on him for a second or you take your life in your hands. The abolitionists who want to protect these savages should go to the penitentiaries and guard them. In the case of Kelly it was a toy pistol.
The Globe and Mail argument continues:
A toy pistol. We can hear the sighs of relief-a chuckle here and there-as Ontario's law-abiding citizens recover their cool. A toy: it wasn't very serious after all. The whole adventure no doubt will lend a certain lustre to the legend Kelly acquired last summer while spending 31 days eluding police in the bush land of Northern Ontario. And, after all, it was only a toy gun.
Wrong. It was not only a toy gun; it was a gun, plain and simple.
If it had been a real gun Kelly would have killed. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
June 7, 1976
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is now some time since I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) about Canada's attitude to the Israeli plans for colonization or settlement of those lands taken by military action from sovereign Arab states. In the interval the importance and relevance of the question, and the intensity of the feeling resulting from reaction have grown significantly and perhaps frighteningly.
I do not know whether the Canadian government used its good offices with Tel Aviv as I suggested, to seek to dissuade them from such a clearly provocative course. In any case there can be no doubt that the events of recent months reveal that this action has added another explosive element to an already over-heated crisis area.
I have never in all my years of interest in Middle East affairs suggested that there is anything unilateral or exclusive when it comes to assessing blame or responsibility. Neither side is without sin. Unfortunately in this country there is too often a tendency to be very one-sided when it comes to assessing the credits and debits. Too often there is an almost conditioned reflex to assume that the Arab side must be the chief culprit or the only transgressor.
This partiality, this selectivity, is not suitable in a country which is seeking to be open-handed and objective in its dealings with the Middle East. I note the solicitude of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) at Habitat lest Canada be seen to support any declaration which might offend the Israeli delegation. I believe that such councils of moderation are and would be more effective if given out in a balanced and impartial way. I believe that friends of the Arab world should point out that extremism of language is often less helpful than a strongly stated argument based on reason, logic, and historic facts.
I can recall occasions when my counsels of moderation have not made me overly popular with my Arab friends. On the other hand it is unhelpful, or worse, to condone or be silent about Israeli actions which threaten peace or violate the basic human rights of others.
A Reuter article of May 22, 1972, a year after the date of my question, is captioned "Arabs break curfew, Israelis break legs." The article went on to say that three young Arabs had their legs broken by Israeli security forces in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank. Mayor Karin Kholof said the forces entered several houses and beat up about 30 people, including women. Doors that were not opened by the residents of the houses were broken down. This is the harvest of the seeds sown by Israel when it determined to set up communities of Israeli people in those lands it seized by conquest from other states. The plan is to spread Israeli citizens into the far reaches of the occupied territory. How could such an act be regarded with anything but hostility by the residents of those areas and the rulers of the sovereign Arab states which claim jurisdiction over the land which had been taken from them?
A few weeks ago I was in Quneitra in the Golan area of Syria and saw the rubble of that city, totally levelled by the Israeli forces. A very short distance away I saw some-

thing else: on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights the intensive cultivation of the slopes by Israeli authorities. I thought at the time how often the world was told that Israel was interested in the Golan Heights only because it wanted secure borders.
It is not surprising that Ambassador Scranton speaking for the United States in a recent security council debate deplored the colonization move by the Israeli government and warned of the dangers such a move might bring.
A most brilliant scholar and statesman, Abba Eban, who was foreign minister when I visited Israel, has warned that extending Israel's grip on occupied territories would reduce the government's options in future negotiations with the Arabs.
In a very thoughtful editorial designated "Time to Leave", the Ottawa Journal declared on May 29:
Darkness descends again on the Middle East, and not only in Lebanon. In the Jordan River West Bank, occupied by Israel since the 1967 war, events are eroding what few hopes existed for an Arab-Israeli peace ...
Hence a grim impasse. After nine years of passivity under Israeli rule the West Bank Palestinians have come to life; expressing their resentment by ballots, demonstrations and strikes. The Israelis can certainly maintain their rule now by armed force. But for how long? They must weigh carefully the effect on American public opinion of gunfire to suppress West Bank aspirations to independence. Israel will lose friends as this sad situation continues to erupt.
It will also inflame the Arab world, making hope of peace impossible. Then it will be only a matter of time until the Middle East explodes again. Soon, somehow, Israel should get out of the West Bank.
I noted the remarks of the parliamentary secretary in response to today's question by my colleague from Okana-gan-Kootenay. I do not pretend to any exceptional or inside knowledge of the Lebanese situation. I believe that the hon. lady and I, and the vast majority of our colleagues, I am sure, share a profound sense of tragedy and depression about events in the beautiful country of Lebanon and the once bright and prosperous city of Beirut. A young constituent told me a few days ago that he could not understand Lebanon. He went on to say that he could not understand Ireland, either. I believe this to be a realistic reaction to a profoundly painful and distressing situation which seems to lead to a sad but a few hopeful reactions or portents.
I am not sure that the recent Syrian move is totally to be deplored. I do not like the prospect of any other nation exercising sovereignty over Lebanon, one of my favourite countries and one of the world's splendid democracies in its heyday. Certainly I do not appreciate any diminution of the rights or prospects of the Palestinians who are the chief victims of the whole Arab-Israeli confrontation and of the bad faith of the great powers of earlier generations. But events of the past few weeks make it far from impossible to accept the view that Syria has exercised a moderating influence in the area and that its failure to use its power and position may have prolonged a situation which could have led to conditions and situations more painful and tragic than those of today and the sad months preceding today.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to speak immediately after the hon.

member from Prince Edward Island. His speeches always reach climaxes that move me to the point I sometimes lose the thread of his remarks. In answer, I shall attempt to limit myself strictly to the issue of the territories occupied by Israel, which I am sure the hon. member will not resent. I shall not therefore deal in any way with the matter of Syria, Lebanon or every complex problem that may or should be connected with the Middle East problem. [English]
The position of the Canadian government with respect to settlement of the occupied territories by Israel is inherent in our full support for United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967. This resolution calls inter alia for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 War. Canada therefore does not condone any step which unilaterally attempts to alter the status of the occupied territories. Canada's full support for Resolution 242, including Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, has been made clear to the Israeli authorities on numerous occasions, most notably during the visit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to Israel in January. At that time the Secretary of State for External Affairs discussed frankly with the Israeli authorities the question of the establishment by Israel of settlements in the occupied territories.


AIR CANADA-ALLEGED INTENTION TO MOVE FINANCE BRANCH FROM WINNIPEG-GOVERNMENT ACTION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on April 13 of this year I put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) with regard to Air Canada's finance branch in Winnipeg. I said we had a great fear that the corporation is now plotting to phase out the finance branch there and move it into Quebec. The minister assured me at that time that Air Canada had no intention of phasing out the finance branch in Winnipeg. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that they are gradually phasing it out, that this work is being distributed all across Canada. The employees are sitting there in the finance branch doing nothing, or very little. There is no reason at all for this phasing out of the finance branch.
Today, I raised the question of the huge debt Air Canada is facing this year. At the end of April the net loss amounted to $14,474,000.29.1 also drew attention today, by way of a motion which was turned down by the Liberals, to the need for a complete investigation of the Air Canada finance branch.
I have suggested a number of times that the government despatch the Auditor General to Winnipeg to find out what is going on and to establish proper accounting procedures. This should be done immediately. I can give an example of one case where Air Canada wrote off a debt of $186,000. This involved a firm called Electronics Associates of Canada. This Toronto firm ran up a bill amounting to $186,000 and Air Canada wiped it off.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Hon. members can see that we need to send somebody in there to find out what is going on, not this ridiculous phasing out of the branch and the spreading of its work across Canada.
Adjournment Debate
Last week the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and myself raised the question of longstanding improper billing practices by Canadian travel agents. I pointed out that no controls are enforced any longer on the reporting of ticket sales by these agents, and as of October, 1975, Air Canada had in excess of $96,000 unreported travel agent ticket sales representing a minimum of $2,208,000 unpaid for transportation. The minister assured us he would be glad to see what stage the work had reached.
I should also like to ask the parliamentary secretary tonight whether the minister would make inquiries at the same time and request that Air Canada give a full report as to why the bankrupt firm of Electronic Associates Canada Limited of Toronto was allowed to run up a bill of $186,000 for air travel before they were cut off, why Air Canada allowed the bill to reach this amount, and why the whole account has been written off.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this particular firm had in their hands 75 credit cards. I do not even know whether the 75 credit cards have all been picked up and taken away from these people. According to the latest information I have, this account could reach a debit of a quarter of a million dollars. This is why I am calling for the third time for the Auditor General to be dispatched to do an immediate audit in the Air Canada finance branch, instead of our listening to silly statements from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) saying that we should not be running a Crown corporation from the floor of the House of Commons. If Air Canada were being run properly we would not have to bring this subject up on the floor of the House of Commons.
To add insult to injury, Air Canada states that they are going to ask for a fare increase. I have already written to Mr. Benson, head of the CTC, and requested that he allow no fare increase. If there are any hearings held in regard to an Air Canada fare increase, I can assure the House that I shall be there fighting to stop any such increase.
Air Canada is also breaking IATA rules and regulations. They have issued bar vouchers for Tours Mount Royal, of Quebec, to the tune of $27,384. All that Air Canada collected from this travel agent was $9,445; they wrote off $17,938. Under IATA rules and regulations this is illegal. This is another matter the Auditor General should look at.
I have before me a letter from Harveys of Bristol (Overseas) Limited of London, England, complaining to Air Canada that they are persisting in paying the incorrect amount. In this particular case Air Canada has always overpaid the amount. They also give another list of accounts that are not even being paid. This has been going on for months and months. I mentioned in the House about a couple of months ago that Air Canada are going to have their fuel and gas cut off at their offices at the Heathrow airport if they do not get their accounting system straightened out.
This is what it is costing us to contract this work out from the Air Canada finance branch while its employees are sitting in the branch doing nothing. I have before me one account from Accountemps of Vancouver, B.C., dated May 5, for $7,873 for contracting work out. They are paying the employees of this company $6 an hour to do this kind

June 7, 1976
Adjournment Debate
of work while they are paying Air Canada employees between $2 and $4.1 ask the minister to explain that to me.
I have another account submitted for contracting work out dated May 7 in the amount of $5,937. What is going on? Here is another one, May 18, from Accountemps in Vancouver for $8,382. This is for work contracted out while Air Canada's employees in Winnipeg are sitting in the office doing nothing.
I have another one dated May 7 for $5,268, Accountemps in Vancouver. Air Canada is also contracting work out in Montreal and Toronto. I have another one from Accountemps in Vancouver for $4,989. I only have part of this. I have another one dated May 28 for $5,547. Again Air Canada is contracting work out while its employees sit and do nothing. And they are going to ask for a fare increase, Mr. Speaker. Over my dead body will they get a fare increase. I have another one for $3,429 dated May 29, 1976.


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


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada has no intention, plan or proposal to move the airline's finance branch out of Winnipeg. On the contrary, it has emphatically insisted on a number of occasions that the finance branch would remain in Winnipeg. There is no question on the part of Air Canada management that this important financial section, which includes the accounting and related offices, would be moved from that city. Charges that Air Canada is considering moving this facility from Winnipeg are both inaccurate and unfounded.
The airline's current negotiations with members of the Canadian Airlines Employees Association regarding clerical workers in Winnipeg are proceeding and Air Canada remains hopeful of a settlement.
I can only repeat the assurance which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) on April 13, 1976. At that time the minister stated clearly that Air Canada had no intention of phasing out the finance branch in Winnipeg. As far as the other part of the hon. member's question is concerned, I am sure the minister will be glad to look into it.


MANPOWER-LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR DECISION ON EXTENSION OF PROJECTS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I want to debate my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in the House today, and one usually has to wait a couple of months, not with the idea of criticizing but merely in order to try to substantiate what I feel is a reasonable request that is, to establish a basic consideration for providing some form of flexibility in the determination of achieving the benefits of last year's Local Initiatives Program.
While I am sure the problem is national in scope, it arises in respect of some projects under last year's program which could not be completed within the required deadline

of June 26. The reason is that several programs started late due to weather conditions.
In the particular case to which I refer there were three projects that had to start late, not only because of weather conditions but, more important, due to the fact that they were approved as a result of my district being provided additional funds after the original projects were approved, for which I happen to be very thankful to the minister.
There is no question of the need for additional funding, but only the need for an extension of the time to complete the projects, which is justifiable for the reasons I have mentioned that is, weather conditions, and the late start on the projects for the other justifiable reasons I also mentioned.
What is difficult for me to understand is the source of the reason for hesitation and why the minister could not give me an assurance today that the projects could be extended, particularly when he indicated his promise or his commitment not only to provide new job creation programs as a result of the predicted savings by extending the qualifying work period for unemployment insurance benefits from eight to 12 weeks, but also his commitment to augment the regular manpower budget by $40 million in institutional and industrial training, an extra $2 million for expanding the mobility budget, and an enrichment of job funding and placement services involving an additional 150 staff in Manpower centres.
Finally, there is the $100 million job creation program which, indeed, is a repeat of the $135 million LIP announced last year but which was cut back by $35 million under the restraint program. Taking this into consideration it is impossible for me to understand why the minister, without hesitation, cannot extend the projects under last year's LIP program, because the funds are already allocated, the personnel are on the job, and if the extension is not approved this would put employees back on the unemployment insurance rolls, without even mentioning the unnecessary workload that would ensue.
Further, the situation is hypocritical when the remaining funds would have to be returned to the Treasury Board, with no advantage to anyone, to say nothing of the loss of jobs and the additional costs that would be created.
I might say that I know where the dilemma lies that the minister is facing, and that is with the Treasury Board. I am sure the Treasury Board is demanding that Manpower live within the terms of reference laid down under the criteria of the Manpower LIP as advanced by the minister, and so I cannot blame the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I express concern about the lack of common sense on thte part of Treasury Board which has no consideration for the facts of life as they exist, and takes such a ridiculous attitude towards realism.
I can only ask the minister to take a look at the problem more realistically and demand that Treasury Board show more humaneness and common sense in respect of the approval of extensions of time for these LIP projects which cannot be completed in the required time through no fault of the sponsors of the project; and at the same time fulfil the objectives of the LIP program to provide the opportunity for initiative and to provide jobs in the areas
June 7, 1976

of high unemployment, the evident criteria for which are completely ignored by the government.


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's remarks, may I repeat that the LIP is a job creation program aimed at reducing the number of unemployed during peak unemployment seasons. The seasonal nature of the program is clearly indicated in each contract agreed to by the sponsor of the project and the department, and the termination date is specified. Projects are planned on the basis of deadlines, and the workers must therefore accept the temporary nature of the jobs and look ahead to the completion of the project.
Adjournment Debate
As the minister already stated in the House a number of times, extra funds will not be allocated to extension of the 1975-76 LIP. By the very nature of the program, any extension is impossible. I would also add there has been no extension over the last three years.
However, if certain projects are not completed before June 26, for reasons beyond the control of the sponsors, the circumstances and the reasons of the delay will be closely scrutinized. In cases where projects do not require extra funds, the situation will be reviewed and the decision taken according to the merits in each case.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to order made earlier this day.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.


END OF VOL XIII