1976-05-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion which is of serious urgency to those who are adversely affected by the legislation as it now stands. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House urges the President of the Treasury Board to introduce the necessary amendments so that widows of public servants, of Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP personnel and of others in corresponding categories, will be entitled to the pensions their husbands paid for regardless of the date of marriage, thus ending an instance of discrimination that is most unfair.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BROADCASTING
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.
In view of the fact that the main television stations, particularly the CBC French network, when reporting on Bill C-84 which provides for the abolition of capital punishment depict a noose in the background instead of the scale of justice or any other neutral symbol, thereby indicating a bias in favour of the criminal who is represented as a victim of the law, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That the House immediately proceed to the consideration of this problem so that all information provided on the study of legislation on capital punishment be no longer biased, and misrepresentation and lack of objectivity in reporting be brought to an end.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion by 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 being not unanimous consent, the motion may not be put.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PREVENT CLOSING OF DURHAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity and I would ask hon. members opposite to give my motion the serious consideration it deserves. It arises from the decision of a divisional court in Toronto yesterday that the Ontario government had acted illegally in its attempt to close four hospitals in Ontario, including Durham Memorial Hospital in Durham. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this House instructs the Minister of National Health and Welfare to use the moral and legal powers at his disposal to prevent the closing of Durham Memorial Hospital in Durham, Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Notwithstanding the rather generous interpretation that we have been able to put upon Standing Order 43 motions because of the time limit on them and the somewhat self-policing feature in that regard, I believe that Standing Order 43 does not permit us to bring within federal jurisdiction that which lies solely within provincial jurisdiction.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that unemployment in this country is up again this month to 7.4 per cent, the highest level since 1961, in view of the fact that this unemployment is likely to climb even higher in the coming months as students finish their school terms and are unable to find employment, in view of the fact that

May 11, 1976
Oral Questions
the government has already made this situation worse through the cancellation of the OFY program and in view of the fact that there are a large number of potential labour intensive activities during the summer both on farms and in many municipalities, I move, seconded by the hon, member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House instruct the government to establish immediately a program which would provide funds to municipalities and farmers in Canada, to enable them to offer employment, at at least the level of the federal minimum wage, to people who would otherwise be unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
sft *	*
[DOT] <H10)


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous consent of the House to present a motion arising from an urgent and pressing matter. Economic development funds for Indian Bands in Saskatchewan to start Band farms are being held back because the department requires that the Bands incorporate themselves. Incorporation could endanger the Bands' treaty rights and places their land in jeopardy. Because planting season is already well advanced, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House directs the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to develop alternatives to incorporation so that these Bands can proceed with their farms this season without endangering their treaty rights.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, with today's alarming and tragic news for those involved that some three-quarters of a million Canadians are now out of work, and as the conference board and other research

agencies have predicted that we would not reach a 7.4 per cent rate of unemployment until at least the fourth quarter of this year, yet we have now reached the 7.4 per cent unemployment rate in the second rather than the fourth quarter, does the Minister of Finance believe that unemployment will continue to increase so that we might even have 8 per cent unemployment by the year end?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to make an estimate at this time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed again to the Minister of Finance. As the conference board forecast of a 7.4 per cent unemployment rate by the fourth quarter is predicated on a 4.8 to 5 per cent increase in real growth in this country, and, as the minister himself has indicated, he hoped for a 5 per cent real growth, and with the unemployment rate at 7.4 per cent, does the minister believe that this is a valid indication that the real growth will be well below 5 per cent this year and, if so, what would he predict to be the real growth in the current year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a more sensitive analysis of the economic situation, both as to the unemployment rate and inflation, should be reserved for the budget statement in two weeks' time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as one of the most dramatic facts in today's sad unemployment figures is the large decrease in employment itself as opposed to the usual increase in the labour force, and in view of the fact that employment in the manufacturing industries has fallen off so badly there are only about 20,000 more jobs in that sector than there were on average in 1972, will the minister consider reconstituting the corporate tax measures review committee to ascertain whether the lower tax rate and faster write-off tax provisions of the minister's predecessor have had any permanent effect in creating jobs?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it again seems to me that reflections on the fiscal system are not appropriate at this time.


EFFECT OF ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM ON PROSPECTS FOR RECOVERY-EFFECT OF POOR BUSINESS PERFORMANCE ON JOB CREATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to go another round with the minister who seems to be at a loss for words regarding this very serious matter. I would advise the minister that corporate profits for the first quarter of the year appear to have dropped off sharply compared to last year. Is the minister in a position to say whether the anti-inflation program has dampened the prospects for an economic recovery? I ask him this question particularly when I understand he is going to tighten them up.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly true that corporate profits have been controlled by the anti-inflation program as, indeed, other areas of the community have been. I would think, however, that given the favourable response to restraints by leaders in the corporate sector this has not had the effect to which the hon. gentleman refers.
May 11, 1976


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, at least the minister is attempting to be honest at this particular time. Considering that the profitability of corporations is one of the main incentives for business to provide jobs, can the minister tell the House whether he anticipates the decline in corporate profits will continue and what effect continued poor business performance will have upon job creation this year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could remind the hon. gentleman that corporate profits, just like individual earnings of workers, are of course restrained under the anti-inflation program.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to let the minister know that the United States rate of productivity and growth is excellent compared to ours which certainly is disastrous. Since the declining profit performance of our corporations is in sharp contrast to the healthy situation in the United States, would the minister explain the reasoning behind this very serious situation, bearing in mind that without a healthy profit situation our recovery is in jeopardy.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the healthy situation in the United States to which the hon. member refers is a 7.5 per cent rate of unemployment.


POSSIBILITY OF PROVISION FOR FULL EMPLOYMENT IN BUDGET
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance as well. It is in regard to the unemployment figures released today. They are the highest since 1961. I should like to ask the minister if he can indicate to the House whether it is his intention in the budget-without asking for the details of the budget because I realize we are a few weeks from budget time but I believe this is terribly important in light of the shocking unemployment figures- to introduce a full employment budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would intend to introduce a budget which would attempt to strike a balance between our rate of inflation and the rate of unemployment in Canada.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has analyzed the economic situation in Canada as a cost-push situation, and under the circumstances the only justification if there is a justification for wage and price controls is that there is a cost-push situation, it seems to me the minister is now in a position to stimulate the economy very effectively by bringing in a full employment measure without worrying about inflation which he says is under control by the Anti-Inflation Board. I should like to ask the minister, in light of his own analysis, whether he is prepared to bring in a full employment budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I would emphasize the fact that, while the anti-inflation program has had some response to this point, it is and has been our intention that the impact should be gradual and that we should support and use appropriate fiscal and monetary policies. The government's views on what would be an
Oral Questions
appropriate fiscal policy will be indicated at budget time in two weeks.


MANPOWER
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the figures released today showing a 7.4 per cent unemployment rate and in view of the fact that in the next month not only university students but also high school students will be finishing their school year and will be looking for jobs, several hundred thousand of them, I should like to ask the minister whether his department is working on any plans to find employment for more than the 12,000 students who will be given jobs under the plans announced by the minister up until now.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there are very elaborate efforts underway, and have been for some time in working with the private sector to stimulate the placement of students and young workers. There are no additional budgetary commitments decided upon in terms of programs like the Opportunities for Youth program at this time.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Can the minister tell the House whether an inquiry was conducted lately to determine if the sugar price increase announced a while ago by the refineries is justified, if not does he intend to order such an inquiry and, if necessary, not only sue but condemn the refineries concerned, which are getting as greedy as the oil companies?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, investigations are conducted by a quasi judicial board, and it is not the practice for a minister to reveal what investigations are taking place unless it is made public knowledge by some third party.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the

May 11, 1976
Oral Questions
fact that it has been some weeks now since the CLC withdrew from the Canada Labour Relations Council and the Economic Council of Canada, can the minister tell the House who in the cabinet is charged with the responsibility of seeking ways and means to bring labour representation back to these two important organizations?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, certainly it is part of my responsibilities and of those of some other ministers to try to deal with labour in as constructive a way as possible to make it easier for them, when they think the time is right, to re-enter these bodies where they have a real role to play in terms of their own success and in terms of the benefit to the labour movement in general.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, on May 4 the Minister of Labour said that labour's withdrawal from the Canada Labour Relations Council is, he hopes, only temporary. Labour withdrew in opposition to controls, and they will not end for another two and one half years. In view of this, has the minister any real grounds for advising that labour's withdrawal is only temporary or are we in fact looking to labour's refusal to participate until the control program is ended? What is the real truth of the matter?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to try to analyse what is going through the thought processes of each individual labour leader in the country with respect to what the hon. member has asked. All I can say is that I think it should be underlined that labour has withdrawn from these bodies; they have not resigned nor have they quit. It should be pointed out that their withdrawal paves the way for their participation later when they think the time might be appropriate. As to when is the appropriate time, I am afraid that is a question they will decide themselves, and certainly the CLC convention coming up next week will have a part to play in that.


MEETINGS WITH LABOUR OR PROPOSALS FOR RETURN TO PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT BODIES
John Allen Fraser: Can the minister tell the House whether he or other members of the cabinet have actually met with CLC, and especially whether the government has put any proposals to the CLC as a basis for their return to participation, or is there an absolute deadlock at the moment? Let us find out what the situation really is.


John Carr Munro: I have talked to some of the leaders of the CLC. In terms of my other colleagues' responsibilities as they involve the labour movement, I believe they have been discussing those questions with the CLC. Certainly at the CLC's last presentation to the cabinet, as the hon. member may recall, they indicated they would welcome discussions on other subject matters having to do with policies which may evolve once the control period is over. They indicated a willingness to meet with the Prime Minister and others at that time. I believe discussions are going on now with respect to having meetings over a wide range of subject matters being undertaken fairly shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and at the same time I welcome him back to the House from his many travels. On Friday, April 30, I addressed a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister about the Canadian attitude to United States proposals for mining the deep seabed, and the Prime Minister replied that he would inquire. Since then, the Law of the Sea Conference has issued a revised single negotiating text which includes a production control formula for nickel found on the international seabed. This formula will permit production of seabed nickel to increase by a minimum of 6 per cent per year. Since Canada is a major land-based producer of nickel, this formula is obviously of very great concern to us, and I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External affairs what the Canadian response was to this particular proposal.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we opposed this particular proposal which was suggested for the text of the Law of the Sea convention. We made our concerns known to the United States delegation to the Law of the Sea Conference at New York. During my visit to Nairobi I had an opportunity to make representations directly to Dr. Kissinger with respect to this proposal and its possible effects on Canadian land-based production. We agreed that further consultations should take place between the two countries with respect to this proposal.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In his speech to the Law of the Sea Conference on April 8 Dr. Kissinger said that if the deep seabeds are not subject to international agreement, the United States can and will proceed to explore and mine on its own, but he added that the U.S. would prefer partial international control through a council which should reflect the interests of producer and consuming states most concerned with deep sea mining. Canada is clearly one of these, and I therefore ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Canada has been having bilateral discussions with the U.S. on the subject of the use of the international seabed, and if so, what has been the substance of these discussions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This particular proposal emerged quite late in the day in New York, and to my recollection Canada was not involved in any discussions with respect to this formula until it surfaced within the text itself. At that point we registered our opposition to the particular formulation, and we will continue to register our opposition and hopefully make proposals which will serve Canada's interests better. I do not believe it is the intention of the United States to overcome its problems by creating problems for Canada.
May 11, 1976


URBAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the crippling effect the threatened walk-out of NABET employees could have on both the on-site exhibits and the worldwide transmission of the proceedings of Habitat, could the minister inform the House what prior indication he had that such a walkout would take place, and what contingency plans have been made to deal with such an eventuality?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is not as catastrophic a situation as indicated. So far as the internal official arrangements for the conference are concerned, they are well in hand. It would be a sad affair if the television transmission of this very important conference were lost in Canada and in all the world, and it would not be in the best interests of Canadians or the people of the world, who would benefit from this conference. There are contingency plans. I presume if an agreement is not reached before the conference, the position of the host broadcaster would be jeopardized, which would, in my view, be a tragedy.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Can the minister tell the House how a dispute between NABET and the CBC involving a 2 per cent wage rollback by the Anti-Inflation Board was allowed to mushroom into a situation which places in jeopardy-regardless of what the Minister of State for Urban Affairs says-Canada's reputation as a host for major international events, particularly in the light of statements made by NABET employees and leaders implying that the proposed Habitat walkout may be followed by one prior to the Olympics and other major events?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to get a report on that from the corporation. Perhaps the Minister of Labour has something he might like to add.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question regarding the government's recognition in principle of native rights and aboriginal title for native people in Canada. I should like to ask if the Prime Minister is prepared today to advise the House whether the government is in any way responding to the many submissions made since 1973 to the
Oral Questions
cabinet by the Metis and non-status Indians in regard to their very special rights in our society?
[DOT] (M30)


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been several meetings with various native leaders and the cabinet which has given consideration to their requests.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister if he would identify the very special situation that the forgotten people of Metis and non-status Indians are facing, particularly is there any discussion or dialogue with these people in areas where we are now researching and considering native claims, namely the territories of our country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is one aspect of their requests and the federal government has agreed to give it consideration. The hon. member realizes, of course, that the federal government's first preoccupation was with the status Indians, those who do come under the administrative authority of the federal government. The others, the Metis, are provincial citizens. Like every other provincial citizen we hope the provincial governments will not consider them to be forgotten citizens, to use the expression of the hon. member.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On May 8, 1975, speaking about the Arab boycott the Prime Minister said in the House, as reported at page 5583 of Hansard:
.. . that this type of practice is alien to everything the government stands for and, indeed, to what in general Canadian ethics stand for,...
However, the then minister of industry, trade and commerce told the House on June 2, 1975, as reported at page 6326 of Hansard:
. .. the government as a whole will be considering this matter in the very near future. The view of the government will be communicated, of course, to all departments and to the Crown corporation.
A year has gone by since the Prime Minister's words, but no government decision on this matter has as yet been announced. I am asking if the Prime Minister can inform the House what he can do to ensure that his words of May 8, 1975 will be confirmed by cabinet as the current official government policy and will therefore be firmly applied and followed by all government departments and agencies without further delay?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern on this very important matter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He wants action.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will inquire to ascertain the status of any progress in that particular case.
13388

May 11, 1976
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


MINING NICKEL FROM THE SEABED-INVOLVEMENT OF WORKERS IN DEVELOPING STRATEGY FOR NEGOTIATIONS- POSITION TAKEN BY INCO
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the grave concern felt among residents of predominently nickel producing areas such as the Sudbury basin concerning the possible effects of the development of undersea nickel, can the minister inform the House and assure the people of these areas that the workers' representatives will be involved in the development of any strategy or negotiations between Canada, the United States and other nickel producing countries?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that this proposal, which surfaced at the Law of the Sea Conference, has not even been discussed in the committee responsible for the international seabed authority, let alone negotiated. As I stated earlier, Canada finds this proposal quite unacceptable. The Law of the Sea delegation has authority to involve industry and union representatives in discussions, particularly with respect to the fisheries and I am sure this particular approach could be followed in consideration of mineral production.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I certainly hope that the minister will invite representatives of the miners to participate. In view of the fact that the International Nickel Company is Canada's major producer of nickel, in view of the importance of nickel to Canada's economy and in view of the reports that International Nickel Company is involved in the consortium which will be taking the nickel from the floor of the ocean, has the minister been able to determine whether INCO, and particularly its Canadian subsidiary, has been supporting the United States proposal? Can he inform the House whether INCO will support this government's position rather than what is in the best interests of International Nickel?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm either point of the hon. member's question but I shall make inquiries.


GEOGRAPHICAL SITES
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on a matter of national importance with particular relationship to our friendship with the United States. In 1946 the Right Honourable Mackenzie King designated Castle Mountain in British Columbia as Mount Eisenhower in appreciation of the tremendous services rendered by General Dwight Eisenhower during the days of the war as Supreme Commander. In the last couple of weeks it has been stated in the press that the name is to

be changed, that name Eisenhower is to be removed and Castle take its place again. May I ask the minister what the position is in this regard because I feel that this change of name cannot but have a detrimental effect on the feelings of our veterans in Canada who honoured Eisenhower as he honoured them and Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the name of Mount Eisenhower has the support of the vast majority of the Canadian people. Many Canadians served with great distinction and many members of this House served with great distinction under the leadership of the Supreme Allied Commander. I have been made aware that from time to time residents close to the scene have requested that the mountain revert to its former name. I, for one, think it would be a great pity if General Eisenhower's name were dissociated from that particular mountain. I can assure the right hon. member that no decision has been taken to re-name the mountain Castle Mountain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer given by a very distinguished soldier of the last war who served under General Eisenhower. I bring to his attention, however, that the board in charge of naming geographic sites in Canada has announced that the change has been made and will be effective in a very short time with the approval of the government of Canada. May I have the minister's assurance that no matter what that board recommends, this name will not be changed because that could only result in bitter feelings among those who served, as he did, as well as to Americans in general on the occasion of their bicentennial?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the right hon. gentleman that the matter has not come to cabinet and has not received the approval of the government of Canada.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask whether he had any discussion with General Dare or Colonel Bourne last Wednesday or Thursday or both of them during which the matter of the Dare-Bourne leaked letter was discussed? If so, did either General Dare or Colonel Bourne or any RCMP officer or official inform the Prime Minister of any action intended to be taken to determine the explanation of how the letter was leaked?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND GENERAL DARE CONCERNING PARTI QUEBECOIS
Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would then ask the Prime Minister, in view of the appearance of this sentence in the leaked letter from General Dare:
When I discussed the criteria used to investigate the Parti Quebecois and its members with the Prime Minister, he stated that the security service of the RCMP does not have a mandate ...
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is endeavouring to leave the impression that General Dare is mistaken with respect to a cabinet decision, can the Prime Minister say whether he had such a discussion with General Dare and whether he stated that the RCMP had no mandate to do the thing the general said in his letter the Prime Minister said?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I read the answer which the Solicitor General gave to this, and it was substantially correct, in that the discussion to which, presumably, General Dare is alluding is a discussion in a cabinet committee which resulted in the cabinet decision. It is that decision, I imagine, to which General Dare is referring to when he talks of a guideline to directions. I repeat, it is an honest error on his part. It is certainly one of the incorrect statements in that letter.


CONSIDERATION OF FITNESS OF GENERAL DARE TO REMAIN IN OFFICE
Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since General Dare appears to be quite specific in referring to a discussion which he, General Dare, had with the Prime Minister, and, indeed, goes on in that sentence to tell Colonel Bourne what the Prime Minister said, in view of the high position which General Dare holds as head of the security services of this country, he, obviously, being a very meticulous policeman, has the Prime Minister, or cabinet, given any consideration to his fitness to remain in office, in view of the statement he has made concerning the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, certainly, the cabinet has given no such consideration, nor have I, myself. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is making a serious suggestion, I will consider the matter. I have given my reaction in this House. I think General Dare is a very distinguished officer. I worked with him when he was in DND, and since he has been in the security services. I have always found him extremely competent. I can only explain this as an honest mistake. It is certainly not a deliberate attempt to mislead Mr. Bourne.


An hon. Member:: Was it not an attempt to discredit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The mistake probably arises from the fact that as a member of that cabinet committee, I did of course participate. I do not mind admitting I was one of those who would argue that a democratic political party should not be under systematic surveillance by the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My opinion on that, which was expressed in cabinet, is certainly protected by the usages concerning cabinet secrecy, but I do not mind repeating it here. It is my view and the view of the government that if the party is legal, it should not be under surveillance systematically by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or any other police. I hope that is the view of the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What was incorrect, Mr. Speaker, was the inference drawn by General Dare from that decision in the paragraph which begins, "Consequently we believe," or whatever else the paragraph said. This inference, that because the party is not under surveillance the government does not want to have security clearances on everyone who occupies a sensitive position in the federal government, is wrong. It is erroneous. It is one of the mistakes I pointed out in the letter. I attenuate that, and see the attenuation of that mistake in the fact that General Dare himself in that very phraseology indicated that this whole matter should be referred to a cabinet committee for further elucidation, which indicates to my mind that he had some doubts about the conclusions he was drawing. As I explained to the House and to the press, if this unfortunate leak had not taken place, the matter would have been straightened in the normal manner and General Dare would have drawn the right conclusions.
if! *	*


FINANCE
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In a recent column in the Vancouver Sun, Alan Fotheringham stated as a fact that the province of British Columbia and the federal government had entered into a verbal deal whereby the federal government would overlook the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia's rate increases if the provincial government would enter the anti-inflation program. Since this agreement supposedly was entered into in the Minister of Finance's office on December 23, 1975 with the collusion of B.C. labour minister Alan Williams and B.C. finance minister Evan Wolfe, would the minister confirm or deny that any such verbal agreement was made and can he give the House any details of this meeting?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the report by Mr. Fotheringham is erroneous. There was no such agreement, in those terms. On the occasion of that particular meeting, which was very shortly after the Bennett government had taken responsibility in British Columbia, I met with the B.C. ministers and described to them the tenor of discussions which had taken place in the federal-provincial meetings and, particularly, the insistence of provincial governments that their price setting responsibilities and taxation measures should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Anti-Inflation Board. This was the position of the provinces general-
95568-14%

May 11, 1976
Oral Questions
ly. I made it clear that this was the basis on which negotiations had been carried on with several provinces. I think it was clearly understood on both sides that the meeting was for information purposes only. There were no agreements arrived at that day. Indeed, only recently has there been full acceptance by British Columbia of the program.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister aware of reports to the effect that there exists an engineering study undertaken by J. L. Richards and Associates of Ottawa which indicates that the development of the satellite city at Carlsbad Springs in the national capital area would cost as much as $300 million more than a normal site? Has the minister seen this report?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that particular report. I have seen several engineering reports submitted by distinguished and experienced experts in the field indicating that there is some additional cost for servicing that land. Considering the initial cost of the land, its strategic value and value for development, these costs are quite acceptable and the net cost of developing that land is less than it otherwise would be.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister to examine the report. If that report is correct, does he feel that an extra $300 million is acceptable to the government for the development of housing programs intended for that property? Will he undertake to use his best efforts to secure a copy of that report and consult with provincial authorities, particularly in view of reports saying that the Carlsbad Springs development is such that in terms of pollution in the national capital area and beyond it poses a greater prospect of difficulty than the development in the south Rideau site?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have examined, as have my officials, any evidence which would indicate any change or anything different from what was known previously. I have had no indication that what the hon. member suggests is the case. Naturally, as the hon. gentlemen had drawn the matter to my attention, I shall look into it.
threat of a swine flu epidemic this fall or next winter, the minister indicated that he was awaiting an early answer from American authorities as to the quantity of vaccines the United States will be able to provide Canada and the time necessary to get them. Can the minister now tell the House whether he received that answer and at the same time whether there are any new developments either about these talks with the United States or about the current progression of the disease?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting patiently for an answer from the American government. Still I can tell the hon. member that we managed to get confirmation about sizeable orders of vaccines from countries other than the United States, especially Australia and Great Britain, and the exact quantity of vaccines will be made public today or tomorrow. But we also continue our consultations with the United States and other countries.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM POSSIBILITY OF EARLY END TO PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of Premier Schrey-er's assertion during the weekend that, in his opinion, the anti-inflation program will probably be lifted next year owing to the non-acceptance of controls by the public, did the Prime Minister in his recent meeting with provincial premiers discuss the possibility of lifting the controls program; and, if so, in those discussions was a date considered?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no. On the contrary, I indicated that the anti-inflation program was a matter of law; the law was for three years and that was still our intention.


FINANCE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
During the important statements made some time ago about the Canadian government's intentions regarding the


ALLEGED LOSS OF GOLD RESERVES-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It arises out of recent news that Canada lost over $20 million worth of gold reserves in the latest reported period. Was this as a result of a change in government policy? Will the minister advise why this reduction occurred and where the reserves went?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make inquiries and report to the hon. member.
May 11, 1976


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of reports that the National Food Products Marketing Council has recommended that CEMA be appointed first receiver of imported eggs, does this mean that agency will replace those in the private sector as the sole importer of eggs? Can the minister advise whether he supports that recommendation of the Council? If so, has he urged its acceptance upon his cabinet colleagues?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have already made my feelings public. I am sure the hon. member is aware of them. I do support it and I have recommended to my cabinet colleagues that they study it. They are doing this at the present time. No decision has yet been made.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister had an opportunity to review the recommendation of the National Food Products Marketing Council? Is he now in accord with the recommendation that CEMA be designated first receiver and thus become the sole importer of eggs into Canada?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have never been in favour of CEMA being first receiver of eggs into Canada, thus creating a monopoly situation of which I do not approve. Nothing in the Council's argument has changed my opinion.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of remarks by Mr. David Searle last week to the effect that federal social security programs should be cut in the north, will the minister tell the House whether this prominent Liberal spokesman was speaking on behalf of the government?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, Mr. Searle is the Speaker and a member of the Northwest Territories Council. He was speaking in his own right as an elected representative, not for the federal government.
Oral Questions


Douglas Charles Neil: Does the minister approve of the statements of David Searle concerning the ethics of Mr. Justice Berger, a federal government appointee?


J. Judd Buchanan: No, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to receiving the report of Mr. Justice Berger.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Canada strongly supported the agreement on the reunification of families signed in Helsinki last year or the year before, will he now avail himself of the opportunity during the forthcoming visit of the Minister of External Affairs from Poland to urge that country to liberalize or relax its regulations and restrictions with regard to the reunification of Polish citizens and their families in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to take advantage of the presence of the Polish foreign minister in Ottawa later this week to discuss the question of family reunification, as I did on the occasion of my visit to Poland some months ago. I should say to my hon. friend that since that discussion, there has been some improvement and some action on a number of such cases. I hope the discussion this week will serve as a further impetus to additional solutions.


IMMIGRATION
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Have instructions gone out to immigration officials in Milan to facilitate the handling of cases with regard to family reunification and other cases on humanitarian and compassionate grounds concerning the victims of the earthquake in Italy?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have been in telephone conversation with our representative in Milan. He reports that at the moment there is no significant increase in the number of applications. In any event, we have asked him to go from Milan to visit the stricken area and give us a further report. In the meantime, our instructions are that all applications by residents of Northern Italy will be processed with very high priority. We are identifying whether such applicants have a sponsor or relatives in Canada who can sponsor or nominate them. That information will be communicated to the relevant immigration office in Canada so that we can look up the relatives and

May 11, 1976
Oral Questions
interview them in order that we can expedite the applicant's submission.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It is the same question I put to the Minister of Justice yesterday. However, he was not able to answer at that time. It relates to the case of the RCMP search of the Toronto Sun offices. Can the minister now advise whether the warrant was issued on the basis of information under section 11(1) of the Official Secrets Act or on subsection (2) on the order of an officer of the RCMP who considered that a grave emergency existed and in the interest of safety that the state take immediate action?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the warrant was not issued under section 11(2) which deals with emergencies. It was issued under section 11(1) by Justice of the Peace Gabor Papy in Toronto.


Francis Andrew Brewin: As the information would have to be based upon a sworn statement with regard to the matter, can the minister either table or give us now the information as to what was sworn, and who made the oath?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the warrant was issued to Corporal Colter of the Criminal Investigation Branch of the RCMP on the basis of alleged illegal acts under section 4(1)(A) of the Official Secrets Act which makes it an offence for anyone to communicate in any way the contents of a classified document to an unauthorized person.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is a follow up on my request yesterday, under Standing Order 43, to ask the government if the report of the special beef inquiry which the Prime Minister called for some time ago, and which I believe was given to him on April 27, would be tabled in the House so that we may all see it. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to table the report so that the Canadian public, in particular the producers in Canada, can see specifically what the beef inquiry report has to say?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did receive this report a couple of weeks ago. I will discuss with the Minister of Agriculture our future plans in this regard.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture who surely must have had time to read the report and talk to his officials, who also would have read the report. Does the report give any

indication as to greater government involvement of regulation in the beef industry in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to be patient. I hope next week to study the report and discuss it with my assistant deputy minister who is in charge of it. He is now attending a preliminary meeting in Rome with the World Council on Food.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the 10 cents per gallon gasoline tax is a mean tax and the recent first ministers' conference as well as the statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have brought to a head the fact that there will be an increase in the well head price of oil, resulting in a substantial rise in the price of gasoline, will the minister consider now removing or reducing that tax?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. gentleman that this tax is used to fund the subsidy that is paid in those parts of Canada which are not using oil from Canadian sources.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Finance consider the 10 cents a gallon gasoline tax has a multiplying detrimental effect on the Canadian economy and adds to inflation, and that as the price rises on the Canadian market the subsidy will become less?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the proceeds from the tax are used to keep down the price of oil in significant parts of Canada, I would not regard it as detrimental.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to sections 19 and 21 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the table of the House certified copies of the reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions received this day from the Representation Commissioner as follows: Alberta and amendments thereto, British Columbia and amendments thereto, Northwest Territories and amendments thereto,
May 11, 1976

Nova Scotia, without amendment, and Quebec and amendments thereto.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise on a point of order because, as Your Honour knows, I have never raised a point of order before in respect to a decision made by Your Honour. However, in this instance I believe it is appropriate. I should like to seek clarification of the decision Your Honour made earlier with respect to the motion that I attempted to move under Standing Order 43, and to bring to Your Honour's attention some of my concerns about the implications of such a decision. I recognize that it would be inappropriate for me to challenge the decision that you made; I am merely seeking clarification of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether I might be permitted to hear the point of order that is being raised by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.


Henry Perrin Beatty: In your ruling, Your Honour indicated that the federal government did not have jurisdiction with respect to the issue of hospital closings in Ontario. The effect of your decision prevented one of the members of the House, myself, from attempting to get the government to take effective action through the powers it has both legally and morally to try to prevent the closure of hospitals in Ontario.
The reason I raised the motion was necessitated by the decision given yesterday by a court in Ontario which held that the decision of the provincial government to close a number of hospitals, including one in my constituency, was illegal. At this point the Ontario government has indicated that it is reconsidering the decision that it made and an announcement will be made by the minister or acting minister, probably tomorrow. What I was attempting to do in my motion was to have the House require the government to take action, through whatever powers it possesses, to mitigate against the closure of the hospital.
As Your Honour may or may not know, the federal government pays about one-half the cost of hospital services in Ontario. About two weeks ago Your Honour allowed me to move a motion under Standing Order 43- the terms of which were very similar-with respect to a legal agreement to which both the federal and provincial governments were party. I refer to the memorandum of agreement that was signed in 1957 and which constitutes a contract between the federal and provincial authorities. That agreement outlines the terms under which federal assistance is given to the province for the provision of medical services and it specifically mentions provision of services by the hospital in Durham, Ontario.
One of the provisions in that memorandum of agreement was that neither party could change the terms of the agreement without the agreement of the second party. In other words, the provincial government could not discontinue provision of services that it had agreed to provide in the agreement without the consent of the federal authority, specifically the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The point that I was trying to make in my motion, Mr. Speaker, was that there is a direct federal involvement here, both financially and legally. My motion was designed to get the government to act directly on the legal powers it
External Affairs
has to prevent the closure of that hospital. By making the ruling you did, Your Honour prevented the House from instructing the government to take whatever action it could to keep the hospital open. It would allow the federal minister to claim that he has no responsibility in this matter when clearly, if the federal government refuses to use what moral and legal authority it has to keep the hospital open, it is complicit in the decision that has been made to close the hospital. This is a matter of extreme urgency since the health and lives of the residents of the area will be placed in jeopardy as a consequence.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises a point of great interest and importance. Nevertheless, it has been repeated here several times over the past few weeks, in various question periods and in other ways when attempts have been made to raise this subject, that the question of the decision to close hospitals in the province of Ontario is solely within the authoritative jurisdiction of the province.
The hon. member has raised a point of disagreement. The Chair has to take the view that, regardless of the liberties enjoyed under Standing Order 43, that order is certainly not wide enough to permit us to put before the House, even with unanimous consent, the suggestion that the House can debate a matter that is beyond its jurisdiction.
I have taken the view that the decision to close a hospital in the province of Ontario is perhaps similar to questions of education, one of the very few which seems to be clearly within the jurisdiction of the provinces. If there is some aspect of it that the hon. member feels brings it within the jurisdiction of this House, I would be delighted to see him phrase a motion that might spell that out. But certainly his motion today fell far short of that.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Fifteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages (Mr. Comtois).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the ad referendum text of an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America concerning transit pipelines.

May 11, 1976
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(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: 3,517, 3,801 to 3,803, 3,836, 3,842, 3,855 and 5,026.


PERSONNEL DEALING WITH ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER
Mr. Cossitt: Since July 8, 1974, what additions or subtractions have been made to the list of persons in the Office of the President of the Privy Council who have in any way been dealing with the answers to questions on the Order Paper (a) what is the reason in each case for any additions (b) what are their qualifications (c) what is their employment history with the Public Service?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Since the President of the Privy Council has responsibility for co-ordinating the responses of the Government to questions on the Order Paper it is not possible to say that any person in his Office has not in some way dealt with answers to such questions. The principal co-ordination activity for the Government is not undertaken in the Office of the President of the Privy Council, but is performed by the Office of the Co-ordinator of Parliamentary Returns.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-LANGUAGE TRAINING SCHOOL
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to page 74 of the report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1975 which stated that $36,000 was paid under contract guarantee to a language training school for which no services were received as the attendance of Statistics Canada personnel was below the guaranteed minimum (a) what is the name and address of the language school (b) what are the names and job designations of all persons connected with Statistics Canada who are responsible for such low attendance (c) have steps been taken to see that this situation will not occur in another year and, if so, what are such steps?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Auditor General's report has been referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts where questions related to the report can be raised.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-CBC
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to page 63 of the report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1975 stating that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation did not record an amount of $14,053,000 interest on loans from the government in its 1975 financial statement (a) what are the names and job designations of all CBC officials responsible for the failure to report (b) what are the reasons given by such persons for not reporting such interest (c) what steps have been taken to deal with those responsible for this matter and to prevent any recurrence in the future?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to Question No. 3,801 answered this day.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-POST OFFICE
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to page 70 of the report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1975 which stated that losses amounting to $40,000 and $48,000 occurred on December 7 and December 10, 1974 to the Post Office Department as a result of two forged certified cheques in payment for postage stamps (a) at what specific post offices did such loss occur (b) was the authenticity of the cheques established as required by post office procedures and, if not, what is the name of the person and job designation who neglected to follow such procedure (c) what are the reasons that such procedure was not followed?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to Question No. 3,801 answered this day.


PEI-FISHING SECTOR
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, have measures been taken since the Plan's inception to improve opportunities for off-season employment for fishermen and, if so, what are they?
2.	What are the (a) specific objectives the measures have been designed to achieve (b) criteria used in evaluating their effectiveness?
3.	Since the Plan's inception, what have been the percentage increases for each year over the previous year in the (a) number of fishermen in PEI (b) number of fishermen engaged in off-season employment (c) average income received by individual fishermen from off-season employment based on constant dollars?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and of the Environment as follows: 1. Yes. The measures include education and training of fishermen and the broadening and strengthening of other sectors.
2.	(a) The education and training programs aim to make the person qualified for a broader range of jobs. The provision of jobs and the creation of conditions in which the people of Prince Edward Island can develop viable economic enterprises for themselves are the objectives of the second measure, (b) The criteria used in evaluating their effectiveness are: retention rates, flexibility of the education system, the quality of education, levels of individual achievement, participation in the development activities arising from the Plan, the number of jobs, per capita income and gross provincial product.
3.	(a) See following table, (b) Information not available, (c) Information not available.
Number of Fishermen, P.E.I. 1965-1975 Percentage of Change Over the Previous Year
Year	Number of Fishermen	Percentage C
1965	3566	
1966	3220	- 9.701967	3369	4.621968	3301	- 2.011969	2965	-10.171970	2801	- 5.531971	2677	- 4.421972	3210	19.911973	2636	-17.881974	2610	- 0.98
May 11, 1976


PEI-COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, what measures have been implemented which are designed to keep fish (a) fresher (b) in better condition prior to delivery to regular refrigeration facilities?
2.	For each year since 1965, what is the estimated percentage of the total market value of the PEI fish catch which is lost due to spoilage prior to its delivery to regular refrigeration facilities?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and of the Environment as follows: 1. (a) Measures to keep fish fresher include the provision of ice and better handling facilities, (b) Measures to keep fish in better condition prior to delivery to regular refrigeration facilities include the provision of ice, water supply, port infrastructure, better handling facilities, education and extension work.
2. Statistics on spoilage are not collected.



Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, is there a general policy of encouraging consolidation in processing of the major fish catches while developing localized processing capabilities for specialized fish products and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Would significant economies of scale be achieved through consolidation of the processing of major fish stocks and, if so, what (a) is the optimum number of plants that should be in operation for major fish stock processing (b) type of saving would such economies of scale represent (c) would be the cost of such consolidation in jobs and incomes?
3.	How many small scale plants for the processing of specialty fish products (a) are now in operation (b) would be economically viable in PEI based on (i) catch statistics for recent years (ii) estimated catch statistics following a vigorous programme of aquaculture and increasing the take of existing stocks up to maximum sustainable level?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of the Environment as follows: 1. No. The general policy is to encourage efficiency in fish processing.
2.	The Fisheries and Marine Service has not undertaken any investigations relating to economics of scale in fish processing on Prince Edward Island.
3.	Information on the number of small plants producing specialty fish products is not collected.


PRIVATE PENSION PLANS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons are receiving pensions from private pension plans, such pensions being based on employment in Canada and what is the average pension per month received by such persons?
2.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (1), (a) how many are having their pensions escalated annually at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are having their pensions escalated annually at a lesser rate (c) how many receive no annual escalation of their pensions?
Order Paper Questions
3.	How many persons are contributing to or are enrolled in private pension plans based on their employment in Canada?
4.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (3), (a) how many are in plans which provide, after retirement, for an annual escalation of their pensions at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are in plans which provide, after retirement, for an annual escalation at a lesser rate (c) how many are in plans which provide for no escalation, after retirement, of their pensions?
5.	How many persons in Canada are receiving retirement benefits from annuities, insurance plans, retirement savings plans or other schemes apart from employment-related pension plans and what is the average amount per month received by such persons from such plans?
6.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (5), (a) how many are having such benefits escalated annually at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are having their benefits escalated annually at a lesser rate (c) how many receive no annual escalation of their benefits?
7.	How many persons in Canada are enrolled in retirement plans of all types other than employment-related pension plans?
8.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (7), (a) how many are enrolled in plans which will provide, after the payment of benefits commences, for an annual escalation equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are enrolled in plans which will provide, after the payment of benefits commences, for an annual escalation at a lesser rate (c) how many are enrolled in plans which will provide, after the payment of benefits commences, for no escalation?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. There are no precise data available on the number of persons in Canada who are in receipt of benefits from private pension plans. At best some proxy data are available from income tax statistics but these data have some limitations. They do not include the entire universe of pensioners because many have incomes too low to file a tax return. However, special tabulations of income tax records show that 605,700 persons received benefits from private pension plans. It was estimated that about 15 per cent to 20 per cent of these were in receipt of supplementary benefits such as widows' or orphans' pensions or disability benefits, but around 80 per cent were pensioners. The average annual income was $2,105.
2.	5, 6, 7 and 8. There are no departmental programs to capture this information either by analysis of documentation filed for registration purposes or through filing of special information returns.
3.	At the beginning of 1974 there were 3,424,245 persons covered by private plans based on employment in Canada.
4.	(a) Some 502,500 persons were in plans that have escalation tied directly to the Consumer Price Index, (b) 105,400 were in plans providing for escalation at a rate less than the increase in the Consumer Price Index, (c) 2,816,350 persons were in pension plans that provided for no automatic escalation of pensions after retirement. However, a number of plans periodically review their benefit structure and make upward adjustments to pensions being paid to their retired employees on an ad hoc basis.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 3,240

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
and 3,785 could be made orders for return, those returns would be tabled immediately.


TRIPS BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FAMILY ON GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) On how many occasions has the Minister of Agriculture taken his wife or any members of his family with him on government aircraft (b) what are the dates (c) to what destinations (d) for what purpose?
2.	What is the estimated cost of repairing the government aircraft which skidded off a runway while carrying the Minister, his wife and three children recently as private passengers (a) what was the full itinerary and period of time of this trip (b) what was the total cost of the trip including cost per hour of keeping the aircraft in the air and cost per hour of waiting time on the ground (c) how much fuel was used and what was the cost?
3.	What was the nature of the government business that the Minister transacted on the trip during which this accident occurred?
4.	Will the Minister be remunerating the government for the cost of transporting his family on government aircraft and what are the reasons that he could not have travelled by commercial aircraft?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT-CONSULTANTS
Mr. Crouse: 1.	How many consultants were hired by the Department of the Environment in the past two years in the (a) Policy Planning and Evaluation Directorate (b) Liaison and Coordination Directorate (c) Computing and Applied Statistics Directorate (d) Finance and Facilities Directorate (e) Personnel Directorate (f) Information Services Directorate (g) International Fisheries and Marine Directorate (h) Operations Directorate (i) Research and Development Directorate (j) Air Pollution Control Directorate (k) Water Pollution Control Directorate (1) Environmental Conservation Directorate (m) Policy and Program Development Directorate (n) Inland Waters Directorate (o) Lands Directorate (p) Canadian Forestry Directorate (q) Canadian Wildlife Directorate?
2.	What were their names and salaries?
3.	What was their length of employment?
4.	Were public tenders called before they were hired?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 10, 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.
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can have a few minutes to conclude my remarks. Last night I argued that the priorities of justice must be directed to law-abiding citizens. I gave case stories of victims and their families damaged for life by murder. Today the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) greeted me with, "I heard that they had to mop up the House after your speech". If that is true-and I have no reason to doubt the judgment of the hon. member-my time was not wasted because, at last, a few people have started to shed tears for the victims of murder. Up to now it seems that total concern and pity has been for wanton killers, and disregard for victims.
If I may, I should like to now go on with the last part of my statement. It comes back to the perennial argument of abolitionists that capital punishment has a brutalizing effect on society. I have reason to believe that the converse is true. The failure to impose our laws has created a brutalized, angry society. Violence on the street and the laws of the underworld are more feared than the laws of parliament. Thus, the diminished confidence of the public in the nation's law and of parliament itself has been the licence for the most brutal forces in our society to take over.
The underworld has no trials, no courts, no justice, but the quickest, most barbaric methods. Perhaps if we were a nation that showed strong laws and were not intimidated by the 1966-70 syndrome, that every single civil right of the crooks' and hoodlums' superseding the rights of the majority, we would not be moving toward the law of the jungle on our streets. It is obvious that when the rights of the minority, especially the outlaw minority, supersede the rights of the majority, the majority will be enslaved.
Every abolitionist I have ever known is willing to lock people up in prison for a long time. This, in itself, is unconscionable brutalization both for the offender and those who must live with him inside the prison. This brings me to my final point, the issue that takes precedence over the end-of-the-road matter of capital punishment, and that is prevention of crime. Prevention of human destruction must begin at day one in the life of every child. It requires support for parents alone, parents who are ill or unable to care for their children fully without help. It requires the best service possible and super-parent substitute in love and protection for unwanted and abandoned children-and the number is now growing in our society. We must find some way to ensure a basic right for children to grow up without anger, frustration and violence spawned in poverty.
There are those who say one should not discuss money in relation to life or death in the whole issue of capital punishment. I feel it is valid, along with the argument that prisons will not serve any purpose for the killer other than to allow him licence to kill again and, if not that, to totally break him as a human being, unable to function upon release late in his life. This, in itself, is brutalization without measure.

Having said that, I will go into the cost per life in prison of the killer sentenced under the alternative of Bill C-84. It is estimated the cost today is about $14,000 a year, or $350,000 for a life sentence of 25 years. That money could be invested in support of homes that would otherwise fall apart and the children damaged. No doubt as many as 5,000 or more children might be saved with the cost per life to keep a single, ruthless killer in jail for 25 years.
There is no doubt that a child is like a delicate crystal goblet. Step on it, crush it and it can never be repaired. Throw it off in rejection and it will shatter into broken bits. Crack or chip it through indifferent handling and its beauty can never be completely restored. But care for it and give it attention and love and it will give off its own small spectrums of colour and light in the glow of life. In other words, a child can crack and a child can be broken, and there is no way to repair the damage.
Over and over, people in prison have said, "We cannot be rehabilitated unless we are habilitated." No matter how much we care, no matter how much we worry about how these people became violent, it is a fact that they are here among us right now, a danger and a threat to the community and its fabric. As much as we hate to admit it, some are incurable even as children because they have been so terribly damaged in their formative years. Thus, we should move strongly into prevention, but we must face the realities that among us are dangerous creatures who are, and look like people. We must deal with them as they are now, not as we wish or dream they might be.
There is so much I could say both from personal experience and from the extensive research I have been able to do in the past 30 years, not only on how crime begins but also as a result of my great good fortune in life to have the unique view of crime and correction from many sides: from the offender's viewpoint, the victim's, the families of both offenders and of victims, the courts, death row itself, from condemned killers in prisons and from those who live in prisons and run prisons, from judges and lawyers, both defence and prosecution. Time does not permit me to use all of it. However, it is on the basis of this knowledge, this work and this experience that I stand here opposed to Bill C-84.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I most certainly do not have to justify my participation in the present debate. My personal convictions, a mandate from the vast majority of my constituents, and above all the experience I have acquired in the field of justice as Crown attorney, solicitor general for the province of Quebec, judge on two occasions, minister of justice and attorney general for Quebec, urge me to express clearly what I think of the bill before us.
Why is it that the government is asking Parliament to go back on the 1967 and 1973 decisions? Is it because of the public pressure for abolition of the death penalty? Far from it. Every poll held and correspondence received by each member in this House indicate that most Canadians are opposed to the bill before us.
Was there any decrease in the murder rate in Canada since the legislation of 1967 and 1973? As reported on page 13088 of Hansard, the Solicitor General admits that from
Capital Punishment
1962 to 1974 the murder rate per 100,000 population climbed from 1.2 to 2.4. Now, it was a period during which, except for two or three cases, the death penalty was not enforced. Taking in consideration the demographic growth during those past years, that is from 1971 to 1974 inclusive, the number of murders in Canada went up from 425 to 545, which represents a raise of almost 28 per cent. I am convinced that a considerable percentage of those murders is included in the group of premeditated murders and can be mostly ascribed to the worst group of murderers, that is hired assassins.
Under those circumstances, we are surprised to note that in introducing his bill the minister stated without flinching, and I quote from Hansard on page 13089:
It is my contention that if no irrefutable evidence can be brought forward that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent to the commission of murder than is a lengthy sentence, then we must conclude that a lengthy sentence is preferable, and that the burden of proof to conclude otherwise rests with those favouring the death penalty.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Solicitor General is turning the tables. Moreover, the government having commuted all death sentences since 1968, thus depriving the country of an essential element in this debate, it is its duty on the contrary to prove beyond any doubt that abolition of capital punishment and the proposed alternative measures will protect Canadian society more efficiently and will help put an end to premeditated murders and specially those perpetrated by hired assassins.
During this debate, I hope we will be spared the sophisms we have heard so often that deliberately confuse expiation and vengeance and make of the supreme punishment a perversion of state powers. I dare believe that we will no longer hear that by applying the death penalty to the author of a qualified murder, the state lowers itself to the level of the murderer. However final the execution of a murderer, it is to wrong justice odiously to compare this gesture to a crime.
To justify this bill, the government upholds that the death penalty is not an efficient preventive or dissuasive measure against murder. It suggests that figures show that murder rates change very little between times and countries where capital punishment has been applied and those where it has not. I must say I am not impressed at all by this so-called argument, because how can one count crimes that have not been perpetrated, and how can one prove that they have not been perpetrated for a reason other than any other? I know from experience that in many cases the fear of hanging has deterred criminals about to kill their victim. Their testimony should not be dismissed lightly, even though in certain circles some people pretend to question their sincerity. Fortunately, with very few exceptions, the principle is accepted that for serious reasons the state has the right to impose capital punishment. Since it is derived from the experience of many generations, the time-honoured wisdom, whose value must not be despised, has always recognized the right of the political authority to resort to capital punishment against those convicted of particularly odious crimes and especially of deliberate murder, so as to prevent their repetition.
I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that this does not mean that the state has not in the past abused this power and been unduly severe in the case of minor offences. That is no longer the case fortunately in most countries of the

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
world. The progress of psychology and criminology, less cruel detention conditions and improved rehabilitation methods have fortunately made it possible to save human lives and often allowed to rehabilitate those who has taken the road to crime. In this regard, and because it affects me more personally, the latest release of the Canadian Catholic Conference, that is the assembly of all the Canadian Catholic bishops, is absolutely clear. While recommending for compassionate reasons the abolition of capital punishment, the document stated and I quote:
In taking such a position, the bishops do not deny to the State the right to enforce capital punishment when circumstances require it; nor do they intend to bind every Christian in his personal opinion on the issue.
In fact, the bishops were only reiterating what Pope Pius XII, whose generosity cannot be questioned, said in 1952, and I quote:
It is the sole responsibility of the political powers to deprive a condemned man of the blessing of life in expiation of his offence, after he has renounced his right to life when committing his crime.
These words, Mr. Speaker, should reassure those among us who are still torn between their desire to efficiently protect society against murderers and that of saving a human life, even if it is the life of the worst criminal. It is my deep conviction that under present conditions and especially due to the existence of organized crime, capital punishment remains necessary to prevent if possible and- it must be said-to punish premeditated murder. Indeed, no matter how you rely on the preventive or curative effects of prolonged confinement of murderers, there will always remain a minority for whom crime, including murder, will be a usual activity. In the end only capital punishment can be an ultimate protection against that minority. Those who ignore the warnings of the law and do not hesitate to kill for despicable motives-profit for instance-should not expect the state to save them from the supreme punishment, particularly in these days when organized crime has become a way of life.
Besides, is it not surprising that ever since this debate started, the abolitionists have not yet been able to come up with the final argument which would put an end to all hesitations. Who will contend that an enlightened public would have rejected such a reform for so long if the realism and the prudence of men had not helped moderate the excessive optimism of these protagonists. And what is most ironic, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been die-hard abolitionists who finally stood up against the total abolition of capital punishment. And I am especially thinking of Jean Imbert whose work entitled "La peine de mort" is quite authoritative as far as the evolution of the penal code is concerned. In the conclusion of his book, this famous abolitionist writes, and I quote:
It would be very tempting to ask for the abolition of capital punishment, everywhere and for ever. To my mind, such an ambition is an utopie. On the one hand, certain people must keep, as long as they have not reached a certain degree of civilization, the threat of the most severe retribution, which can have a stronger deterrent effect than other forms of punishment. On the other hand, even in very highly civilized countries, to say that no one, not even the State, can deprive an individual of the right to live is just an abstract statement when presented with certain definite situations: in fact, any organized society claims it has the right and the duty to lead its members to death, first in times of war, then in case of subversive activities from within.

And, Mr. Speaker, at this very moment while I am talking to you, is there a more subversive form of activities than organized crime? Have a look at today's newspaper headlines and you will find the obvious answer. Is there a more dangerous threat than the hired killer, the professional killer? Is there anything more dangerous than their actions first against the lives of ordinary citizens and also against the very principles of social order and fabric established by society for the protection and the better-being of its members?
One argument which is very often put forward against capital punishment is the possibility of some miscarriage of justice. But the reform of the criminal code and of the legal proceedings has nearly eliminated any possibility of error as to the facts. No one is now condemned to death on simple circumstantial evidence; it is necessary to file an appeal up to the Supreme Court and this appeal enables the superior courts to review the files and to detect the slightest defect in the evidence submitted by the Crown. There still remains the exhaustive examination of the case by the Solicitor General and, finally, by the cabinet; the latter can always exercise its right to commute the death penalty. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that at each one of thoses stages, the slightest doubt must, of necessity, serve the accused.
Even now, those who killed under the influence of passion, jealousy or anger do not incur the death penalty. Compassion is often shown those in special cases: I am thinking of the person who, in his excitement, fatally wounds the policeman who is trying to arrest him.
I am quite willing to accept his being shown some fore-bearance, though he did put himself deliberately in a situation inviting murder. But there remains, in particular, the extreme cases, the hired assassin, the professional killer, the expert in holdups, the expert killer of embarrassing witnesses. If I had time, Mr. Speaker, I could recount all that happened some years ago when embarrassing witnesses were massacred, one by one, by hired killers who could not have cared less about the threat of the death penalty, knowing full well that no matter what they did they would never get to the hangman's noose.
Do those professional killers deserve to live? Is it advisable to let them live? I am convinced it is not. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) wrote on page 123 of his memoirs entitled One Canada-
This excerpt comes from that great book written by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It reads:
Society must be protected from those who kill for profit or who regard murder as an occupational hazard in the commission of robberies or kidnappings.

This is proven, as is evidenced by a number of bloody evasions. Life imprisonment, even if those 25 years really meant 25 years, no longer provides adequate protection. There is always the danger and the possibility, indeed the probability of evasion with killings, on the part of those crime professionals.
May 11, 1976

How are we to believe that, when there is no threat of capital punishment, a member of the underworld with connections to get firearms will hesitate even a second to kill to regain his freedom? If he is caught, all he may get is some extra years in prison. And should there be a fresh opportunity, certainly he will not balk at committing another murder to escape from prison. And what about the holdup professional: What is going to prevent him from killing his victim or innocent bystanders, because the only possible punishment is some extra prison time.
What adequate protection could the state give to someone who is willing to help fight the big shots of organized crime, to someone who is ready to testify for the Crown to help convict those individuals? How is the state going to efficiently protect him, if his potential murderer is to remain alive? Who will prevent premeditated murder by the unsyndicated individual if the murderer knows before hand he will not pay with his life?
As I said, the only adequate deterrent still remaining, especially against professional killers, is the death penalty. Unfortunately, there is no other. In an interview given October 16, 1975 to the Ottawa Citizen, Mr. Meryle Cameron, president of the Ottawa Police Association and the Ontario Police Association, flatly stated, and I quote: [English]
During the last three or four years, the criminal element has come to understand that they will not be executed for killing a policeman. So, the more they come to realize it-and they will be certain of it if capital punishment is abolished-the more prone they will be to kill policemen.

After talking to criminals, Mr. Cameron came to the conclusion that the only thing still feared by organized crime is death on the scaffold. I quote further:

It is the threat he understands: the fact that it is there and is likely to be applied. After all, the criminal element itself deals with its people in this tough way. They must understand tough retribution, if it is part of their philosophy.
Far be it from me to suggest that a member of the underworld cannot be rehabilitated. Mr. Speaker, if after his record is reviewed, specialists are inclined to believe that he may become an honest citizen again, society must obviously give him a chance to prove it. However, the fact remains that a number of professional criminals cannot be rehabilitated because they do not want to. I refer here to the testimony of a policeman, an ex-abolitionist, superintendent Tom Flanagan, of the Ottawa police force.
In the Ottawa Citizen of October 17, 1975, Mr. Flanagan no longer hesitates to say, and I quote:

We have now gotten in a state where we have no choice but to execute some people because they don't want to be rehabilitated .. . There are people who have made up their minds that their business is going to be crime. You know, crime is not a sickness ... Crime is a business. The sooner people think of it that way, the better.

Mr. Speaker, for those who are still in doubt and who wonder if, in certain cases, the death penalty might actual-
Capital Punishment
ly be an effective deterrent against professional criminals, Mr. Flanagan says this:

I am in favour of it-
Referring to capital punishment.
-because it is necessary, because it would prevent rational and deliberate murder . .. We must make clear to the potential murderer that he would risk a good chance of being executed for the crime ... Many would think twice if confronted with the strong possibility of execution ... Some of them may take a chance and I am not saying that this would not happen. But some won't take the gamble and it is for these people that capital punishment is an effective and necessary deterrent.

Mr. Speaker, people have been complaining in the last few years, and rightly so, about the increase in violence and the great number of murders in Canada, especially premeditated murders. To quote only an example, that of the island of Montreal, the number of murders has increased from 73 in 1974 to 112 in 1975, a 53.4 per cent increase in a year. I think it is fair to say that half of these killings were premeditated and were either a settling of accounts among the underworld or the elimination of embarrassing witnesses for the big shots of organized crime.
One may wonder at length about the causes of crime and violence. In this respect, one may point at the weakening of moral values in too many individuals, the break-up of families, the exaltation of violence in every form and its excessive exploitation in films and on television, the feeling of frustration and even despair resulting from unfair economic conditions which are often unbearable, even though crime is not the prerogative of the underprivileged. We can also blame a deficient and inefficient penitentiary system which, too often, generates crime instead of preventing relapses. This is why a social and a penitentiary reform has become an immediate necessity.
But is the state blameless? Through its weakness and a misguided humanitarian spirit did it not contribute-even involuntarily, I agree-to giving murderers and especially professional killers a real feeling of security? According to the evidence given by policemen, lawmen, magistrates, many criminals admits it bluntly.
To justify the commutation of each death penalty since 1968, the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General have alleged that each record was studied according to its own merit and that each sentence commutation was made only in case of palliating circumstances. We would be more convinced if, on several occasions, the government had not acted without any clemency recommendation from judges or juries. We would be more convinced had the Solicitor General publicly exposed the reason for the ministerial decision in every case.
For now, and the present bill stands as irrefutable evidence, we have to conclude that those sentence commutations were declared only because Cabinet members refused to implement the law. But, whether the government believes it or not, the extension of the mandatory prison sentence or the restriction of release conditions for murderers will have no deterrent effect on professional killers and crime desperados. Half measures, extended prison sentences will never be enough to avoid the threat that those reckless criminals represent for their fellow citizens and

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
especially policemen. It has been demonstrated that jail no longer prevents murderers from killing, it no longer prevents crimes and bloody escapes. For many inveterate criminals, it only prompts them to be still more violent and kill those who stand in their way to freedom.
Hon. members who would be tempted to believe that those fears are exaggerated should read the view expressed by some organizations or newspapers that could not be called prejudiced since they favour abolition of capital punishment. Alleging that the new peace and security legislation, and I quote:
... does nothing more than replace quick death by slow death in a cell...
... the Human Rights Association declared through its general director, Mr. Normand Caron, and I quote La Presse of February 26, 1976:
The only effect of those new amendments will be to create even more desperate prisoners who will be faced with a hopeless future and will not hesitate to attempt to escape.
For its part, the Association of Social Workers in a press release published the same day by the same newspaper gave the government the following warning:
We are aware of the fact that the public is entitled to better protection against criminals, but we do not believe that longer prison terms are the answer to the problem. In fact, we have every reason to believe that extended sentences will only worsen the situation.
The Montreal Star, an acknowledged abolitionist, on February 25, wrote the following editorial from which I qoute:

Filling the prisons with men doing endless time is the guaranteed way to turn them into time bombs and put the prison staff at terrible risk.

This is certainly a comment over which the Solicitor General should ponder in his spare time. And the newspaper Le Devoir which is also quite well known and which is openly abolitionist, wrote on the 27 of the same month, and I quote:
Instead of coming back to kill a grocery clerk we see a convict dragging hostages with him inside his cage. The blood of innocent people will be flowing like it did at the British Columbia penitentiary.
This is another extremely meaningful comment by an editor who, as far as I know, is not looking for "sensationalism", at least not always. Mr. Speaker, therefore, in the very eyes of those who are calling for this reform, abolishing the death penalty and sentencing convicts to lengthy prison terms will never do away with the risks of peace keeping officers being killed, especially by desperate criminals who have made murder their profession.
It is precisely because of this sort of people, who have decided to earn their living by being involved in criminal activities that it remains absolutely essential that the death penalty be maintained and applied in the hope that executions will make others think twice before they decide to kill somebody. This is the sole and ultimate protection that is left to us against those who have no respect either for the life of others or for their own. Mr. Speaker, if this bill does pass and the rash of premeditated murder increases in momentum-and I have no hesitation in predicting that it will-a terrible responsibility will rest on

the shoulders of those who will have allowed such a thing to happen.
As far as I am concerned, my conscience does not allow me to run such a risk. This is why I intend to vote against this bill and continue to request the death penalty in all cases of premeditated or cold-blooded murder committed during an escape or an armed robbery. And I should like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I am well aware that this is a matter for our conscience and also that my past experience and my responsibilities towards my constituents are significant factors in this decision.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, once again, in 1976, following the introduction of twin bills C-83 and C-84, we are called upon to discuss a most delicate problem, the administration of justice in times troubled by such various events as the unnerving increase in thefts and crimes that are causing great concern among the people who would appreciate the possibility of living in security in a society that could be better organized.
During the debate on Bill C-83 in March 1976, I said that a number of politicians prefer to blame the rising crime wave on the availability of weapons rather than to seek solutions to economic and financial problems which are in most cases the root causes of the problems afflicting our society.
I also stressed the importance of reorganizing penal institutions in such a way as to provide guardians and those who assume responsibilities the means to develop better rehabilitation instead of keeping prisoners in an atmosphere that is becoming especially for the younger ones a school to learn all the inveterate criminals' tricks. No doubt that following its study in committee some amendments could be made to Bill C-83 with a view to making it applicable and preventing the many disadvantages resulting from ever too complicated legislation and regulations.
A few years ago, on the occasion of earlier debates about the methods used on the matter of sentences imposed on convicted criminals, the members of the House of Commons had the opportunity to vote freely on this issue fraught with consequences and full of general interest. That attitude represented some improvement in the light of the usual concept related to procedures within the political parties in our so-called democratic system.
I was under the impression that under the circumstances this procedure would have contributed to ensure in a practical way the respect for free speech within our parliamentary institutions. We would have at least contributed to create a climate whereby everyone would have freely assumed his responsibilities. Besides, this is what the citizens in this country want: that their representatives act in Parliament according to the country's general interest rather than according to their party's interest, in order to bring about a real improvement of the situation in every respect.
Unfortunately, this freedom of opinion among members seems much more restrictive in 1976. These restrictions are probably due to the fact that the majority government wants to use these means of action to facilitate the passing of this bill.
May 11, 1976

On various occasions, several persons familiar with the situation in Canada demanded the holding of a referendum to provide the people of Canada with an opportunity to give their opinion on the question of retention or abolition of capital punishment. It is unfortunate that those who have been in power for the last five years did not organize such a referendum on the subject. Considering the present situation, I think that the majority of the people I represent share my position, if I consider the many answers I received to the questionnaire I sent. A very small percentage seemed to be in favour of abolition while the majority pronounced themselves in favour of retention of capital punishment.
I have had various suggestions as to the methods of execution to be used and most people would be prepared to recommend the use of the gas chamber. I might add that I favor this opinion. I also want to indicate that I cannot find any explanation for the attitude held by those who claim that capital punishment may be maintained for some categories of people. I do not see how one may assess different values to the lives of a father or a mother, of a policeman or a warden, of an industrialist or a businessman, of a poor man or a rich man. Everybody has a right to live. This moratorium which allows for a mitigated justice comes to an end in 1976, and this is why this bill has been brought back before this House. I have here an article which was published in the March 24, 1976, issue of La Presse, signed by a Mr. Gaston Gagnier from LaSalle. I think it would be in order at this stage to quote from this article. It reads as follows:
We consider that the law will continue to be inadequate as long as all armed bandits caught in the act will not be liable to the death penalty. Criminals who rob banks or hijack Brinks-type armoured cars are real live arsenals. A machine-gun is not exactly a charm attached to the chain of one's watch. These people are therefore potential killers. Such madmen will not hesitate to mow down everybody if they fear being captured. Their crimes are therefore premeditated, and any accomplice, whether or not he is where the action takes place, bears the same responsibility. If a criminal knew that he is risking capital punishment, he would give second thought to what he intends to do before getting involved in a criminal operation.
And further on, in the same article:
Certain eager abolitionist ministers have already stated publicly that they would resign rather than enact such a radical legislation. This is sheer political blackmail. Well, they will just have to go. Canada and justice will only be better off.
In many areas, we have not been careful enough. It is as if all the methods of publicity are being used to bring society to adapt itself to a system which is all wrong. After having contributed, unconcernedly, to such a laissez faire situation as regards the publication and sale of newspapers and magazines and the showing on television of films in which criminals sometimes are made to look like heroes, thus giving to the developing mind the most striking examples of crimes, thefts and various other disorders that are rampant in this world, after having through carelessness allowed into this country certain categories of undesirable immigrants, we panic at seeing the consequences of our stupidity. In various occasions, our courts of justice become the scenes of all kinds of provocations.
Even in this House, we often hear discussions in which the scandalmongering of some of our colleagues is not
Capital Punishment
likely to instill any sense of respect towards the established authority in the minds of our fellow-citizens. Can we now say that all has been done to make life as pleasant as possible, for all the citizens of this country on which God has bestowed unlimited riches? The members of Parliament should settle down to this specific task with the firm determination to succeed, instead of wasting their time in trying to determine whether we should abolish or maintain the death penalty. For the time being, it would be much wiser to give the people of Canada, a new hope for a better life by passing legislation which would be less materialistic and more human.
If we had a system which would make it possible for everybody to find a job or, at least, a healthy congenial occupation which would enable each individual to make an honest living, I have good reasons to believe that the crime rate would lessen. Obviously capital punishment cannot commend itself for its beauty; as soon as one pictures in one's mind a human being hanging, one is overwhelmed by a feeling a repulsion. If one does not react against this feeling, it promptly grows into a negative passion.
The danger is the same if we think about the parents of the murderer's victim, except that passion works the other way around. It then becomes impossible to discuss reasonably and consciously, or even to perceive the issue at stake. It is along this regrettable route that the controversy has been carried following the announcement that abolition legislation would be brought forth before the House. In all logic, one cannot call for abolition of a time honoured measure without invoking a first class rationale. I do not mean that the very longevity of this practice makes it necessarily venerable. But it has been challenged for over a century. Obviously the legislators that followed one another did not retain it by sadism.
We must then consider the arguments put forward up to now by the abolitionists. For some, it is only a remainder from barbarity. Others think in terms of niceties. They contrast hanging with the dignity of human life, the rigours of moral evolution, the humanitarian rehabilitation of murderers and others such nice concepts.
Medical efforts in recent years show beyond doubt a stronger respect for human life as well as increased concern for its protection and promotion: fight against cancer, heart transplants, gynecological research, blood banks. But there is another aspect of reality that daily life reveals as brutally: wars, pollution of environment, irrational and savage exploitation of the planet's resources, abortion, etc. In one hospital in Montreal, a medical team persists in trying to anticipate the viability threshold of the child to be born whereas in another department, abortion is performed. In the present confused system, the value of life is often brutally denied by changing behaviours, when necessary.
Thus, after talking at length of holy wars and just wars, we have come today to recognize the immorality of war- of any war. There is no future in wars for humankind. Unfortunately, we continued nevertheless to fight.
It is obvious that the numerous problems of criminality in our modern societies are not easy to solve. We know that imprisonment costs much money to citizens and that we must also account for the cost of police services which, in Quebec, according to reports published in a Montreal

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
newspaper on April 30, 1976, went from $150 million to $320 million between 1970 and 1975.
Figures from the Quebec Police Commission originate from budgets, that is from estimates and do not include police expenditures other than municipal and provincial ones, such as those of the RCMP.
In total, 13,596 policemen were on duty in 1975 in the province of Quebec, including 4,108 for the Quebec Police Force. This personnel was assisted by 2,619 civilians and 375 part-time policemen and 3,090 motor vehicles of which more than half were not identified.
The Montreal Urban Community, which covers 30 municipalities, takes the lion's share with $136 million followed by the Quebec Police Force with $104 million.
If we add to those already huge amounts the expenditures anticipated for supervision during the Olympic Games, we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where in some areas of the country one half of Canadians will watch the other half at a cost of millions of dollars when our politicians of every stripe urge each citizen to save during an inflation period which they have contributed to create. During that disturbed period, we must just the same assume our responsibilities and honestly try to enforce a rehabilitative justice.
It might be possible, with the modern means of transportation and supervision at our disposal through the armed forces, to have inmates achieve profitable works in northern areas or to develop camps on islands from where it is almost impossible to escape. We might use the services of inmates in human working conditions while ensuring the advantages required in their situation to those who have an aptitude for rehabilitation; this would not only contribute to relieve overcrowded penitentiaries, but it would provide a large number with a useful occupation rather than leaving them idle with experienced mates preparing new plans. We are far from having experimented all means of rehabilitation and yet, we know that nothing must be neglected in this regard.
When one considers the behaviours of a percentage of inmates, in particular the young ones, one often finds that a large number of them have endured living conditions which contributed to develop in them a hostile attitude towards society, have been neglected by too many parents who failed to assume their social responsibilities, and often went through endless unemployment periods with all the painful experiences associated with it: inadequate incomes, hardships and despair.
Our administrators must now accept to pay after the crime what they too often refused to pay before and which, in many cases, would have avoided these periods of forced idleness and hardships of all kinds that are the results of a corrupt and corrupting financial system. We must now pay the high cost of rehabilitating criminals; it is urgent to bring about social changes in many areas to make life more human for many people.
Inflation, taxes and debts are not remedies to the great illness from which society is suffering. Those who are in charge of this society will have to get used to seeing wealth in things-real wealth, real value-rather than in sings. This is the root of the problem, the real illness of the century, which has terrible effects that might be called the

fear of tomorrow, which often makes your hair turn white at an early age and which probably contributes to send a large number of citizens to their graves before their time. Let us consider for some time the devastating effects this famous system has had on our planet. Many people are ready to tread on their conscience to earn their living. How many businessmen have cheated their competitors just because if they had not they would have gone under? How many professionals have sought to live in comfort and according to their rank at the expense of their science and their art? How many public men have sold out their country to gain economic security for themselves? The word "money" comes more often to our mind than the verb "love" to our heart. This is how our money system is holding man in slavery. The human being worships the golden calf. Money is at the centre of his concerns. This means that the money system has departed from its primary object. Money must continue to perform its mission, and be a tool of exchange instead of domination.
Our system is vitiated and condemned by the greatest doctrinal authority in the world. Here is what one can read in the Quadragesima Anno encyclical:
Those who control money and credit have so firmly economic life in their grasp that no one can breathe against their will.
And in the same text one also finds:
The economical and social structure will be soundly constituted and achieve its end only when it will provide all its members with all the goods that the resources of nature and industry as well as a truly social organization of economic life are in a position to secure for them. Such goods must be sufficiently abundant to satisfy the needs for a decent living.
The decision-markers at the top of society should draw theis inspiration more often from encyclicals and direct the economic organization so as to allow the people to live decently, particularly in a country endowed with an abundance of natural resources and inhabited by well-meaning people.
I have every reason to believe that through such means, as I said earlier, the number of crimes would be reduced.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have quoted facts and figures to prove either that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder or, conversely, that it is not a deterrent to murder. I suggest that statistics can be interpreted to virtually any advantage. I wish to address myself to another facet of the argument; that is, that our laws with regard to capital punishment as interpreted and administered seemingly are inadequate to deal with our current social problems, and our prisons are not equipped to truly rehabilitate condemned murderers.
Society must believe that it is being protected. I am sorry to say that today this credibility does not exist. Perhaps it is the fault of the media, which day in and day out bombards us with atrocities which men visit upon one another. Perhaps it is because for years we have been conditioned to accepting violence as a legitimate response to wrongdoing. Whatever the cause, the public feels vulnerable and under attack.
May 11, 1976

It is all well and good to quote statistics that show capital punishment is not a deterrent, but what do you say to the wife and children of a husband who was shot down, murdered in cold blood with malice aforethought by a killer who was trying to procure ill-gotten gains of whatever description? I do not wish to cast slurs on those who firmly believe in abolition, but in fairness they should not pepper their arguments with innuendoes that the reten-tionists are less humane than they.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: Which is more humane, to put a man to death or have him spend 25 hopeless years locked away in prison? What would he do when he was released? Toffler, in "Future Shock", stated that in 1900 we had a new generation every 20 years. By 1945 we had a new generation every 15 years. During the sixties we had a new and different generation every 12 years. Now, in 1975, we have virtually a new generation every ten years. If this trend continues and if a man or woman were sentenced in 1975 to 25 years in prison, by the year 2000 three generations or three generate changes of mores, customs or attitudes will have taken place. That person would be like a Rip Van Winkle thrust into a space age. When he returned to society how could he possibly be prepared to cope with all the problems with which he would be faced?
Prior to the 1974 election I had not made up my mind whether I was a retentionist or an abolitionist. During the campaign I was asked many times about my position on this particular issue. At that time I promised I would speak with my constituents and conduct a survey on how they felt about this issue. I did take the survey; I sent out 40,000 questionnaires. Virtually every adult in my constituency had an opportunity to let me know how they felt. Of the 40,000, only 2,755 responded. The response was overwhelmingly in favour of retention of capital punishment.
I asked these straightforward questions of my constituents: first, "Do you favour the abolition of the death penalty?". Twenty per cent replied "Yes" and 80 per cent said "No". Second, "Do you favour the retention of the death penalty for convicted murderers?". Eighty-one per cent said "Yes" and 19 per cent said "No". Third, "The present law calls for the death penalty only in the case of convicted killers of policemen and prison guards. Do you agree with this?". Sixteen per cent said "Yes" and 84 per cent said "No". Fourth, "Do you favour life imprisonment-that is, the remainder of the offender's days as a punishment, instead of the death penalty?". Twenty per cent said "Yes" and 80 per cent said "No". The fifth question was, "Are you in favour of the death penalty for all criminals who have been convicted of murder and other crimes which are now subject to the death sentence?." Eighty-two per cent responded "Yes" and 18 per cent said "No."
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be sure that the people of St. Catharines truly gave me a correct picture of their feelings on capital punishment, not only for the killing of policemen and prison guards, so I asked the sixth question in this way, "Are you in favour of the death sentence only for criminals who kill police and prison guards?" Only 8 per cent responded "Yes", while 92 per cent responded
Capital Punishment
"No." So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that the results were virtually overwhelming. Some people have suggested that perhaps we should not make decisions on the basis of surveys. I agree that perhaps decisions should not be made on the basis of surveys. I agree that perhaps decisions should not be made on the basis of surveys alone; but when we go to the people and ask their opinion, we should be receptive to their advice.
Some years ago, when in university studying apologetics, we were discussing wrongdoing and what constituted wrongdoing. There are three ingredients that go into it. The first is that a person must know that what he is doing is wrong; there must be knowledge. The second is that you must want to do it; therefore, there is a decision, a will. Thirdly, you must do whatever the action is; it must be done. For my purposes here I have defined what is a murderer. First of all, I believe he must know what he is doing. He must be sane. He must have all his faculties. He must be able to exercise knowledge. Second, he must plan the crime very carefully. Therefore, the crime would be premediated murder. Third, he must want to do it. He therefore makes a conscious decision to go ahead. Fourth, he carries out this action. So for me, at least, the definition is quite clear, and with this definition in mind I have gone on to make a decision for myself and for the people I represent.
It has been said that if every person convicted of capital crime were killed, there would be two killings instead of one. That is a very simple deduction but it is not entirely accurate, for by no means is every convicted murderer executed. There has been no execution in Canada since 1962, which reveals that even if returned, capital punishment would be imposed only in the case of a notably small percentage of murderers. I am aware that since 1968 virtually all the men condemned to hand have received a recommendation of mercy or leniency from the jury; only one has not received a recommendation of mercy.
To those who say that the state has no more right to take a God-given life than an individual, the cart is put before the horse. By using capital punishment, the state employs the only effective deterrent so far as the vast majority of persons is concerned. Because of the severity of the punishment, the potential murderer will do more thinking, I suggest, before perpetrating a premediated murder. The all-important threat of adequate retribution for so horrendous a crime is there, though society will probably not carry out an execution except in the more deserving cases and where hardened criminals are involved.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the murder comes first, the death penalty comes second. In order greatly to reduce the incidence of one person slaying another, and in the overall, I believe that fewer persons would lose their lives. Further, Mr. Speaker, I believe society does have the right to take life. We sanction war under extreme circumstances and send the flower of our youth into battle to kill so we can protect those principles by which we live. Our abortion laws as presently constituted permit the taking of the life of a child where the life of the mother is in danger. Murder is a great deal more dehumanizing and is made extremely more so by those who, by their permissiveness and laxity in dealing with convicted murderers, place such a totally incomprehensibly low value on human life.

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
To those who say that we do not sexually assault a rapist, that we do not burn an arsonist, but that we want to kill a murderer, my reply is that to say society is not justified in taking the life of certain types of hardened, convicted killers because it would, in turn, then be taking a life, is identical to saying that society would never imprison a convicted kidnapper because by so doing society would be using the same tactics as those employed by a kidnapper, namely, holding a person imprisoned.
I believe that society, rightfully, should impose the death penalty in the case of a murderer, because it is the severest form of retribution for the severest form of offence, namely, murder. This, in itself, proves that the state does not do so in order to emulate the very deed of the murderer; accordingly, society does not act toward the rapist or arsonist in the manner suggested.
Many people have quoted the Bible. The Bible could be quoted by both sides. But when Christ said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", He wanted to remind us all that we should examine ourselves and not regard ourselves as the sinless and righteous ones. It does not mean that the country should not have laws, law enforcement and courts to dispense justice when crimes have been committed. Christ's words that we should not take an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth pertain to our individual, everyday dealings with our fellow men, not to the necessary laws of a country which are designed to maintain order and discipline. A very strong and real influence exists, though doubtless not intended, that society should even overlook murder on the grounds of Christ's pronouncement.
Granted, Mr. Speaker, if everyone always did the right thing, no country would need laws. But we know that that day has not yet arrived. In fact, it is possible that the world, unfortunately, is fast moving in the opposite direction; and who would deny that it is due, in part, to increasing lack of discipline? Provision must be made for those people in society who obey neither the laws of God nor the laws of man.
It is recognized that it is necessary for society to impose its laws, just as it is necessary to retain capital punishment, at least on the statute books, to be employed in extreme cases for persons who commit so terrible a crime as murder. Although the trend to permissiveness and to lack of adequate discipline in the case of children has accelerated in years gone by, society is now acknowledging the great fallacy of that not so long ago age, and once discarded disciplinary measures as well as self-discipline will again return to the scene.
The true spirit of Easter, to be sure, Mr. Speaker, cannot be interpreted as favouring further laxness in a society where the criminal is molly-coddled, while the victim himself, by comparison, is almost totally rejected and forgotten. Nor can it be defined as meaning or even remotely inferring that society should eliminate its courts of justice set up to maintain law and order, peace and security.
I have been asked why I favour the use of the death penalty. For certain types of crimes I believe it is indispensable. For example, a federal prison in the United States has had custody of a man sentenced to life imprisonment who, since he has been in prison, has committed three more murders on three separate occasions, both of prison guards

and inmates. There is no further punishment he can receive. In effect, he has a licence to murder.
Let us take another case. When a man is threatened with life imprisonment for a crime he has already committed, what reason has he not to kill the arresting officer in an attempt to escape? His punishment would be the same anyhow. In short, there are many cases where the death penalty is the only penalty available that could possibly deter.
I will go a step further. I hold life to be very sacred, and because I hold it sacred I feel that anyone who takes someone else's life in a premeditated, cold-blooded fashion should know that thereby he forsakes his own and should not just suffer the inconvenience of being put in prison for a short time. Could the same effect be achieved by putting the criminal in prison for life? At the present time, life imprisonment means anything from a few months to a few years. Even if it were real life imprisonment-and I dealt with this in the survey-its deterrent effect will never be as great as that of the death penalty. The death penalty is the only irrevocable penalty and because of that it is the one that people fear the most; and because it is feared the most,Nit is the one that is most likely to deter.
Authorities seem to differ on whether the death sentence really does deter crime. Usually the statistics quoted were compiled more than ten years ago and seem to indicate that the absence or presence of the death penalty makes no difference in the murder rate. However, in the last ten years there have been additional investigations. The results indicate, according to Isaac Ehrlich's recent article in the American Economic Review, that over the period 1933 to 1969 an additional execution per year may have resulted, on the average, in seven or eight fewer murders.
In New York, in the last six years, the murder rate went up by 60 per cent. Prior to the abolition of the death penalty in that state, about 80 per cent of all murders committeed there were so-called crimes of passion, defined as crimes in which the victim and the murderer were in some way involved with each other. Right now, only 50 per cent of all murders in New York are crimes of passion. As long as the death penalty existed, largely only people in the grip of passion could not be deterred by threat of the death penalty. Now that there is no death penalty, people who previously were deterred, who are not in the grip of passion, are no longer deterred from committing murder for the sake of gain. Murder is no longer an irrational act, least of all for juveniles for whom it means, at most, a few months of inconvenience.
Even if you assume the evidence for the deterrent effect of the death penalty is not clear, you have two risks. If you impose the death penalty and it does not have an additional deterrent effect, you have possibly lost the life of a convicted murderer without adding to deterrence, and thereby sparing future victims. If you fail to execute the convicted murderer and execution would have had an additional deterrent effect, you have failed to spare the lives of a number of future victims. Between the two risks I would much rather execute the convicted murderer, a man who premeditated, planned the killing and went
May 11, 1976

ahead and did it, than risk the lives of innocent people who could have been saved.
The death penalty is irrevocable once it is imposed. This makes it a different penalty. This is why it should be used when the crime is different-so heinous and socially dangerous as to call for this extreme measure. When you kill a man with premeditation, you do something very different from stealing from him, and I think the punishment should be appropriate. I favour the death penalty as a matter of justice and human dignity, even apart from deterrence. The penalty must be appropriate to the seriousness of the crime.
Our system of punishment is based not just on deterrence but also on what is called justice, namely, that we feel a man who has committed a crime must be punished in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. Since the crime that takes a life is irrevocable, so must be the punishment.
All religions that I am aware of feel that human life is sacred and that its sacredness must be enforced by depriving of life anyone who deprives another person of life. Once we make it clear to a person that if he deprives someone else of life he will suffer only minor inconvenience, we cheapen human life. I suggest we are at that point today.
Many people argue that the death penalty is legalized murder because it inflicts on the criminal the same situation that he inflicted on his victim, yet most punishments inflict on a criminal what he inflicted on the victim. The difference between the punishment and the crime is that one is a legal sanction, or measure of society, and the other is not. As for brutalizing, I think that people are more brutalized by their daily TV fare. At any rate, people are not so much brutalized by punishment as they are brutalized by our failure seriously to punish brutal acts.
Many times my colleagues here in the House of Commons have quoted Edmund Burke. I, too, believe in his words, that each member of parliament must make up his own mind. I have made up my own mind and I do not shirk this responsibility. I embrace it wholeheartedly. I am responsible, and history will record and judge my decision. I do not apologize for my decision, nor do I hide behind a survey of any sort. I stand before you, my colleagues, before the citizens of my constituency of St. Catharines- yes, before the people of Canada and before my God-and declare here that I will vote for the retention of capital punishment.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First of all, I should like to welcome back the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I want to point out-


Mr. Paproski:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to your attention the fact that there have been committee meetings this afternoon-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: One at a time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This is the kind of nonsense we don't need from the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs.
Capital Punishment
Holt). There have been committee meetings this afternoon-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We should take one point of order at a time.


Simma Holt: You don't know what I am going to say.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We do know what you are going to say.


Simma Holt: I know there were committee meetings, but I was at the committee meetings when this House was closed down by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I should like to point out, for the record, that he was the only member sitting there during this serious debate and there was a period when not one of those hon. members was there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that such interventions are not helping the debate and not helping the progress of this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) has no right to say that she welcomes me back. I have been in my place all afternoon, except for a few minutes when I think I had the right to leave the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker in the past I have indicated my pleasure in taking part in the debates of this House. However, this is a debate quite unlike any of the others. Nothing else we will ever debate here could be as grave or as serious as that which now concerns us, namely, the issue of capital punishment. The things which I intend to say today will, for me, be among the most difficult things I shall ever say at any time; but I feel they must be said. Unlike some previous occasions, however, it will not be particularly pleasurable to stand here today and argue against the government's Bill C-84 and in favour of capital punishment. I, very deeply and sincerely, believe that capital punishment should be part of any just system of law, and today I will try to explain some of the reasons I am a retentionist and why I believe as I do.
I know it is intellectually unfashionable to be a retentionist. The feeling that sometimes capital punishment- execution-is the only right and just way to deal with certain criminals bothers intellectuals. This feeling does not fit neatly into their computers and it is not compatible with their flow charts, diagrams and neat tables of statistics. The irrational actions of a murderer who goes on a rampage and slaughters innocent people greatly upsets the ordered and logical world of these intellectuals. Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly have never claimed to be an intellectual, but maybe someone like myself is closer to the thinking and feeling of many ordinary Canadians than are all the intellectuals.

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
The argument of those who are against capital punishment is that it does not prevent murder. I do not think this can be either proved or disproved. The abolitionists claim that a comparison of states with capital punishment to those without shows no difference in the murder rate. The trouble with these comparisons, Mr. Speaker, is that they really are not comparisons at all, because they all involve countries of the western world. The fact is that no country in the western world today actually practices capital punishment. Some have abolished it in law, and some have not; but in practice, all countries of the western world-with the possible exception of some states in Africa-are abolitionist. Surely we are not so naive that we do not think murderers are aware of this fact. James O. Wilson, a professor of government at Harvard University, writing in the New York Times Magazine on October 28, 1973, stated:
There is no way of knowing what the effect of capital punishment would have been in the last decade or two if more convicted murderers had in fact paid the death penalty.
I am suspicious of statistics because I do not think they necessarily prove anything one way or another. However, having said that, and exercising appropriate caution, a look at the murder rate and the attempted murder rate in Canada during the last 20 years or so is very revealing. Statistics Canada figures indicate that in 1955 the murder rate in Canada, per 100,000 population, was .9. That is slightly less than one person per every 100,000. Six years later, in 1961, it had risen to 1.2 per 100,000. By 1967 it had risen to 1.8 per 100,000. The increase in the six-year period from 1961 to 1967 was exactly double that of the increase in the previous six-year period from 1955 to 1961.
This rate of increase was maintained, and increased slightly during the next seven-year period. In 1974, according to Statistics Canada, the murder rate per 100,000 population was 2.6. The actual number of murders committed in Canada in each of these years was: in 1955, 118; in 1961, 185; in 1967, 282; in 1974, 539. In other words, during about a 20-year period the number of murders committed in Canada showed almost a fivefold increase.
The figures for attempted murders in Canada are even more startling. For instance, in 1961 there were 74 attempted murders in Canada, a ratio of .5 per 100,000 population. In 1967 there were 139 attempted murders, a ratio of .9 per 100,000 population. In 1974 there were 524 attempted murders, a ratio of 2.3. So in a 13-year period from 1961 to 1974, the actual number of attempted murders in Canada increased almost eight times. It is interesting, I think, that this increase should take place almost exactly during the period following the point when capital punishment in Canada was abolished-in fact, if not in law, the year 1962, the last year anyone was executed in Canada.
I am not trying to suggest, by these figures, Mr. Speaker, that if we had had capital punishment during the last 15 years the murder rate and the attempted murder rate would have been any lower. It may have been; I do not know. No one can prove that it would have been, one way or another. But is it not just possible that it is more than merely coincidence that the number of murders and attempted murders in Canada showed such an increase during that period when capital punishment was not in effect, which has been characterized, as well, by increas-

ingly more relaxed moral values and more and more permissive attitudes toward human behaviour?
Is there really any difference between the attitude of those criminologists and penologists who believe that massive expenditures of money and resources can reform the most incorrigible murderer, and the attitude of those progressive educationalists who believe that children should be allowed to "do their own thing" in our schools and that any sort of order or discipline might stunt their creative growth? Who can deny that violent and bloody crimes among our adult population, vandalism in our schools and delinquency among our children has increased tremendously in the last 15 years? Are we so naive that we believe adult criminal and juvenile delinquents are not aware of the permissiveness of our society and the soft way it handles wrongdoers?
A Canadian Press story out of Toronto this past winter, which was carried by the Winnipeg Free Press on March 18, told of a metropolitan Toronto policeman, staff sergeant Jack Foster, who resigned just two years short of the 30 which he needed for a pension because of the anger and frustration which he felt after watching what was happening in the courts every day. He felt that he just could not remain a policeman and continue to observe it any longer. To quote Sergeant Foster:
As far as I am concerned, what is happening in the courts is a joke, just like a circus sideshow. The young people coming before the courts are treating the whole thing as a joke. They leave there laughing.
Mr. Speaker, maybe I am old-fashioned, but I do believe that there are moral absolutes, that there are things which are right and things which are wrong. There are still behaviours which a moral and just society must find unacceptable, and those who wrongfully and wilfully commit these actions are criminals and must be treated as such. Of course, this is today a very unfashionable attitude. The concept of evil as an absolute has gone out of fashion, the same as has the concept of absolute virtue. There are no saints today, and there are no sinners either. We must be the first society in history not to recognize or want to recognize that there can be bad and evil in men. Criminals today are not bad at all: they are just misunderstood, misguided, underprivileged and unloved! Well, Mr. Speaker, I may be old-fashioned, as I said, but I think some criminals are not any of these things at all. I think they are greedy, selfish, unscrupulous, evil and incredibly dangerous to a peaceful society.
A popular movie a few years ago involved a hunt for a criminal whose particular practice was kidnapping and then killing his hostage. This had happened on three or four separate occasions and the police had not been able to apprehend him. The hero of the picture voiced the opinion that the killer would likely do the same thing again within the next 24 hours, that there would be another kidnapping and possibly another murder by the killer. The chief of police asked the hero why he thought so, to which the hero replied, "Because he likes it."
Mr. Speaker, the crime of kidnapping and then threatening or killing the hostage has become very familiar to us in Canada during the last few years. So have other hideous and violent crimes. Canadians have become sickened by crimes involving the multiple slaying of young children, crimes involving rape, mutilation and torture killing of the
May 11, 1976

victims, and crimes in which the victims have been killed just for sport, having been robbed. What is an acceptable way of dealing with these criminals, this type of cancer in our society? Can it be treated any more than much of the cancer of the human body can be treated? Surely we must recognize and accept that at some point the only acceptable way of dealing with some criminals is by cutting them out of society in the way cancer is cut out of the body-by eliminating them, by execution. To me, the issue of capital punishment is essentially one of justice.
First, what is justice and how do we define it? We begin by making a distinction between what is right and what is wrong. A determination of what is right and what is wrong begins with a concept of what is fair. We set up a system of laws in an attempt to provide a reasonable degree of fairness to all members of society. When we set up laws, we must also attach to them a system of penalties for breaking them. This is the only way that the law can be made to work. If there is no penalty for breaking the law, then it is not enforced and it is not a law at all but merely a suggestion or good advice. The law must be enforced if justice is to prevail. Penalties for breaking the law are an affirmation of our belief in the rule of law and of our desire to see that justice is done.
The rule of law, then, requires, to be effective, that when a law is broken and a crime is committed, a penalty must be imposed. A retentionist believes that the penalty for murder must be execution. The abolitionists are troubled by the fact that capital punishment as a penalty for a crime involves killing, and therefore seems contrary to the supreme commandment against killings, and itself contradictory. But, surely, this view is a distortion of both justice and the true meaning of the commandments. Murder is a crime, but so is stealing or kidnapping in our society. How do we deal with them? We imprison kidnappers and impose fines for certain offences involving theft. Does anyone question that this is a fair and just way of dealing with these crimes? We do not classify these penalties as kidnapping and robbery by the state. They are the necessary penalties if the rule of law is to be maintained and justice is to be done. So it is with capital punishment.
One of the things which distinguishes a civilized society from anarchy is that it operates according to the rule of law. The basic tenet of this rule of law in any civilized society is that the most important and precious thing which an individual can possess is his life and that society will act to protect his right to life. The ultimate transgression of this law is for one member of society to deprive another member of his life, to commit murder. It is the murderer who makes the choice. By his act of murder he has chosen to remove himself from that society of which he was a part, to remove himself from its civilization and its humanity. His act of murder has forfeited his membership in that society. It then becomes the necessary duty of society to pronounce upon the ultimate transgression of its own laws by one of its members, if the society has any meaning at all and membership in it has any value. The killer brutalizes by his actions. He indicates that he has become less than that which society demands of him. The convicted killer has, by his actions, proven himself
Capital Punishment
unworthy to be part of a society which believes, above all else, in the sanctity of human life.
Some abolitionists are opposed to capital punishment because to them it seems like nothing more than a vengeful and barbaric "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" type of justice. It is nothing of the sort. It is merely an attempt to make the punishment the equivalent of the crime. The penalty must be equal to the offence or else it fails to be fair an just. The symbolic representation of justice is that of a blindfolded woman holding a sword in one hand and scales in the other. The blindfold represents the impartiality of justice, and the scales indicate that justice must be even-handed, with the award or penalty equal to the offence.
What is the right and the just way to treat some of the murderous criminals who confront us today? What is justice for a mass slayer of children, an airplane saboteur whose actions are directly responsible for the hideous death of perhaps hundreds of people, a sadist who tortures to death his victims, a robber who purposelessly kills his victims? Is imprisonment really justice for these criminals? Their victims cry out for justice, and we fail them. We reject the justice of the ancients as primitive and brutal. We want to be modern and sophisticated in our approach to crime, but in so doing we fail terribly in respect of justice. The result is that our society today is more brutal and primitive than anything imagined by the ancients.
Among ordinary people there is, today, a mood of anxiety and quiet desperation as they observe and are aware of a justice system which cares more for the welfare of the criminal than it does for that of the victims. Thousands of dollars are spent to maintain and keep the criminals, and nothing is done for their widows and victims. Do we not think that the ordinary person, is aware of this? He feels betrayed and acts to try to defend and avenge himself.
In our big cities, taxi drivers are held up and robbed with increasing regularity. In United States cities, taxi drivers carry guns under the front seat. I do not know if any in Canada do yet, but how long will it be before they start doing so? Storekeepers install elaborate burglary systems in their stores. The attendants at all-night gasoline stations sit in bullet-proof glass booths and do not carry any change after regular hours. I understand that in the city of Detroit the attendants even wear revolvers in an attempt to prevent hold-ups. Bus drivers are forbidden to sell tickets so that they will not have to carry any money and thereby invite robbery. Women take courses in selfdefence because they despair of receiving justice before the courts of law if they survive an attack. Yet we have criminology experts like Dr. Fattah of Simon Fraser University who have the gall and effrontery to lecture Canadians and tell us that we do not have the right attitudes towards criminals.
The abolitionists argue that capital punishment is cruel and unmerciful. They do not feel that any murderer should be executed. But mercy cannot be considered in isolation from truth and justice. To commute the death sentence for one murderer may be extending deserved mercy, but to extend this type of mercy to all thugs and murderers is to throw pearls before swine. We are moral beings accountable for our actions. If we dispense forgiveness and mercy

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
in wholesale lots to those who have not earned it by repentance, then we cheapen both mercy and justice. We offend God's law, rather than act in accordance with it. The Bible teaches us that God is a merciful God, but it teaches us that he is first of all a just God. The Bible has a lot to say about life, mercy and forgiveness, but it never questions the essential justice of execution for murder. Again and again it reiterates what the consequences of murder are: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death". Also, "and they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword"; "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed". In Acts 25:11, the Apostle Paul said:
If then I am a criminal, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not beg off and seek to escape death.
What the ancient societies knew and accepted, today we doubt and deny, and in so doing we have abdicated justice. Capital punishment is horrible, of course it is, and who can deny it. But is not the nature of all punishment horrible? No penalty can be both sophisticated and effective at the same time, but that does not make it any less necessary or just. To abolish it is to sacrifice the element of justice inherent in it, to be weak when we should be strong, to lack the courage that is required by our convictions of what is just and right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member, it being five o'clock.


Peter Paul Masniuk: Mr. Speaker, may I continue for another minute and a half and complete my speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Peter Paul Masniuk: I thank hon. members for their courtesy. I have only a few more comments to make. We live in a society which operates on the rule of law, as I have stated, and one of the basic tenets of both God's law and man's law is that human life is precious and important, the most precious of all human possessions. What is just penalty for the murderer who kills another, who deprives another being of his life, if not the forfeiture of his own? To require any less is to say that we do not really believe in justice, nor do we really believe that life is all that precious. Capital punishment for murder affirms our belief in justice and declares, in unequivocal terms, how important we regard life when we require that one who deprives another person of his life should thereby forfeit his own right to live.
We either live in a society where justice prevails, or we live in a society which without justice is not worth living in at all, because if there is no justice then life has no meaning. We either believe in the value of human life and are willing to affirm that belief by executing murderers, or we indicate, by failing to affirm this belief by not executing murderers, that life is both valueless and meaningless.
I choose to live in a society in which justice does prevail and in which life does have meaning. I desire a society which has the courage to affirm its belief in justice and the

importance of human life, and therefore I am unable to support this abolitionist, government bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jeli-nek)-Sports-Reason for alleged double standard in dealing with South Africa; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Measures to protect visitors to Olympic Games against polio-possible use of Sabin oral vaccine; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-External Affairs-Mining nickel from seabed-involvement of workers in developing strategy for negotiations-Position taken by INCO.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to order made on Friday, February 27, 1976, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motion.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has been agreed through the usual channels that subject to a subsequent challenge today we are to deal with order No. 44 on page 32 of last Monday's order paper, that is, Bill C-244 standing in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson).


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is so agreed, with the usual challenge.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I rose at this time on a point of order you indicated that you would take the matter under advisement. I gave notice at that time that I would rise today to amplify and complete my argument to attempt to illustrate that we are not following the intent of the Standing Orders of this House or that, at best, those Standing Orders are being misinterpreted. Let me say at the outset that my point of order is in no way intended to reflect on the subject matter of today's private members' hour or, for that matter, on the subject matter selected for any previous private members' hour. The point of order refers to the treatment or disposal of the bills or orders which precede on the order paper the item which is called for debate.

With reference to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) yesterday, the suggestion was that this was the first complaint and that prior to making my comments I should have advised him. For his benefit, may I say that I have risen several times during this session on the same subject. Earlier in the session he will read on the order paper that an item of private members' business was, by unanimous consent, allowed to stand and retain its position. Resulting from my interventions at that time, the wording on the order paper has been changed. In addition, a sheet is distributed to hon. members indicating the business which is likely to be called in private members' hours. The sheet generally arrives late in the week after one or two private members' hours have passed. The sheet is not available to the public, which might be taking an interest in House business.
For this point of order today I can use almost any recent private members' hour, but for emphasis I will use the particular day which best illustrates the ridiculous position into which we are putting ourselves, the thirteenth day of last month. On that day the item called was No. 112 on the list of public bills. It is interesting to note that this particular bill was preceded by public bills sponsored by 28 different hon. members of this House. Several of those hon. members has more than one bill on the list.
The hon. member who is moving the bill listed for debate today has a total of ten bills listed prior to the one which was called for debate. The hon. member who moved his public bill that day himself had four other bills listed before the one which was called. All these bills, including those of the hon. member who spoke that day, retained their position on the order paper. Yesterday the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), an acknowledged expert on House procedures, said:
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I do not believe the government should have the right to dictate what takes place in private members' hours. That is the right of the private member. If private members choose not to have their business come forward, that is their right. I do not believe the government should impose on the House of Commons what is to be taken up in private members' hours-
If I may-as everyone else does-I will quote an extract from Beauchesne's. I am quoting from citation No. 87 which reads as follows:
When an order of the day has been read, it must thereupon be proceeded with, appointed for a future day, or discharged.
Mr. Speaker, on April 25 of last year, if I may quote Your Honour, you said the following:
The hon. member has the right to raise this point of order again. I should like to refer him to standing Order 18( 1) which reads:
"All items standing on the orders of the day, except government
orders, shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each
on the order paper."
By the rule books this means that the House should call item by item those that appear on the order paper. The only problem is that if they are not proceeded with they go down to the end of the list, and the hon. member directly concerned loses his turn.
If the hon. member does not give unanimous consent I will call each of the bills on the order paper, one by one.
I suggest that if we had followed that procedure on April 25, 1975, we would have run out of time before the debate had started on the particular bill in question. I have one
Private Members' Public Bills
further quotation which was a ruling by Mr. Speaker on May 2, 1975:
The first-
Referring to two comments.
-is that the government, as such, really has no particular control over the conduct of private member's business. An indication of consent or otherwise from the government as to the ability of a bill or any other measure to stand and retain its priority is no different from the indication of any other member of the House.
The point I am trying to make-and I find it somewhat difficult; I have to rise many times-is that we must have some prior knowledge of the business which is to be conducted in this House. Under the present procedures, this is an impossibility. It is not only difficult for hon. members, but it is an impossibility for the public, and I think the public is certainly entitled to know what is to be going on in this House in the way of business. The business should be listed on the order paper. We should know what is coming up. That is the precedent which was established in the past.
In view of these additional arguments, Your Honour may wish to take this whole matter under advisement and give a ruling later. Should the Chair rule that I do not have a point of order and if this procedure is to continue, I should then want to point out some of the opportunities which are open to hon. members to make somewhat of a farce of the procedures in private members' hour. I would request the opportunity to present that argument at that time, depending on the ruling and whether the Chair intends to rule on whether this is a point of order at this time.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I do not intend to be very long. I made some remarks yesterday, and I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). His point of view is a very valid one. That is perhaps one of the reasons why the whole matter of private member's business has been referred to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, so that the matter may be deliberated upon and recommendations made to the House. We are looking forward to some rather draconian changes in procedure.
I take exception to the impression the hon. member for Vaudreuil leaves, however, that the whole matter of private members' business is being influenced by government action. Mr. Speaker, there is no government intervention. The reason I, as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, may be responsible in some way for the orderliness of private members' business is that we have the administrative facilities. One of the reasons we have such a number of bills that are before those we deal with, in most instances-matters that are allowed to stand-is that effectively we want to provide to all hon. members the opportunity to debate their particular motions. As I pointed out yesterday, there are a number of instances when members cannot be here to debate their bills, and they insist on having the bill remain on the order paper so that it can be deliberated in the future.
As the hon. member for Vaudreuil knows, under the present rules there is a provision where only a certain limited number of bills standing in the order of precedence

May 11, 1976
Private Members' Public Bills
can be disposed of in any given session. At the beginning of each session a lot is drawn; a number of bills are drawn out. So when we dispose of 30 items of private members' business in a session, we do very well. Individual members who have had the luck of the draw want to preserve their priority. It was in order to accommodate them that we adopted the procedure we are now following.
Under Standing Order 19 there is provision whereby any order that is called, and with which the hon. member is not ready to proceed for one reason or another, can be stood at the request of the government. That is stipulated by the Standing Order. That was brought into being because of the hon. member for Vaudreuil bringing to the attention of the House basically the point he is making now. Evidently, all members opposite do not share his views. There was an indication by hon. members generally, however, that the procedure which was accepted by the House-namely, that the government express this wish through the parliamentary secretary to have all matters stood-was acceptable to individual members. That is the extent of government intervention; it lends its name to private members who do not wish to have matters debated at the time they are called, but by the same token do not wish to lose their priority. Effectively, we accommodate private members by proceeding in this way.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil has drawn our attention to a situation in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was involved when we dealt with Bill C-311 although there were a number of bills preceding it. I agree that in that one instance in the session we abandoned the usual course, which is to review all items in their order of priority, by asking all individuals in that priority whether they wanted their business proceeded with.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had Bills C-250, C-256, C-260 and C-288 on the list ahead of Bill C-311. He did not wish to proceed with those matters, and we approached him to give him the time that was available because he had precedence. He inquired whether we could deal with Bill C-311. The matter was discussed and I used my discretion-and perhaps I am being attacked now for having done so-in according to a very honourable member of the House the privilege of dealing with an item which, in effect, was not in accordance with the usual procedures that we follow. The matter was disposed of in due course. Was I wrong in exercision that discretion? If I was, I stand to be judged.
All I want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, is that we attempt to provide to hon. members as soon as practicable those items which will be dealt with in the next session, first contacting the individual members who have priority in order to determine whether they will be available and whether they wish to proceed with a particular item of business. Having ensured that a member will be here to debate the item of business, we communicate with the interested parties, including the government. Then we set the matter down and advise all hon. members of the matter that is going to be debated on a given day.
There is a limitation on the amount of time available in which to advise members and the public generally, because of the allocation of government supply days. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a certain number of days are designated for

the opposition but they are not determined so far in advance that we know exactly when they will come. Private members' bills, of course, cannot be dealt with on those days. It becomes very difficult for us to advise members what business will be dealt with in private members' hour unless we know when opposition days will be set. Effectively, that puts certain restraints upon us. So we have two very serious limitations as far as giving prior notice. One is ascertaining that private members are ready to proceed, and the other is ascertaining when there is going to be a private members' hour.
Those are my submissions, Mr. Speaker. I think the whole matter can be resolved by the proper application of Standing Order 19(1) which reads as follows:
Questions put by members and notices of motions, not taken up when called may (upon the request of the government) be allowed to stand and retain their precedence; otherwise they will disappear from the order paper. They may, however, be renewed.
What the government has been doing is giving its consent in accordance with Standing Order 19(1).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is just one facet of this matter on which I should like to say a word or two, and I had intended to do that before I was dragged into this debate by the references from across the floor. May I simply say, with respect to that bill of mine far down the list that was allowed on April 13, that the information communicated to me at that time was that nobody with a bill ahead of mine was prepared to go, and I was. I also point out that on two occasions when I was allowed time for that bill, I surrendered it. On one occasion it was so that we could deal with the prisoner of war legislation, and on another occasion it was so that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could make his statement with respect to the patriation of the British North America Act.
The one point about which I should like to say a word is that raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and also by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) the other day; that is, the use of the phrase which appears in the order paper repeatedly, "allowed to stand at the request of the government". The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) has pointed out quite clearly that this is just a device. Actually, what happens is that the member requests that his bill stand, but since the rule book says it has to be done at the request of the government, he asks the government to do it. The government makes the request, and the matter stands.
I join with the parliamentary secretary in welcoming the fact that this whole matter is in the hands of a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I hope this aspect of it will be sorted out so that we do not use this phrase which means something other than what we really mean. What happens is that a member requests that his bill stands, but it appears in the record as though the government requested it, and that enables the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River to say that somehow the government is interfering with private members' business.
If I may recall those ancient days when I first came here, the rule was a little different. In those days a matter could stand once, but the second time it was called-and I think
May 11, 1976

the hon. member for Vaudreuil might like this proposal-it was dropped unless there was unanimous consent for it to stay on the order paper. The change from that practice, that is, to having the government request it, was to get around the fact that sometimes some mean persons would not give their consent. I want to express the hope that a way can be found so that in reasonable cases bills can be allowed to stand; but it should be made clear that this has been done at the request of the member himself, so that it does not seem as if the government has the entire say about the matter.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, the last two interventions require some comment. If I may answer the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the members who preceded him on the particular day in question, I point out-this is not in any way meant to be personal-that I had three bills which preceded the particular bill called, and considered each of them important enough to bring before the House if given the opportunity. I mention this only as I assume that several of the other 28 members may be in the same position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But I was told nobody else was ready.


Harold Thomas Herbert: That is correct. The subject raised that day was the same subject being discussed on the floor of the House under government orders. In other words, I assume it would have been possible for the hon. member to raise his matter in the form of an amendment to the government bill actually under discussion that day, a bill to do with the Citizenship Act. The point is that many of us were most interested in the subject and would have welcomed, if we had known about it, the opportunity to participate in the private member's debate that day.
May I deal with the comments of the parliamentary secretary who referred to Standing Order 19(1). That part of the Standing Order which he quoted says, "Questions put by members and notices of motions . . ." He did not read the words "public bills." That point was referred to by the Acting Speaker on April 14, as reported in Hansard. As I have already pointed out, after the intervention of April 14 by the Acting Speaker, and that of April 25 by Mr. Deputy Speaker-yourself, sir-Mr. Speaker himself made a ruling on May 2. In the circumstances, I do not think we should heed the argument of the parliamentary secretary with regard to Standing Order 19.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seriously, should the hon. member not consider the provisions of Standing Order 19(2) which reads in part:
Orders not proceeded with when called, upon the like request, may be allowed to stand . ..
The difficulty, it seems to me, is that Standing Order 19(2) puts bills in the same category as questions and notices of motions.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary read, and I quoted, part of Standing Order 19(1). I refer hon. members to the proceedings of April 14 during which there was reference to the whole of Standing Order 19.
Private Members' Public Bills
Despite what was said, Mr. Speaker ruled as he did on May
2.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their contributions. I am not sure what kind of conclusion will flow from the matter I am about to bring to the attention of the House at this time.
The point the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) raised seems to be based on his contention that the House is not following the intent of the Standing Order, or is incorrectly interpreting Standing .Orders 18 and 19 to which he referred. To prove his point, the hon. member referred particularly to what happened on April 13 last when the House considered item 112 under public bills. He brought to the attention of the House the fact that the hon. member who had moved, as sponsor, the public bill that day himself had three or four other bills listed on the order paper which preceded the one called and were stood at the request of the government.
He also, in my opinion, referred to an occasion on which the House proceeded by unanimous consent. I am not sure if he meant that day, April 13, or another day. In any case, I remember one occasion when the hon. member raised the question but did not thereby really further his argument. He complained about the procedure being followed but gave the Chair the impression that he was ready to let the House proceed without forcing the Chair to make a decision.
Today the hon. member referred to citation 87, page 81, of Beauchesne's fourth edition. The last sentence of citation 87(1) reads:
When an order of the day has been read, it must thereupon be proceeded with, appointed for a future day, or discharged.
To support his argument, the hon. member contends that hon. members ought to know in advance the order of business and that even the public should have prior knowledge of the business of the House of Commons, if I may use his own words. I say to the hon. member that the Chair can only interpret the existing Standing Order even though the Chair may approve the principle he is putting forward. The Chair must first look at the standing order and then decide if the practices of the past conform with the Standing Order. I think Standing Order 18(1) and all of Standing Order 19 ought to be read into the record so that they can readily be referred to if a decision must be made later.
Standing Order 18(1) reads:
All items standing on the orders of the day, except government orders, shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper.
Standing Order 19(1) reads:
Questions put by members and notices of motions, not taken up when called may (upon the request of the government) be allowed to stand and retain their precedence; otherwise they will disappear from the order paper. They may, however, be renewed.
Standing Order 19(2) reads:
Orders not proceeded with when called, upon the like request, may be allowed to stand retaining their precedence; otherwise they shall be dropped and be placed on the order paper for the next sitting after those of the same class at a similar stage.
The hon. member at this time asks the Chair to determine if the government is entitled, without consulting all hon. members of the House, to interfere as it wishes with
13412

May 11, 1976
Private Members' Public Bills
the order of House business during private members' hour. In my opinion, the difficulty stems from the words "All items . . . taken up according to . . The hon. member suggests that all items except government orders, should be considered according to precedence, or as they are listed on the order paper. On this, I suppose, all hon. members agree. But the main question is whether the government has power to request, without consulting hon. members, that an order shall be stood. Having read Standing Order 19(2), I conclude that the only person-or the only institution, if you like-which has the right to request that an order shall stand is the government.
In my opinion the Standing Order, it must have been put there for the same reason put forward by the parliamentary secretary. He suggested that it is the responsibility of the House leader to try to plan the work of the House for days in advance. He must give notice to other hon. members as to what day there will be a private members' hour or what order of the day will be taken.
The hon. member is asking the Chair to solve a problem that exists between the hon. member or other hon. members and the government or members of the House of Commons.
The Standing Order allows an order of the House to be stood at the request of the government. Only the government can make that request, but it is for the House to decide. Therefore the question is in what.way the House should decide. This is the difficulty I have to resolve. Possibly this point should be taken under advisement.
If I decided to apply Standing Order 19(2) strictly and forget about any agreement that might exist between the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) or any other member of the government and other hon. members or parties as to the order of business for private members' hour, and forgot about the distribution of lists of private members' business which have been initiated in recent months, and in which the Chair is not involved, I should at this time call every order, one by one. If hon. members do not accept the request of the government to stand each of the orders, the Chair must decide whether that supersedes the right of the government. I would have to decide whether to put the question with regard to whether the order should be stood every time. This would involve valuable time being lost to private members' hour.
The suggestion was made by the parliamentary secretary, and even more strongly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that the whole matter be considered by the sub-committee on procedure and organization which has been formed to look into private members' business. That is a valid suggestion. I feel this is better than asking the Chair to make a decision on a Standing Order which is not clear as to the procedure of disposing of that difficulty, thus, how should the House refuse to stand any private member's item of business.
Without minimizing the right of the hon. member to express his point of view on the organization of private members' business and his right, and that of other members, to have more input into the order of business during private members' hour, I feel we should leave it at that. I

am still prepared to take the matter under advisement. However, I would prefer the sub-committee on procedure and organization to study the matter and possibly design a Standing Order that is more precise and satisfies hon. members of the House.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I to conclude that the hon. member is agreeing that the matter should be examined by the sub-committee on procedure and organization and at the same time he is consenting to the standing of all orders before No. 44, and that we can proceed at the request of the government to stand these orders?


Harold Thomas Herbert: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


INTEREST ACT
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-244, to amend the Interest Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I trust that there is enough time remaining in private members' hour for me to put on record some of the notes I have on this matter. I will not speak too long in order that my bill will have a chance of being sent to committee.
The purpose of Bill C-244, as spelled out in the explanatory note, is to enable a mortgagor to redeem a mortgage by paying the amount of principal and interest then due, plus three months further interest. In this way unscrupulous mortgagees will be deterred from introducing excessively severe penalty clauses in small print. This is the specific and narrow purpose of my bill, which in short would stop pre-payment penalties that range from three months interest and upward.
However, the broader and more important reason for going ahead with Bill C-244 this afternoon is to provide members with at least an hour-of course on this occasion we will not have that much time-or hopefully more time if hon. members should decide the bill or subject matter should be sent to committee, to discuss from the borrower's side some of the smaller aspects of mortgages which are often overlooked when discussing the fundamental problem of interest rates.
I am viewing this from the borrower's point of view, for which I make no apologies, Mr. Speaker. The large lenders-the banks, trust companies and insurance companies-have always had the resources and expertise to argue their case more than adequately. Indeed within the wide parameter of the law they have, to a large degree, been able to write many of the rules. These institutions have a large and powerful voice when arguing for changes which would be to their benefit, or against those to their detriment. Granted, financial institutions are in business to make profit, but the nature of the business, considering the security they demand, leaves them the minimum of risk, virtually in a "no loss position". If chartered banks and
May 11, 1976

other lending institutions were experiencing financial difficulties, one could be more sympathetic. However, this is not the case. On the contrary, their profits are almost embarrassingly high.
The borrower, for his part, is just one individual who has really little or no say about the conditions of the mortgage. Oh yes, he may shop around, but this assumes that there are some real differences between mortgages offered, which may or may not be the case; also, he must possess a good knowledge of mortgages, which most do not have, only about 15 to 20 per cent of the population do so, and he must have the financial resources to pick and choose. For many people they must accept any mortgage they can get.
If we look at the borrower as a consumer, which he is, he may very well be the least knowledgeable, have the most limited choice of options, be the poorest organized and, in short, have the weakest bargaining position of any consumer in the country, and all this in relation to a product which normally will be the largest and most important investment in an individual's lifetime.
The mortgage market field cannot be considered a free market system like others. Not only is the commodity just too important and basic, but the relative strength between the buyers and sellers is simply too one-sided in favour of the lenders. For this reason government must be more than just a neutral, non-biased umpire. It must play an active role in strengthening the hand of the borrower or, conversely, limiting the power of the lender. I feel the excessively high pre-payment penalties are one such area in which it should act.
In my mind the whole concept of penalties for pre-payment of mortgages is questionable, but I can see some justification in the case where mortgage rates have dropped significantly and the lender may have difficulty finding another mortgagor. There may be some justification in that sort of situation, but that is virtually the direct opposite of the prevalent mortgage market today.
Take a situation where John Doe obtained a five year term mortgage in 1973 for, let us say, a 9 per cent interest rate, and today his rich Aunt Sadie leaves him $50,000, or he wins some lottery or whatever. Anyway, he has enough money to pay off the principal and interest due on the mortgage, which he does. Now this is really going to break up the lender. Oh yes, Mr. Speakers, for tomorrow in all likelihood he will lend that money out again to someone else, not at 9 per cent but probably something closer to 12 per cent. And John Doe, for the dastardly deed he has done to the poor lender, must pay a penalty of "x" months interest. This is totally ridiculous. The lender should be the one who pays John Doe a bonus for this kind of pre-payment.
I want to make it clear that although my bill suggests a pre-payment penalty of three months interest, it is just that, a suggestion for a maximum penalty allowed. Indeed I would want to change the bill. Proposed section 10.1 provides:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other Act, a mortgagor may, during the term of the mortgage, redeem the mortgage for the amount of principal and interest then due, plus three months further interest.
Interest Act
I wish to insert after the word "plus", the words "a maximum of".
I would like to see some flexibility built into this part of the act so that the penalties reflect as much as possible the current mortgage market conditions, including provisions for the payment of bonuses to borrowers when pre-payment is advantageous to the lender. The government must watch carefully to make sure that financial institutions do not use this kind of proposed toughening of the existing regulations and other as an excuse to divert funds from the mortgage field or to opt for shorter term mortgages.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on one other area which is related to the discussion this afternoon, and that is hidden closing costs. Today many lawyers and real estate brokers will advise clients to set aside at least $1,000 to cover these extra fees and pre-paid charges. Anyone who has ever bought a house knows that a broad range of items can show up at the last minute, including such obscure things as loan origination fee, loan discount points, appraisal fee, mortgage insurance application fee, pre-paid interest, pre-paid mortgage insurance premium, closing fee, and so on and so on.
Due to a law which came into effect last year in the United States, American home buyers are no longer surprised-perhaps shocked would be a more appropriate word-by such hidden closing costs. The U S. Real Estate Settlement Costs Act requires that the buyer be told to the penny how much it will cost to close on a house, exactly what each payment is for, and even what the previous buyer paid for the house if he or she owned it for less than two years. In addition, buyers must be given at least 12 days before they sign the final papers to look over the disclosure forms. If they do not like what they see, they can cancel the deal.
In Canada no such similar legislation exists to help home buyers. While much of what is contained in the U.S. act falls under provincial jurisdiction, I believe the federal government has a certain obligation to try to encourage similar legislation in this country, especially since the real estate and the lending industries do not appear willing to make full disclosure on a voluntary basis.
I hope hon. members may find that these minor problems, minor only in the light of the enormous over-all problems of housing and mortgage rates, are worth a more detailed examination, and as such decide the bill or its subject matter be referred to the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Commons.
I understand from the parliamentary secretary that it is suggested that the bill should not now be read the second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I want to say that I agree with this disposition of my bill and that the subject matter be referred to the committee. It is far better that the subject matter be referred to the committee than that the bill be talked out.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-244 is a step in the right direction but it really does not amount to very much. It is like a raindrop in a downpour. I should like through you, Mr. Speaker, to remind the hon. member that it was his government that set afoot the high increases
95568-15y2

May 11, 1976
Interest Act
in interest rates. In fact Canada has the highest interest rates in the world, the highest housing costs in the world, and highest land costs. This is the reputation that his government has earned over the years.
I recall that when we amended the Bank Act in 1967 we opened the floodgates in regard to high interest rates. At that time under the Bank Act there was a ceiling of 6 per cent, but we found that lending institutions, and more especially the banks, would not participate in the mortgage field. What they forced from the government was the taking off of that 6 per cent ceiling on interest rates, and from that time forward we have had ascending interest rates for loans, and more especially mortgage loans, across the country. This is the credit that can be attributed to the Liberal government.
I had just come here in 1965 and I recall how some of the younger members of the party opposite attempted to stop this removal of the ceiling. The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) was one of those who joined Walter Gordon in trying to prevent the taking off of this ceiling, and many other young Liberals also made the same attempt. But the then minister of finance, the present House leader, persuaded them that if they took off the ceiling there would be competition in the business world and that the rates would stabilize, or even go down. That did not happen, and it was the first mistake that the Liberal government made in regard to interest rates.
The second step was when Paul Hellyer in 1969 persuaded the government that mortgages should not be written for 25 year terms but rather five year terms, so as to make adjustments of interest rates in accordance with current trends. This was the price that he had to pay to the financial institution in order to persuade them to put money into mortgages. The result has been that, at the end of every five years of a mortgage term, people experience an increase in their interest rates. Under the old mortgage system the term was 20 or 25 years and the mortgagor had the security of knowing that the interest rate applied for that time.
When the interest rate ceiling was taken off in 1967 there was attached to CMHC mortgages, which were also at a rate of 6 per cent, a formula setting the rate at one per cent or VA per cent above the yield on bonds. That gave some control. But Mr. Hellyer was not satisfied with that; he also took off that control. He took off controls with regard to CMHC mortgages, so the combined effect of taking off control on mortgage interest rates and reducing the term from 25 years to five years is, as I say, that we have a reputation in Canada of having the highest interest rates in the world, with the highest land costs, and the highest housing cost. That is why I say that what the hon. member is attempting to do amounts to very little in the big scene regarding interest rates.
I am going to put on record just what interest rates do in respect of housing. I have a few figures here that I carry around in my wallet, because when I speak on housing from time to time it is nice to have a few figures to quote. This is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) also does with regard to pensions. He has always got information on pensions right in his pocket so

he will have ready reference to it. I do the same thing with regard to housing interest rates.
Let me give some figures regarding a mortgage for $25,000 for a term of 25 years at 11 per cent. The monthly payments will be $240.64, and over that 25-year period the borrower will pay $72,192. If that mortgage were at 6 per cent the borrower would pay $159.97 a month and the total amount would be $47,991, a difference of $25,000.
In today's market one knows that a $25,000 mortgage really will not finance a home, and that you have to get up to at least a $40,000 mortgage. On a $40,000 mortgage at 11 per cent a person pays $385.02 per month over a 25-year period, and the total amount that would be paid is $115,506. On a $40,000 mortgage at 6 per cent for 25 years the person pays $255.94 a month for a total of $76,782. In other words the difference between a $40,000 mortgage at 11 per cent and a $40,000 mortgage at 6 per cent over a 25-year term amounts to $39,000. That $39,000 is what the borrower has to pay in difference if he gets a mortgage at 11 per cent as compared to 6 per cent.
In biblical times they used to talk about usury. That is a word that was replete in the Old Testament. We should bring it back today. The word usury should be used many times just to underline to borrowers what is taking place.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Maybe we should make it a capital offence.


John Gilbert: The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) suggests that usury should be a capital offence, and I am inclined to agree with him.
This is the problem with which we are faced. The step the hon. member suggests is a step in the right direction, but it is a very small step toward solving the problem of high interest rates. I know the hon. member is one who is concerned about people. I have known him for a few years. He is a fellow lawyer and I think he is concerned about people. If we are concerned about people we have to be concerned about their housing problems. We have to build affordable houses, as the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) suggests. If we are to build affordable houses we must look at interest rates. We must have interest rates which give the borrower a fair chance to pay off his mortgage. The only way this can be done is by having low interest rates. It is up to the government to control interest rates with regard to housing so that people can afford them.
It is up to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to bring forth legislation which controls financial institutions, banks, mortgage companies, trust companies, and insurance companies so they do not charge unconscionable and usurious interest rates.
In order that the bill is not talked out let me conclude by saying I am in favour of it but, my gracious, it is a very short step with respect to a big problem.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for bringing this question of mortgage payments to the attention of the House.
In view of the fact that the government, through the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Mack-
May 11, 1976

asey), intends to introduce legislation before the end of this session to deal with mortgage rates as one aspect of revised federal consumer credit legislation, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore has kindly consented to have this bill not given second reading at this time, but to have the subject matter referred to the appropriate standing committee for consideration when the committee receives the minister's consumer credit legislation. I am advising the House that my minister concurs in this procedure of referring the subject matter of this bill to the appropriate standing committee at that time.
Among other things, the appropriate committee could examine the possibility that Bill C-244 may have the effect of driving mortgage funds from the market. I am sure all hon. members will agree that we need improved consumer credit legislation, and that is the intention of my minister.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan):
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the word "That" and substituting therefor the following:
Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Interest Act, be not now read a
second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and
the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on
Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended, agreed to.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

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.
Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, no one will deny that the question of whether or not to abolish capital punishment is the most difficult problem likely to
Capital Punishment
be faced by members of this thirtieth parliament. Few, if any, other issues have attracted as much public attention and concern. Debate in the media has centred not only on whether the use of the death penalty should be ended, but also on how members of parliament should reach their decisions. My mail has also reflected the divergence of opinion which exists on this point, that is, whether a member of parliament should vote according to his conscience or according to the views of the majority of his constituents.
During my election campaign I made it very clear that I am against all forms of killing, whether it be abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or war. My opposition to these methods of ending life varies by degree in relation to each of them. For example, I am completely opposed to abortion and would never vote in favour of a freer abortion law, even to the extent that I would put my seat in this House on the line. At the other end of the scale, I would make no such commitment against wars. Although ideally I would like to see an end to war, I do not feel that man has progressed to the point where war is obsolete.
My views on capital punishment fall in between those two extremes. Even though my personal feelings are for abolition, I cannot give a satisfactory answer to the question of the hired killer. In this case capital punishment is not a deterrent. There is no hope for rehabilitation of the criminal, yet society must be protected. I will be able, therefore, to live with a decision either way that is, to retain or abolish the use of capital punishment.
Realizing that I had the responsibility to take a stand on the issue, I was faced with the problem of what that stand should be. I decided to ask my constituents. In support of taking that action, I would like to refer hon. members on both sides of the House to a resolution passed at the National Convention of the Liberal Party of Canada in November, 1975. It was resolved that:
Members of Parliament be encouraged to canvass their constituents' opinions on specific and general policies.
This being a free vote, I feel that we have been given an ideal opportunity to democratize the decision making process in this instance. Certainly it is not practical or proper to survey popular opinion on every question with which we must deal, but on a moral issue of this nature I feel such action is justified and, indeed, essential. The alienation of the electorate from the government is becoming increasingly evident.
Here we have a chance to let the people know that they are being listened to. I campaigned on this theme in 1974, and I still feel that as the representative of my constituents I am here primarily to help enact the legislation that they want. For that reason I circulated a questionnaire to all households in my riding in March of this year. Of the 30,000 delivered, I received 6,008 completed returns, an over 20 per cent response. Any member who has surveyed his constituents will realize that that represents a very satisfactory return, one of the largest known. It also represents a suitable percentage for making a statistically accurate analysis.
In the questionnaire I asked four questions. Taking into account the proposed peace and security measures of Bill C-83, the first question asked whether the respondent favoured the abolition of capital punishment. For the

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
record, Mr. Speaker, I would like to show that the response to this question, as for the others, remained essentially the same no matter what the questionnaire return level was.
With 3.98 per cent of the questionnaires returned, 73.3 per cent of respondents were opposed to abolition of capital punishment. At the 7.9 per cent level, 72.1 per cent were opposed; at 12.52 per cent, 71.0 per cent were opposed; at 16.93 per cent, 70.5 per cent were opposed; at 18.2 per cent, 70.5 per cent remained opposed, and at the 20.03 per cent level, the final tally, 70.7 per cent of respondents were opposed to abolition. That result shows a clear and overwhelming support for the use of the death penalty.
Question No. 2 asked the 70.7 per cent who answered the first question in favour of capital punishment whether they wanted the death penalty reserved only for murders of police and prison guards. In this instance 86 per cent replied that no, those involved in enforcing the law should not be singled out for special consideration.
My third question asked the same people, those who favour retaining capital punishment, whether the death penalty should be available for use against those persons convicted of first degree murder as it is defined in Bill C-83. Ninety-five per cent replied in favour of capital punishment for that group of murderers.
Finally, I asked if I, as a member of parliament, should vote according to my own conscience on this issue. Sixty-six per cent replied that no, I should not. Therefore while approximately one third of my constituents feel that I should vote according to my conscience, two-thirds, representing a significant majority, feel that I should not, but instead should represent the majority feeling of my riding. I will, therefore, respect the wishes of that majority and not vote according to conscience, but instead will vote against Bill C-84.
As I explained earlier, the capital punishment issue provided an excellent opportunity for the government to seek public support for changing the existing law. Moral issues such as the one we are presently debating arise infrequently. Also there will be a free vote. With this situation, and the fact that two thirds of my constituents feel that I should vote according to the majority opinion, I feel that the government is wrong in not seeking the views of the majority of Canadians, and acting accordingly. Sixty per cent of those people responding to my questionnaire added their comments on the issue, and one comment that was made time and time again was that my constituents were very grateful for the opportunity to have their opinions heard and considered.
Although the deterrent effect of capital punishment has been widely debated, the fact that so many people believe that it is a deterrent should be seriously considered. In the same way as the rule of law will be ineffective unless everyone in society has respect for the law, if most Canadians feel that capital punishment does serve as a deterrent, it would be reasonable to assume that the general acceptance of that principle would lead to its having an effect on the general population. I feel in this instance that the government missed a great opportunity to redress the feeling of alienation now felt by many citizens of this country.

The government should listen to the people on questions related to deeply held moral beliefs.


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


Mr, Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Not for LaSalle, Mr. Speaker, for Joliette.
Mr. Speaker, when you asked me to speak, as the member for LaSalle, I thought you meant that the riding of Joliette belongs to LaSalle.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that we are discussing a basic issue for the future of society. I realize also that this legislation is one of the most serious we ever discussed in the House.
I want to be quite clear and specific in my comments, and I want to say also to those who do not share my opinion, that I deeply respect their views.
I remember having the opportunity to discuss this matter since I arrived in this House in 1968, and I also remember that the debates were very interesting. I wish to say that my decision is final and that I will vote against the bill before us.
The public at large and those who advocate the abolition of capital punishment are often tempted to blame society. In their opinion, society is responsible for everything. I suggest that we have our own responsibilities within society. But the public is concerned and all the attempts made by this government since 1968 have not brought about the security which they are entitled to expect.
I had the opportunity to listen to a few speeches on Bill C-84. I wish to draw the attention of the House on the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). Of course, others have also made excellent points for or against capital punishment, but I believe that all members of this House would benefit from reading again and again the remarks made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. Given his experience, of course, for which I have much respect, he was dealing with a matter which he knows very well. He was able to discuss this matter much better and in a much more enlightened way than I. His comments deserve all my congratulations and I think he destroyed one after the other the arguments put forward by the Solicitor General in introducing this legislation.
When dealing with capital punishment, some people say it is a barbaric method. One must think, nevertheless, of these businessmen, these restaurant owners, these pharmacists or these people who work in banks and who have been unhappily shot down by people who had decided to overlook the respect for somebody else's life to achieve their purposes. I would be inclined, Mr. Speaker, to blame the government for not abiding in the first place, by the legislation now before us.
Like all my colleagues, I know that when we last discussed this matter, we agreed to enforce the death penalty for the murder of prison guards and policemen. Such has not been the case, and I remember, Mr. Speaker. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when he intro-
May 11, 1976

duced and supported that legislation, made no secret of the fact that he would never enforce the death penalty while he was Prime Minister. Recently, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) made no bones about the possibility of his resignation if his bill was defeated.
Mr. Speaker, when we have a government whose leader says he will not enforce a legislation he tries to sell us, I find that indecent and dishonest. We had democratically voted in this House on a legislation which has not been applied. Of course, some will say that the act gives the cabinet the authority to commute death sentences. But the act also says that capital punishment will apply when a prison guard or a police officer is killed with premeditation, and that has not been done.
Mr. Speaker, I will be very outspoken, this is not a matter of deterrence. Of course, members on all sides have tried to determine whether the implementation of capital punishment had a deterrent effect. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of justice. Whenever I am reminded of this ever actual commandment "Thou shalt not kill", I would like to point out to the murderers that this commandment should first apply to them and that they should know that whenever they choose, in order to achieve their ends, to get rid of anybody who happens to be in their way they should expect this kind of punishment.
I do not feel I am any worse than anyone else, Mr. Speaker. As far as I am concerned, I think that this is a matter of justice, and in this world of ours, I think we can consider it this way. Of course, there are not only members in the House of Commons but there are people in this world who are most scrupulous when the death penalty is being discussed. Mr. Speaker, should the House decide in favour of the death penalty, those who, in order to achieve their ends, intend to get rid of someone, will think twice before doing so. When one is squeamish about capital punishment, that is soon forgotten in wartime. That question was raised by one of my colleagues here in this House. Nobody hesitates Mr. Speaker, when one's country is at war, to fight and slaughter countless innocents.
Neither the Solicitor General nor anybody else has ever raised the matter of the indirect participation of Canada in the Vietnam war. Very little mention was made of it, Mr. Speaker, yet, I think we might have asked ourselves that question. To what extent have we not participated indirectly in the slaughter of thousands of Vietnamese? But it was interesting for certain industries, Mr. Speaker. Those scruples we have about the bill before us, we did not have them at the time, and I cannot remember the Solicitor General having deplored the indirect participation of Canada in that war. When a severe penalty must, of course, be imposed on that inveterate criminal, on that habitual murderer, on the one who, in order to achieve his purpose, plans to take the life of someone else, then we have scrupules.
Today, Mr. Speaker, with criminologists and psychologists-because I imagine there are a number of them in the office of the Solicitor General-one is tempted to make us believe that there are possibilities of rehabilitation. One is tempted also to say in particular that that always depends on society.
Capital Punishment
I am one of those who believe that we must improve the social climate and that considering the economic difficulties we are experiencing, this is not likely to reduce the number of robberies. But, Mr. Speaker, that is a long way from making a business out of it and a source of income to live in this earthly world.
Of course we all wish to improve that social climate by different steps. And why would we accept to forgive so easily a minority of people who allow themselves anything while the great majority endures that social climate which is so difficult, tolerates, waits out and still hopes that the situation might improve so as to be able to live decently and thus get an adequate income to allow them to live decently.
There was talk about a free vote. There is no doubt that on this side of the House all my colleagues will vote quite freely and according to their conscience. I have difficulty, Mr. Speaker, accepting that the Prime Minister should have gone as far as saying at one point that he might consider tendering his resignation if Parliament voted in favour of capital punishment. I have just as much difficulty accepting that the Solicitor General responsible for this bill should infer that he could not accept that his bill should not be passed. And how far will hon. government members try to cooperate and support not necessarily the bill but the minister in charge or the Prime Minister? When reference is made to a free vote I must say I have doubts.
Earlier a colleague talked about a certain survey. The survey made by the Metro Toronto Police Association is significant and quite clear. There was a question: Should capital punishment be retained for murders of policemen or guards? If you limit yourself to those categories, the answers are for the most part negative. But when we are asking people whether the death penalty should be retained for any crime, any premeditated crime, 87 per cent of them answer yes.
A few years ago, when the last vote was taken on capital punishment, I conducted like other members, an inquiry in my riding and 88 per cent of my constituents said they were in favour of capital punishment. I did not ask for another poll recently, but, like many other members, I have received my fair share of submissions and comments. It is quite clear that Canadians are in favour of capital punishment for inveterate criminals and those who commit premeditated crimes. That is quite clear. There are some reservations in respect of some forms of crime. When a convicted criminal is involved, the public recommends the application of the death penalty. I also know, as a result of investigations, that the public would be in favour of a referendum on this matter. Not only the Solicitor General but also the government know full well that a referendum on the matter would be decisively in favour of the death penalty in the cases I mentioned a while ago.
We are offered an alternative: 25 years in jail. Mention is made of 15 years in prison, with the possibility of a parole. But it is hard at this point to trust the government proposing such legislation: difficult because of the experiences made with regard to paroles and other practices which the people, generally, did not look upon kindly. Those experiences did not bring, not by a long shot, what the governm-nent has hoped. By refusing to apply the act it asked us to

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
pass a few years ago it also prevents us from trusting it as it hoped. The arguments invoked this afternoon by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), who is well versed in the matter, demolished one by one the arguments presented by the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand). If he wants to prove his sincerity, even ever so slightly, I believe he could make comments tomorrow that would be quite contrary to those he made on introducing the bill.
And so, with all the chances of evasion we know, in the case of this 25-year imprisonment penalty, we know very well that the criminal condemned to that term in prison will not hesitate to commit another crime to escape from it. What does 25 years more or less mean when he has been sentenced to 25 years? I do not think that such a proposal is acceptable. A miscarriage of justice has also been mentioned. Of course, I am not a lawyer. I am an average man but I have my views on the matter. And the Solicitor General pointed out more particularly that the poor had an handicap because they could not afford costly defence lawyers as the rich do and were discriminated against from the start.
This is perhaps the best solution. This Parliament could provide the poor with as good a defence as that obtained by the rich. I think it is important to provide the accused with a complete defence which without being perfect would be equal to the defence given to those who can afford the best lawyers. I think Parliament should be responsible for ensuring that any individual benefits from an adequate defence when he is accused of murder.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe said this afternoon and I have every reason to believe him owing to his experience as a judge, and other lawyers in the House have also stated that the mechanisms of justice were altered, that we had reason to believe that a miscarriage of justice could no longer happen. But to the extent that there is the shadow of a doubt, the enforcement of the death penalty could not be recommend. I think that those comments are commendable. I therefore consider only the well prepared premeditated murder by the criminal who will do anything to achieve his ends, as I said, to remove all those who stand in his way. The same goes for criminals who do not hesitate to get rid of an embarrassing witness in a future trial. I think that we are under the obligation perhaps to be stern but also to be fair. Mr. Speaker, we are also told that hanging is a somewhat savage process. We could come forward with measures or suggestions for some changes in this regard. We could also do away with someone who constitutes a danger for society by administering a pill or giving an injection; let us adopt another method if the rope seems repulsive to some people. It is important to maintain and to resume implementation of the death penalty.
My friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in winding up his speech last night insisted that we should all let our minds dwell on life, not on death. I would like my mind to dwell on the life of the innocents victims who were killed by criminals, Mr. Speaker. And like him, I let my mind dwell on life, on the life of those innocent people who, at a certain point in time, because of our parole system or as the result of convicts escaping, have met with the fate we know because we did not apply what I think is
[Mr. La Salle.)
needed, and what I consider a measure of justice for the unscrupulous killer.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I could quote statements and statistics for or against it. When we refer to the possibility that an innocent person may have been hanged, we refuse to add up the number of innocent people who have been killed by those who deserved the death penalty and managed to get away with it by all sorts of means, resumed their criminal activities and killed a number of innocent people. It might be difficult to find out exactly how many such innocent people there have been, but we know very well that if we did add them up, the number would greatly exceed the number of judicial mistakes. Once again, thanks to more modern procedures, judicial mistakes have become virtually impossible, and where the flimsiest shadow of a doubt does exist, we do not recommend the death penalty. And if this government or this Parliament were to give the underprivileged the same defence opportunities as are available to the rich people, I believe that we would eradicate all doubts concerning charges made against anyone.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much time, but I would like to say that, in view of the wishes of the majority, this bill is unacceptable if we look at the present situation and the increase in the crime rate throughout Canada. As I live close to metropolitan Montreal, I am aware of what is going on there, and I believe that the situation is serious, with certain reservations concerning these crimes. Several other members have dealt with facts and submitted evidence.
I do not want to repeat all these facts and statistics tonight because others have done so before me, but again, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we would benefit from going over the speach delivered here by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (M. Wagner). He spoke objectively, realistically and from experience, and therefore, I believe that we would benefit from reading this speech so as to truly understand the need and the necessity to apply the death penalty without feeling any less compassion for certain types of criminals and without favoring any less the improvement of our social climate, which could, in itself, reduce the crime rate, and without remaining any less open towards the assistance that we can give these unfortunate people.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wishing that true justice may finally be implemented in Canada.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the House has to study a question which has raised a lot of controversies all over the country, and this for many years. Of course, it is not very interesting to discuss whether we should take the lives of some of our fellow human beings. But a fact remains: each man and each woman has the right to live and when someone dares to threaten deliberately the life of another human being I sincerely think that we do not have to protect his or her life as he or she has not protected that of the other.
Our goal today is to attempt to study this thorny question so that we can make decisions worthy of our civilization. Besides, to my mind, I think that the search for answers, as far as the taking of the lives of some of our fellow human beings is concerned, should be done very
May 11, 1976

carefully and prudently before considering total abolition of the death penalty, especially at a time when so many horrible crimes are committed.
Mr. Speaker, to abolish the death penalty, as Bill C-84 proposes, is like abandoning the innocent between the hands of the guilty and telling them just this: Listen, murderers, go ahead, do as you please. The law prescribes that nobody can touch you; furthermore, it aims at protecting your lives at the expense of the lives of your victims.
Unfortunately, the bill we are now studying would abolish the death penalty for people convicted of murder and replace the death penalty with life imprisonment. We can also notice that the new arrangements for the application of the death penalty will vary depending whether they concern first degree or second degree murder. First degree murder covers, if I refer to the bill, planned and deliberate murders and contracted murders, that is to say hired killers; the murder of a police officer or that of a prison guard in the course of their duties; murder committed during the hijacking of an aircraft, a kidnapping or certain sexual offences, including rape and attempted rape. As for other murders, for example murders due to jealousy, they are considered second degree murders. Relating to the sentence, individuals of first degree murder will serve a 25 years prison term before being qualified, for the first time, to apply for parole. Whereas individuals convicted of second degree murder will not be qualified to apply for parole before they have served ten years of their sentence. However, in this latter case, the judge will be allowed to extend the minimum period to be served before the inmate can qualify for parole; in this respect, a maximum sentence of 25 years has been provided for in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, on March 4, 1974, the following appeared in the newspaper Le Droit, and I quote:
Is the death penalty better than a life sentence. In this connection, Pat Devlin, a prisoner at the Joyeeville penitentiary in Ontario stated: "It is better to impose the death penalty than to imprison an individual for life. The life of a prisoner is a brutalizing experience which cannot be understand by those who have not lived it. Criminals will not be rehabilitated by shutting them up in donjons."
Needless to say, free societies have an unalterable principle that the effect of the law is the same for everyone. From my early childhood, my parents have instilled that law into me. Today, the Solicitor General of Canada in presenting that bill seems to forget that principle since he wants us to accept two categories of murders, as I mentioned a while ago: first, the murder of policemen and guards which could entail a 25-year sentence without parole and, second, the murder of the so-called average citizens which would entail a 10-year sentence without parole. Big deal!
Mr. Speaker, we know that it was this House which decided that capital punishment would be retained in our Criminal Code for premeditated murder of a policeman or a prison guard, and we know that since 1962 there has not been a single hanging in Canada. Then why do we find those provisions in the Criminal Code if not to use them? For my part, I do not see any difference between the well planned murder of a policeman or a bank manager, for instance, or of an ordinary citizen, because the life of any
Capital Punishment
citizen is worth that of a policeman or a prison guard, and we cannot have a law for the rich and another for the poor.
If we retain capital punishment, we must realize that life has no age and that it is valuable to everyone whatever his social rank. I agree with the reasoning of legislators that the policeman-and I know what I am talking about because I have been a policeman myself for several years- has an important part to play in the protection of society and that his role justifies particular attention and protection, but we must not forget that in principle we are all equal under the law.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult to point out that the Solicitor General made another mistake in proposing Bill C-84 because how can he distinguish between the murder of a policeman and that of an ordinary citizen? Who would dare say that the murderer of a bank manager should have serve only a 15 year sentence? Once again, this bill makes a law for the rich and another for the poor and that seems to me very unfair.
So I believe that most not all members of the House, except, of course, the Solicitor General who dared propose such a bill to the Canadian people, will agree that the murder of a policeman is not different from the murder of any other citizen or a bank manager as I just mentioned.
Will capital punishment be retained or abolished in Canada? That is the question dividing opinions at this time. Some want to retain it to give greater security to society, others want to abolish it because it contradicts somes passages taken from the Bible. I conducted an inquiry recently in my riding, not only among the people I have known for a number of years, but more precisely among the heads of family. As a matter of fact, those who are in favour of reinstating capital punishment represented almost 85 per cent of the whole population. I received more than 1,240 letters and out of that number, over 1,000 were in favour of capital punishment.
Therefore, as we can see, this poll shows how important the question is to the people in the light of the number of murders committed these last few years in the province of Quebec and everywhere else in our country.
As I was saying, some claim that the Bible is against capital punishment, but to them I say this: the authority we personify comes from God. Now, the fact remains that if we base ourselves on the principle that capital punishment is barbaric and unworthy of a civilized era, we automatically deny that divine mandate.
On the other hand, I want to say that I agree that, for the unbeliever, the death penalty is unworthy of man and barbaric because, according to him death leads to naught, but, for me, a believer, my opinion should be entirely different, death being to my mind the passage from one life to another.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the God from whom we hold our authority did say:
Thou shalt not kill.
But it would also be fair to add that that same God provided the death penalty for he who would violate the precept. For in Genesis, chapter 9, verse 6, one reads this:
13420

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
All that they lead into captivity will be lead into captivity; all that they take the sword will perish with the sword.
And I could continue indefinitely, but I simply quote from the texts to make you understand that the Bible is not opposed to capital punishment. Surely, I understand very well that respect for life is not the prerogative of Christians: this principle is good for everyone. In any case, you will agree with me that the Christian principles are not the whim of one religion in particular. But for all these reasons, I consider that the federal government must reinstate capital punishment and that, when the proof is made that the murderer acted deliberately and knowingly, capital punishment must be applied. But I agree that it is sometimes difficult to prove the deliberate character of an act, as it depends on numerous factors, but when crimes are committed with premeditation, capital punishment must be applied.
Since capital punishment is not applied any more, murders are increasing. The criminals know very well that they risk much less. As a matter of fact, it is usually easy to see that lawyers often try to turn a charge of first degree murder into a charge of second degree murder or those who are guilty enjoy the leniency of the Cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely think that anyone killing deliberately must pay with his life for a crime so serious that nobody on this earth has a right to make an attempt on the life of his neighbour; and he who does so should be prepared to risk his own life.
If this government manages to have capital punishment abolished once and for all in this country, as they hope, one only has to believe then that the right lies within the power of the individual, that justice favours the strong and that finally strength prevails over law. Before concluding, I would like to point out that we probably are directly responsible for the fact that murderers have become wild beasts. As a matter of fact, several became so after serving long jail sentences and specially after having remained locked up too long because of our egoism.
So these men were compelled to rebel and take the only means available to force society to take care of them. Man lives in a society where there is no perfection because of its institutions, its structure and inequalities which, in time and with the means used, finally make him different from what he was naturally or ideologically meant to be. The sick society in which we live dictates to him a mode of living in a community, it imposes its laws which are derived from general behaviour and at the same time forces on him its ideas which will eventually become means of action that he will avail himself of to voice his protests against society. Then when this man has become aware that he is a robot in this society, a creature as imperfect as society itself, a being quite different from what he intended to be, he cannot do anything concrete to change his situation without being liable to a sanction which will compel him to pay for his wrongdoings, to repair the damage he has done to society.
True, it is important to ask oneself what attitude should be adopted towards murderers. However before we come to this issue, should we not wonder why there are killers, assassins and thieves since it is obvious that one does not
turn into a murderer overnight. No, Mr. Speaker, this is caused by our society which advocates permissiveness, and laisser faire. In this respect I would like to quote a few passages from a recent article in La Presse signed Suzanne and Francois Desmarais. I quote:
The deep cause of the rising crime rate, particularly among young people, is the rejection of all moral values.
This generates violence, family break up, free love, the so called sexual "liberation" alcohol and drug addiction. All this has been fostered by the media and magazine industry and by the legislation itself.
And further, Mr. Speaker, it says:
And when they talk of government responsibility, we would say this is the area where it should assert itself primarily. True, we must protect ourselves against an immediate threat but we must also go to the root of the problem and try to bring about the reforms which are required. We let evil go unbridled and now we want to check it with arbitrary laws.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, with the bill that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) presented to us, it is exactly what the government is trying to do. For, after having served their sentence, what will the murderers do? Prisons are full now and what does the federal government do in the way of practical rehabilitation?
What happens to inmates after their release from prison? What chance do they have to go back to the society in which we live, considering their court records follow them for the rest of their life? I know by experience as a former policeman, and I mentioned it at the beginning of my speech, that almost nothing is done in penitentiaries and prisons to give the inmates a new lease on life. On the contrary, very often a prisoner spends many months without talking to a social worker and if on top of that he is deserted by his wife, his children or, if you like, by his family, how do you expect, Mr. Speaker, this prisoner to fit easily into this society which, as I said, is very sick? I sincerely regret that such things may exist but after further reflection I understand very well the view of Pat Devlin, the inmate of Joyceville penitentiary in Ontario whom I mentioned a few minutes ago.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote a letter from a Mr. S. C. B. Robinson from Gananoque, in Ontario, who summarizes quite well the reasons for which I am favourable to the retention of capital punishment. I quote:
The value of life is a basic lesson of character, of reason and good sense that should be taught at home, at church, at school and through a whole series of social contacts. And, as a last resort, the state should teach it to those who did not understand and commit premeditated murders. At that stage, we should underline in an understandable manner the value of life and express it in a comparison with the own life of the murderer. In other words, the value of the victim's life should be equal to that of the murderer.
Capital punishment is a repulsive idea but society becomes absurd when it allows a murderer to kill a civil servant, beat a child to death or to shoot innocent by standers knowing very well that he will not pay with his own life.
A good number of our politicians claim that capital punishment is so repulsive that they cannot be party to its implementation but they declare that it is not repulsive enough to have a deterrent effect on a potential murderer. This reasoning seems perfectly illogical. The threat of capital punishment for the potential killer should allow the society to regulate a situation where the victim is unable to defend himself. Any other solution is favourable to the criminal and consequently, our citizens are less protected than they should be.
Capital punishment should not be applied to those who are convicted on circumstancial evidence and hanging should not necessarily be the only means to implement it but our nation should stop the present

May 11, 1976

inflation in the value of the murderer's life at the expense of that of the victim-we should be all equal before the law and before the murderer.
So, Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, I think that the retention of capital punishment in Canada is the only means to ensure real justice to persons convicted of capital murder. So I wish that every member in this House before making a decision having serious effects on our society will prevail himself of the stronger arguments and forget once and for all the sentimentality as the future of our children, of our wives and of our fellow citizens depends on it.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, on most occasions in this House members stand up and say how glad they are to speak on certain issues, but I think this is not a very happy occasion.
I should like to commence my remarks with a quote from W. Gunther Plaut, a rabbi from the Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto:
At this late stage what new light can anyone shed on the controversy over capital punishment? After all the arguments on both sides have been made with passion and the full force of reasoned argument-one must come to the conclusion that even if the debate continues from now until doomsday no one will get any wiser. For truth be told: wisdom is not at all involved in the decision.
With these opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the House and the people of Canada the archaic way we govern ourselves in this House at the present time, and the great need for reform. I am quite convinced, as I am sure are the people of Canada, that most members-by most I mean all but 2 to 3 per cent of the members sitting in this House-have decided which way they are going to vote, be it through emotion, through their hearts, or through the direction of their constituents.
This has been an emotional issue in this whole scenario in the House ever since 1962. We have stood up here as supposedly the champions of the people of Canada. We have emotionally involved not only ourselves but the people of Canada in a conflict, a conflict that Canadians cannot at this time really comprehend, and certainly one they cannot afford to have in these times of confusion, of suspicion of government. Individual Canadians do not know what the people next door are going to do or what we are going to do. I think it is our fault that this is an emotional issue, not just the fault of members sitting in the Chamber now but those who have sat here over the last 10, 12, 15 years.
Individual members have talked to the public on this capital punishment proposal and asked them what they want. I assume, Mr. Speaker, as does every member of this House, that the people of Canada have elected us. But what have we done, and why is there suspicion of government in this great country of ours? There is suspicion of government not just federally but provincially too, and as an ex-municipal politician I say even municipally. I see a period of frustration in Canada because the people have lost faith in their politicians. Why have they lost faith, Mr. Speaker? I would think the reason is because of our outlook on life and on Canada. We told the people-this government is at fault, there is no question of that-back
Capital Punishment
in 1967, 1968 or 1969 that capital punishment was still in effect but that the cabinet and government supporters in the back benches were not going to accept it. We have taken the trust of the people of Canada and completely ignored it.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am not a long-winded politician, but I should like to comment on a few areas. I like to get at the facts and to hit the people right between the eyes. I would question some of the comments made by the abolitionists. It is not that their views are not legitimate; they feel in their hearts that there should not be capital punishment. But I am sure that many members who agree with the retentionist view, as I do, are getting a little sick and tired of hearing from their colleagues on both sides of the House "You are a hanger"; or, "You believe in capital punishment, you just want to get rid of the problem". That is not the way I feel, and it is not the way my constituents feel in Middlesex-London-Lambton.


An hon. Member:: They say it is also barbaric.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Also barbaric, as my colleague from Davenport says.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport was not the one who made that interjection.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I think perhaps it was the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Andres). My concern with that outlook of people who feel that the retentionist attitude is that which I mentioned previously, that is, that we are some sort of monsters who would take somebody who has committed a very heinous crime and demolish them, is that it is not a true outlook. The people who believe in capital punishment are the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, the MP, and also the people of Canada who have elected all of us.
We have reached the position now where we say this is not an emotional viewpoint. Some areas have been referred to as emotionalism. I should like to quote from the Dalhou-sie Review, which I understand is the bible of many lawyers in this House. It states:
Sentimentality in the matter of crime and criminals, in which little or no account is taken of any distinction between the new offender and the confirmed outlaw, is perhaps an indication of an overwhelming moral upheaval. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this genial spirit of "live and let live" and of co-existence with known criminals has resulted in any greater measure of public safety. Quite the contrary. The insecurity of our cities increases year by year as the crime rate in virtually all categories surges relentlessly upward.
What this particular gentleman is saying is that because of our permissiveness, and because of our foregoing of our knowledge of the past, we are ignoring what is happening in Canada today. I agree with him when he suggests to us that we should look into our own hearts first before we prejudge. This is something we have not been doing. We have gone along with snowballing permissiveness, and the attitude of "let them get away with it". Each individual has done the same thing in his own business or his own
95568 -I6V2

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
area of endeavour. We have taken this attitude and winked at it. This is where that attitude leads us to.
Let me comment very briefly on the presentations the police have made to all members of parliament. My great concern is not in respect of the calibre of police we have today, and not in respect of justice that is presented to us by them under very difficult circumstances. It is very difficult for a policeman to take somebody into court at 8.30 in the morning and see them walk out on the street at 10.30. Policemen exist in their jobs to protect you and me, and all citizens of Canada. They have an obligation to society which perhaps parliamentarians, politicians, and the people have not recognized. They are the people who protect us.
My concern is not in respect of the degree of protection we have received or the diligence with which policemen have performed their duties. My concern rather is in respect of what have we done to them. We have told them there will be no capital punishment for murderers of policemen and prison guards.
Let us assume that this legislation is passed and we do not have capital punishment. Under those circumstances if a criminal comes out of a bank with a gun, will the policeman with the knowledge that no matter what happens to him or what has happened to the poor teller in the bank not be inclined to shoot first to kill? Will he hesitate because of the risk of being down graded? I suggest absolutely not because he is going to be applauded. This is a sad situation. My great concern really is that the police know the background and say. "To hell with it. We cannot depend on the Government of Canada and we cannot depend on the provincial or municipal governments. We will shoot first and ask questions afterwards." I suggest, Mr. Speaker, and members of this august body, that this type of mentality is not that far away.
I have spoken to policemen who have said to me "Larry, will you get some sense into them because we are ready to give up the whole thing." We are getting into a police state where the policemen shoot first. We are losing all sense of justice and fair play, no matter what the circumstances. This concerns me because policemen are the people who are supposed to protect us.
We have heard many statistics on both sides of the question. I will not go into gory details of murder, rape, and such things, and I will not go into detail regarding the contempt we have for murderers or the concern we have for our children. I would like to say this to you in an unemotional way. This is a decision to be made by every member of parliament after serious consideration for some period of time. Many of us have known since 1974 that we were going to have this debate and would have to make this decision. I am sure there is not a member here who will make the decision on any other basis than on the basis of his own feelings and the direction he has received from his constituents. Let us not forget the wishes of our constituents, as they are the ones who have put us here.
In closing I should like to paraphrase Rabbi Plaut, It so happens that my makeup and experience place me and the majority of my constituents, over 75 per cent, on the side of retention. But, having said that, I cannot possibly claim that this makes me right.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill because I doubt whether any other single issue has so plagued and tormented the consciences of Canadians than the case for capital punishment.
There have been some very interesting addresses made on this particular legislation, and I refer here to the speech made tonight by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), the speech we just listened to by the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon), the one made last evening by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), and the speech of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Those speakers arrived at different conclusions, but I submit that their thoughts given to this House could not help but make all of us think about the issue.
The doctrine of the sanctity of human life was developed a long time ago and not, it should be noted, by the present Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). Although compassion for human life is a basic tenet of western civilization, at the beginning of the 19th century in England more than 100 offences were punishable by death. Since then, numerous clergymen, lawyers, sociologists and others have agitated for a humanization of the penal administration. Their efforts succeeded in making our legal system more humane and more just, but in recent years we have, I believe, gone too far. Punishment and retribution have come to be considered unenlightened, and persons advocating them are often condemned as barbarians.
Present thinking, at least that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the present government, appears to have been influenced by social scientists and criminologists who emphasize social engineering and social justice in order to achieve reform and rehabilitation. I say to you, Sir, that a battered, distraught, dismayed, and concerned society has discovered that these abstract theories linking crime to environmental causes do not translate into concrete programs to protect citizens against violent crime.
To consider specifically capital punishment, I submit that two distinct questions present themselves for examination. First, is the death penalty an effective deterrent to crime? Second, can the taking of a life by the state be justified on moral grounds?
Let us examine the question of deterrence. This matter has been studied at great length, and the Solicitor General's department has engaged various experts who claim to have proven that capital punishment is no more effective a deterrent than a lengthy jail sentence. Before accepting such conclusions I must point out that their whole approach misses the point.
Repayment and retribution, including capital punishment, are important threads in the social fabric, not only because they deter or reform the offender but because they reassure and satisfy society. This is not the satisfaction of some dark animal need. Citizens live in society on the understanding that their lives, their dignity, and their right to enjoy their possessions will be protected. When adequate retribution follows injury, citizens can be reassured and satisfied that society really does place some
May 11, 1976

value on their persons. This, I submit, Mr. Speaker, was, and is, a central need for any society.
From 1961 to 1968, 28 individuals serving death-commuted sentences were paroled after spending an average of, was it 30 years-no, Mr. Speaker; was it 20 years-no, Mr. Speaker. It was after an average of only 12 years in prison prior to release, according to the Department of the Solicitor General in the document entitled "The prevention and control of violent crime in Canada" of March 1975, page 9. From 1968 to 1974 this figure rose to an average of 13.3 years for the 42 persons paroled from death-commuted sentences. In the light of these figures-and these are all the figures I intend to place on the record-it can be seen that the difference between the penalty for armed robbery, and murder, might be only a year or two-and under these circumstances a "death" sentence is hardly a deterrent.
One does not require a Ph.D. in sociology to know that a person who murders in the heat of the moment will not be deterred by the threat of capital punishment. The Criminal Code already allows society to distinguish between capital and non-capital murder. But how can the Solicitor General maintain that total abolition of capital punishment would not make criminals more disposed to killing policemen? This is the point that was just raised by the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon). Anyone who thinks criminals do not weigh the possibilities of getting caught, and do not understand they could be executed, is living in a dream world.
A society in which crime goes without real punishment, and in which victims receive no satisfaction for their injury, is one that may turn to vigilante justice. Cynicism and callous indifference to good and evil will result from our having less concern for the needs of those who observe the rules than for those who break them. Regardless of whether punishment deters or rehabilitates, it is necessary for justice. Justice is as much a part of the human condition as is mercy. Without either, society will degenerate into a dispassionate paradise, where there would be neither love nor hate, justice nor mercy, only preventive regulations.
Let us look, for example, at the question of morality. Sooner or later the opponents of capital punishment fall back upon the thesis that the state is altogether without the moral right to assume a prerogative that is God's alone. Admittedly, the deliberate and ceremonial taking of the life of a human being is offensive to most persons and this is why executions, when they do take place, are no longer performed in public.
It is generally agreed that it is wrong for the state to inflict torture, or any hideous punishment, no matter how callous the offence. No less reprehensible is the infliction of death for such offences as theft, embezzlement, smuggling, bribery, counterfeiting, or seditious utterances. Yet in protest against such inhumanity, should we unthinkingly jump to the opposite extreme and claim that no crime, however, dastardly, is deserving of the death penalty? These are the questions we must ask ourselves.
The right of an individual to take the life of another in defence of his person is hardly contested. Why is it proper on occasion for a private citizen to take the life of another, while the state may not do so under any circumstances whatsoever? Again, if it is allowable to deprive a would-be
Capital Punishment
murderer of his life in order to forestall a crime, why does it become morally reprehensible to do so after the crime has been committed?
It will be argued, no doubt, that an act of murder, once having been comrrytted, is irreversible. And since nothing can be done to restore the victim to life, hanging the murderer becomes no more than a wanton act of vengeance. But it should be noted that the renunciation of vengeance is a virtue far more easily exercised by the dispassionate onlooker at a crime than by the sorrowing relatives who are directly afflicted.
It is also frequently argued that a man who has been hanged for murder might, on later verification, be proven guiltless. It is a historical fact that in every country, and in every age, innocent persons have been harried to their doom through the machinations of private enemies as well as by hatreds begotten of religion and politics. Such scandals cannot be entirely ruled out for the future; but they can be counteracted to some extent by modern criminal procedures now in force which provide almost iron-clad guarantees to an accused person. He is safeguarded by stringent laws of evidence, and he is seldom lacking in experienced counsel. Invariably a verdict of murder is subject to minute scrutiny through a series of appeals and reviews.
It is true that a vast number of prosecutions do leave behind them a strong element of doubt. Indeed, a trial is meant, by its very nature, to distinguish between that which is certain and that which remains unconvincing. In a great number of acquittals, the accused is discharged, not after being certified innocent and harmless, but only because the charge against him has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In cases where any doubt remains, it is always the accused who is entitled to benefit. But it must also be acknowledged that not all court proceedings necessarily leave a residue of doubt. Often the charge against the accused is easily substantiated, the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses fully corroborated, and all contradictory evidence conspicuous by its total absence.
There is not a single human enterprise or field of activity not marred by some regrettable episodes. Yet we do not prohibit the construction of tall buildings or bridges, or tunnels because it is possible some two or three persons might lose their lives in the course of such an operation. Acts of justice, designed as effectively as possible to protect the innocent, will unquestionably be accompanied now and again by tragic blunders. But unless such miscarriages become blatant, and of alarming extent, there is nothing to be done except to minimize them as far as is humanly possible. In any event, such errors, tragic though they must be, could at their worst be insignificant, as compared with opposite blunders in which further loss of innocent lives could be the direct consequence of thoughtless clemency extended to dangerous and unrepentant assassins. I can therefore come to only one conclusion.
Capital punishment can be defended on both moral and practical grounds. However, for the death penalty to play any significant role in the war against crime it must be enforced not only at rare intervals but in all cases of fully

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
proven capital murder. What matters almost as much as the severity of punishment is its certainty. Since 1967, 33 policemen and two prison guards have been slain, but the cabinet has continually overruled the findings of the judges, juries, and even the law itself, most recently in the case of Gary John McNamara who murdered a prison guard in 1972. On May 9, 1974, the cabinet commuted the sentence but no reason was given.
In 1973 Rene Vaillancourt murdered a Toronto policeman while fleeing the scene of a bank hold-up. In 1974 James Hutchinson and Richard Ambrose killed two officers in Moncton. Less than four months ago a policeman and a taxi driver were killed in Dartmouth. It is quite clear from statements made by the Solicitor General that the cabinet has no intention of allowing capital punishment in any of these cases. If that is to be the case, at least parliament should consider amending the Criminal Code so that murderers of policemen and prison guards have to spend the rest of their lives in jail, and are not out walking the streets again in 12 years or less.
Many Canadians suspect that the actual time served already for violent crimes may be too light. A combination of factors account for some relatively short prison terms now: at the court room level many murder charges get reduced to manslaughter because it is claimed some unpleasant remark made by the victim provoked the murderer. Provocation reduces murder to manslaughter, and this defence is helped by the convenience of not having the victim around to testify. Manslaughter sentences may put offenders back on the streets fairly fast. In 1973 almost 83 per cent of the sentences given for murder-reduced-to-manslaughter were under ten years. Over half of those were under five years, which could mean parole in 18 months, or day parole much earlier.
Of 27 murderers discharged from prison in 1973-actually 37 were discharged but statistics are available on only 27-five served less than four years and 21 served between five and nine years. Of manslaughter discharges, 67 per cent had served less than three years. Of attempted murder discharges, 77 per cent had served less than four years. In rape convictions-an offence for which only the most brutal attackers generally get to court-94 per cent of those released had served less than three years. Given these statistics, Canadians may well be excused for thinking that the length of incarceration is more often than not grotesquely out of proportion to all the havoc, pain, torment, and misery created by the criminal.
One of the most thought provoking editorials on this thorny problem appeared on February 28 in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, and I want to put it on the record in the time allowed me this evening because I think it sums up the views of the majority of Nova Scotians. It is entitled, "The Death Penalty", and it read as follows:
There is little doubt but that the majority of Canadian people wish to retain the death penalty, at least for some types of murder.
Government, in most of its programs, cites the pressure of public opinion and the necessity to respond to that opinion as justification.
In the instance of the death penalty, government is careful not to cite public opinion which is adverse to the chosen course.
Of recent years there has grown up a theory, on which much policy has been based, that the rights of the criminal are more important than the rights of society.

In turn that has brought about a backlash in the public which is increasingly concerned with the protection of persons and property, the administration of justice has frequently appeared to concentrate largely upon issues of conceding to the demands and requirements of the criminal element with little thought of fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens.
For practical purposes the death sentence in Canada, while technically in effect, has been suspended. The result of that suspension has not been a decline in violent crime.
I am going to repeat that paragraph:
For practical purposes the death sentence in Canada, while technically in effect, has been suspended. The result of that suspension has not been a decline in violent crime.
The criminal who deliberately plans and executes a murder has no concern with the life of the victim. Yet that same criminal immediately demands and receives the full protection of society when apprehended. And that same criminal along with those who advocate his cause, will present a long list of reasons why his life ought not be forfeited.
The dispassionate killer will not reform. And the program now proposed by government will be of no help.
What is planned is to put people who are proven menaces to society away for a stipulated 25 years. For practical purposes that is life and the form and nature of the sentence is a guarantee of increasing the dangers to custodial staff and the complexities of control.
In proposing its alternative to the death sentence the government is suggesting that the Canadian people get the worst of both worlds. They will pay higher costs with no assurance of improved safety for society.
The death penalty represents the final right of organized society to rid itself of those who will not conform in any respect to civilized life. Such people are a minority, and are not to be confused with others who may take life in passion.
Removal of the final right of society, in effect, tells the criminal that however vicious and evil the crime his own life will not be threatened, but rather will be protected by the society for which he has himself shown no mercy .. .
Parliament is intended to reflect the wishes of the people of Canada.
I am going to read that slowly because I want as many hon. members as are in the Chamber to hear these words.
Parliament is intended to reflect the wishes of the people of Canada.
Surely that is why we are here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The article goes on to read:
The institution has been down-graded of recent years, not always with the most constructive of consequences.
The use of power, simply because power is held, to thwart the public will is an assurance of a further erosion among the populace of confidence in not only the government, but parliament itself.
In recent years it has often appeared that the majority has no rights. And that appearance is part and parcel of the loss of confidence in a political process that, in the instance of criminal matters, appears to have as its first concern the protection of the rights of the law-breaker even though society as a whole faces greater dangers in the result.
The plan now before parliament is one that will impress many as a cynical political move that, in practice, increases the personal hazard for those who must enforce and uphold the law, while at the same time allowing those pledged to impose the law as it stands to evade that responsibility.
Those are very forceful words, very thought provoking words, but they sum up the feelings not only of many Nova Scotians but of many Canadians.
Since we last debated the issue in January of 1973 I submit that the cabinet and the government have, by their actions, undermined our legal processes. They have undermined the power of parliament. The practice that has been followed has in effect removed any deterrent associated
May 11, 1976

with the death penalty. This government in more ways than one has made a sham of our whole judicial process.
How can we expect society to have any respect for the law when those who are supposed to uphold it make a mockery of its own rules and regulations? These actions can no longer be tolerated. I believe we must set an example for the entire country if parliament is to remain supreme. In my opinion, anyone who accidentally kills another during a fight or in the heat of an argument should not be hanged but should be given life imprisonment. However, I believe that capital punishment should be retained for all those convicted of planned, premeditated murder. Clemency, which is the prerogative of the Crown, should be granted only when mercy has been recommended by the jury at the trial, or in the case of an established error in conviction.
I agree that the rights of a murderer as an individual must be protected, but I ask you, Sir, is it not way past the time when we should be considering the rights of the victim?
I had an opportunity to speak on this subject when it was last before the House, and when it was before the House prior to that, but tonight I want to quote just one paragraph from my own words as put on the record on January 31, 1973, when I said the following:
No matter how we vote in this House on this issue, it is my firm conviction that we shall never again see a man hanged in Canada or put to death by any other means. I say this in light of the facts, for the federal cabinet has exercised its so-called executive prerogative of mercy more than 60 times during the past ten years by commuting all death sentences meted out by the courts.
Of course these figures are updated by what I have put on the record tonight.
In conclusion, I must say to this House that until a suitable alternative to capital punishment is proposed as a protection for society, I feel that the government has left me no choice but to vote against this bill.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter this debate because it is the most sensitive issue I have to face as a new member of parliament representing my constituency. Other more senior members in this Chamber have dealt with this issue before, and I have found them to be of considerable help and guidance to me, whether they be for or against. Before stating my proposition with respect to this matter, there is one issue I wish to deal with, namely, the free vote.
A free vote to me means just that-a vote based on one's own conscience, but it also means one which should at least take into account the representations of my constituents. In other words, I do not think that I have the right on such a sensitive issue as capital punishment to be blind to the feelings of my constituents. The cynicism I have heard from some hon. members in the media regarding the decision by the government to allow a free vote shocks me, to say the least. As a backbencher on this side of the House I want to put on the record that the whips have not been placed on me to vote the way the cabinet intends to vote. I respect their collective decision, and I know that they respect others who have opposite views.
Capital Punishment
I would now like to deal with the substance of the issue. The government has introduced a bill to abolish the death penalty for murder and to replace capital punishment with life sentences. First degree murderers would not normally be eligible for parole until they have served a minimum of 25 years.
My personal feelings on the issue of the death penalty, I believe, are not the important question in deciding how I vote. What is most important is the need to provide society and the law abiding individual with a sense of protection from those who commit the ultimate act of violence against the person. Society does have a right to protect itself from those who prey upon its citizens. I believe the death penalty can act as a deterrent to premeditated murder, and I intend to vote for the retention of capital punishment for premeditated murder regardless of who the victim is.
For non-premeditated murders, I believe that the minimum sentence without parole, such as the 10 year non-parolable period proposed for second degree murder in the government's bill, is a sufficient deterrent.
I have made a distinction between premeditated and unpremeditated murder. Such a distinction is not one solely based on the legal definition of planned and deliberate murder, but premeditation must be considered to be a question of fact and personal judgment. I have faith in our trial and jury system that such a distinction can be made in each case. After hearing all the evidence, a jury under the guidance of a trial judge can distinguish between, to use the extremes, the contract killing and the murder which results from a domestic quarrel, or to put it another way, murder which results from a fit of passion.
This to me is the beauty and justice of our legal system: the inherent right of every accused to be tried as an individual, taking into account the facts of the case as determined by a jury, under the guidance of a trial judge as to the questions of law.
With respect to the matter of deterrence, I at one time thought that capital punishment was not a deterrent, but I am convinced now that it is. I have read most of the technical reports, including Fattah's, regarding this particular matter. They leave me with the conclusion that capital punishment may not be a deterrent. I stress the word "may". That word to me . expresses a probability. Accordingly, if there is even the remotest chance that capital punishment may prevent a murder, how can I deny that victim, whoever it will be, that possibility of prevention? It is the matter of prevention of death that I am concerned with, not revenge. Society does have the right to protect itself from its most despicable crime against its citizens.
I would now like to deal with the matter of long sentences as proposed by Bill C-84. As I understand it, Bill C-84 intends to break murder into two degrees, first and second degree, both of which will carry life imprisonment but with different minimum periods that must be served in a penitentiary before the convicted person will be eligible for parole consideration. The penalty for second degree murder will basically stay the same, but with respect to first degree murder the new legislation provides for a penalty of life imprisonment with an absolute term of imprisonment of 25 years with no parole. I fully realize and

May 11, 1976
Capital Punishment
appreciate that there is a provision for judicial review of either penalties by a panel of three superior court justices.
Solely as it relates to the proposed offence of first degree murder, I seriously question the incarceration of an individual for such a great length of time, notwithstanding the review provisions. Are we not doing that individual more harm than good? I do not know the definitive answer to that question, and none of the technical reports that I have read have given me the answer. In fact, the Solicitor General's own department in a publication entitled, "Questions and Answers Relating to the Capital Punishment Issue" states as follows:
question: If long sentences replace capital punishment, what implications does this have for increasing the incidence of suicide, mental illness and hostility among persons convicted of murder?
RESPONSE: Behavioural scientists have noted neurotic and psychotic reactions associated with long term institutionalization. However, this is based upon clinical experience from which it is sometimes difficult to establish if it is actually the institutionalization which is the cause. Also, there is little scientific documentation available as to whether or not suicide and hostility among persons serving long term sentences is associated with long term incarceration. Since there are many interrelated factors, it is impossible to predict what effects the proposed legislation will have upon suicide, mental illness, and hostility within Canadian institutions.
The answer acknowledges that experts do not know the effect of incarceration of an individual for a long term. The recent examples at the B.C. Penitentiary in my province may be extremes, to say the least, but they may well indicate the results of either deplorable conditions, or long term incarceration, or a combination of both. If one were to lock one up in the penthouse of a luxury hotel for a minimum of 25 years, I am sure that such incarceration would have some psychological effect on the individual. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that a prison is a prison whether it be the British Columbia penitentiary or, as I have exaggerated, the penthouse of a luxury hotel. Certainly I agree with the reforms that we have made in penal institutions and I earnestly hope that we will continue to do so, but whatever we do, we must remember that a prison is still a prison.
But, more important, with respect to long term incarceration, B.C. Police Commission Chairman, Dr. John Hogarth, has called the sentencing provisions "overly rigid" and said it would be dangerous to deprive prisoners of any hope of eventual release. In essence, I think he is saying, and I agree, that what Bill C-84 does is symbolically kill an individual by subjecting him to sometimes very cruel circumstances for 25 years. I want to know, and I know my constituents want to know, whether long term incarceration increases the potential for attack on prison guards and policemen. From my discussions with some of the officials of correctional institutions in the Pacific region where the B.C. Penitentiary is located, I know that the staff-guards for example-are extremely uneasy about the prospects of long term incarceration.
Notwithstanding the fact that Section 674 of the proposed legislation would deal with the abhorrent situation of a murderer under parole, including day pass or temporary pass, committing another murder, I find that Section 674 enshrines the inescapable conclusions that this legislation is symbolic killing. At present, as I understand it, a

person whose sentence is commuted must serve a minimum of ten years before he becomes eligible for parole; and this period could be extended but for no more than 20 years. Section 674 as proposed states:
(1)	Unless the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides by an enactment making express reference to this section, no person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole for a specified number of years pursuant to this act shall be considered for parole or released pursuant to the terms of a grant of parole under the Parole Act or any other act of the Parliament of Canada until the expiration or termination of his specified number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole.
(2)	Notwithstanding the Penitentiary Act and the Parole Act, in the case of any person sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole for a specified number of years pursuant to this act, no absence without escort may be authorized under the Penitentiary Act and no day parole may be granted under the Parole Act until the expiration of all but three years of his number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole.
In other words, a person convicted of first degree murder would have to serve 22 years of his sentence before being eligible for day parole or a temporary pass.
Again I reiterate and submit that this legislation is nothing more than symbolic killing. I earnestly hope that the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) will answer some of the questions I have raised on the issue of long term incarceration.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I am in full agreement with those who state that capital punishment will not prove to be a cure-all to all our criminal problems. The issue of crime in a pluristic and democratic society is much too complex and intricate for anybody to be so simplistic as to suggest the answer lies in, "Hang them all", to use the current expression. We must attack some of the more fundamental roots of crime, for example, poverty.
Other measures that the government has introduced, such as Bill C-71, particularly as it relates to the tightening of our bail law, and at present Bill C-83, particularly as it relates to gun control legislation, dangerous offenders, and wiretap provisions, are steps in the right direction. The criminal law, like any other law, is and should be a process of constant review and amendment by this and future parliaments. Having said that, I still maintain that society must have the right to protect itself from those who prey upon it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, in view of the advanced hour I shall give a short preamble to the speech I intend to make in this debate.
The question which should concern us during this debate, and which has not been examined by any of my colleagues so far, is not whether we should retain or abolish capital punishment, but rather whether or not we should reintroduce some form of capital punishment.
My reasoning, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has repeatedly stated that he will not sign an execution order as long as he is in office. In response to my colleague from the Yukon on the night of the opening of this debate, he shouted across the emotionally charged expanse of this Chamber, "If you want to hang someone, get yourself another boy." Since our con-
May 11, 1976

stituents, who expect to have their majority view represented in parliament, only change their "boys" during elections, the question of the abolition or retention of capital punishment is irrelevant until about 1978.
As a matter of fact, the "if or not" has not been an issue since 1963, even though the question has been debated in the House four times since then. The question which will be put to the members at the end of this debate will only decide, therefore, whether capital punishment will be abolished with the consent of parliament and the Canadian people, or by the continued abuse of the royal or executive prerogative.
If I may call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue my speech later.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am taking part in the adjournment debate once again is because there seems to be a concern which relates to the fact that the government is once again exemplifying inconsistencies in regard to its policies, this time by taking a hypocritically double standard position relating to its involvement with South Africa.
I am specifically referring to the obviously abrupt attitude the Department of National Health and Welfare has taken in respect of the 1976 Olympiad for the Physically Disabled, scheduled to be held in Etobicoke later this summer. These very prestigious and worth-while games for disabled athletes from around the world are traditionally held every four years in the country hosting the regular Olympic games, while in subsequent years they are held at Stokes Manderville, England.
Canadian organizers and department officials must have known for years that these games would be held in Canada in 1976 in conjunction with the regular Olympic games, which will be held in Montreal this summer as well. These same officials must have known for just as many years that included in the games would be a team representing South Africa. These two facts are common knowledge- common knowledge, as precedence alone would show, to those who are in touch with reality as it relates to sport. Certainly the minister and his department should be in touch with what goes on in the sports world as such matters fall under his jurisdiction.
Adjournment Debate
My point is, that the government had promised a $500,000 grant to the organizers of the Olympiad in Etobicoke, with the knowledge that a team from South Africa would be represented. I say this since in several previous Olympiads for the disabled a South African team did take part, with Canadian teams competing as well in some games.
After preparations were well under way the department suddenly decided to withhold aid, the aid having been promised on the condition that South Africans would not attend, or withdraw.
The irony of the double standard is twofold. First, on at least two previous occasions, once in 1972, for the Munich Games and again last year in England, this government, under the auspices of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) funded Canadian teams for the purpose of participating with South African teams. Incidentally, South Africa at that time had not taken steps to eliminate racial discrimination. The government now is withholding promised funds on grounds of racial discrimination, even though on two previous occasions the government had provided funds. Since then the South African team has officially joined the International Sports Organization for the Disabled and, at the same time, officially amended its constitution to prohibit racial or political discrimination. This is proven by the fact thkt a team of 22 athletes scheduled to compete in Etobicoke this summer includes 9 non-whites and blacks.
That is not all, Mr. Speaker. When questioned, the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that the government's policy has been very clearly established for many years regarding the apartheid policy in South Africa, and the government's position has been to withhold its financial aid to sporting events involving South Africa because of its apartheid policy. The question one must ask oneself, indeed I am asking it, is this: if this in fact is the policy of the federal government, why did it fund the Canadian teams previously when that policy was in force? Second and more important, if indeed this is the policy of the federal government, why has the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce opened at least two offices in South Africa, with the intention of opening more locations for the purpose of expanding trade between our two states?
I have nothing against the government using South Africa as a trading partner and thereby recognizing that state, but why the double standard? Why take it out on sports? Why involve politics with sports? More specifically, why take it out on disabled kids? That, to me, is petty.
The government tells Canadian athletes and organizations it will not fund them if they invite South Africans; at the same time it allowed Canadian businessmen to import approximately $180 million worth of South African goods last year, mainly wines, sugar, and other products. In addition the government exerted no pressure to stop the massive campaign advertising South African wine for sale in Canada. Nobody has complained about this. But it shows that there is a double standard. This inconsistency concerns me and many others who are involved in these worthwhile games. By picking on the disabled the government is being small, petty, and hypocritical, to say the least. Once again thanks goes to this two-faced government

May 11, 1976
Adjournment Debate
for jeopardizing the dreams and hopes of nearly 2,000 wheelchair, blind, and amputee athletes from around the world.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have only three minutes to answer the small, petty, and hypocritical statement made by the hon. member opposite. I remind him that despite the apparent change of policy referred to in a specific case, apartheid is no less rigorously enforced in athletic competition than in any other sphere of South African life.
It is worth noting that in 1970 the International Olympic Committee suspended South Africa completely from participating in the Olympic movement. This position was given unqualified support by the United Nations, and it is supported fully by the government. We fully support the Olympiad in Etobicoke and have given our enthusiastic and full support right from the beginning; but the organizers of that competition knew in the early stages of the organization of this competition the position of the Canadian government vis-a-vis participation by South African athletes in any such competition.
The Canadian government policy denies funding to any Canadian athlete or group of athletes who intend to travel to South Africa to participate in an athletic competition. While we fully recognize that the decision to participate or not rests with the individual and/or sports body concerned, we have pointed out that competition in South African under conditions of racial discrimination, which are universally condemned, is a matter of considerable concern. Although the government does not financially support such visits, neither is it prepared to limit the freedom of Canadians to travel abroad where they wish.
More recently, events have been awarded to Canada in which athletes from South Africa have been invited to participate. I wish to confirm the position taken by the government in July of 1975 of not providing either moral or financial support to any event in Canada to which South African athletes have been invited. This policy is being implemented in concert with many other nations, in the hope that concern over increasing isolation will encourage the South African government to take real and substantive steps to abandon the policy and practice of apartheid.
Recently representations have been made to the government concerning the staging in Canada of the Olympiad for the Physically Disabled, requesting that the government policy be modified for the Olympiad. It was the view of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and myself that such a modification was not justified. The government has reviewed on a continuing basis reports from our mission in South Africa on apar-thied in sports. We do not believe that circumstances in this country have changed materially, even though the South African government may allow modification in a particular case. This view has been confirmed in recent days by the reaffirmation by the Supreme Council of Sport in Africa of its continued opposition to all sports contacts with the regime in South Africa. I can only feel sorry that some people resort to using handicapped people in this particular situation.


HEALTH-MEASURES TO PROTECT VISITORS TO OLYMPIC GAMES AGAINST POLIO-POSSIBLE USE OF SABIN ORAL VACCINE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in the Chamber this evening. It is very considerate of him to be here to give us the benefit of his advice.
According to reports the minister stated, "Don't push the panic button on polio viruses." Certainly the carrying out of corrective measures should not be carried out in panic. However, perhaps the polio viruses found in the sewage draining into the Ottawa River has awakened the department's concern out of its Ferdinand slumbers.
It is interesting that I, a member of this House, was denied any information from the department without going through the Director of Public Relation for the department. He could not be reached. I am sure the minister will have an answer for us and say that he had nothing to do with this. The minister knows that I have never misused information given to me by any department. I only wanted this information to correlate my address tonight.
There appears to be a considerable number of people in the province of Ontario who are not immune or who have no antibody immunity to poliomyelitis. This may also be the case in other provinces. I am concerned because through two polio epidemics I was the Medical Officer of Health for the province in the days before polio vaccine. Anyone who has been through such an epidemic, and who has seen those cases and the number who died or were left crippled, would be concerned with the present attitude. I recall pregnant young mothers, young men, and children who died. In particular I remember two young ladies who went swimming together, contracted the disease and died. I will not elaborate on this, but I wonder how many of the present generation have forgotten the days before Salk vaccine.
I am concerned that every step be taken to ensure that those who have not been immunized will be before attending the Olympic Games. In the schools this program will have to be initiated right away before the school term ends to get the school-agers vaccinated and to set up clinics if found necessary.
I am interested and concerned because of a survey done in 1969 by medical officers of health of 15 areas, one of which was the city of Barrie in the riding of Simcoe North. Blood samples were collected in the schools by teams from the Connaught Laboratories. In each area samples were taken from 175 people in four age groups: pre-school children age four to six years; from parents, in most cases the mothers who accompanied the children, ages 23 to 45 years; children in grades seven to eight, ages 11-13; and young people in the age group 15 to 17 years. Immunization cards for each school age child were obtained from health unit records. Blood samples from .3 to .5 millilitres were obtained by finger puncture and collected in blood collecting tubes. This was tested in cultures of monkey kidney cells for antibodies of each of the three types of polio virus.
May 11, 1976

For children 11 to 13 and 15 to 17, there was a high percentage of resistance to the disease. In the age group 4-6 years, the percentage was less. It was found that only 65 per cent of the children four to six years had antibodies to all three types of polio virus-antibodies being due almost entirely to the Salk vaccine. In the children who had received six or more doses, 74 per cent had antibodies to the three types. In ages 11 to 13 and 15 to 17, there was a high percentage with antibodies to polio virus. This was accounted for by the fact that these children had not only the Salk vaccine but were given the Sabin vaccine in the mass campaign of 1962. Also, some may have shown immunity through having had a previous low grade infection.
It is interesting to note that of those who had not been immunized, three out of six aged 11 to 13 years, and five out of seven in ages 15 to 17, had antibodies to all three types of polio.
From all I can learn it would appear that one dose of Sabin vaccine following immunization with Salk vaccine seems to give full protection against polio virus. It is also true that over the years there has been some increase in the Salk vaccine particularly in type 3 antigen which stimulates the production of antibodies. The type 2 antigen was decreased early in 1974.
The Salk vaccine will stop the neuromuscular effects of polio in practically all cases but does not always stop the gastroenteritis or pharyngitis which may follow particularly the wild viruses.
The disturbing question and one which must be answered is whether immunization has been sufficient to ensure safe immunity to polio. When you look at the age group four to six and see that only 65 per cent had immunity, it would indicate that this is not adequate protection. Again the question is raised that those in the 11 to 13 and 15 to 17 age group had higher immunity due to the fact that they may have had a previous sub-clinical infection and that they also had Sabin vaccine along with the Salk vaccine. Antibodies in those four to six were almost entirely due to immunization with Salk vaccine.
It would appear that there must be a drive put on to encourage immunization. I would suggest that the minister, in his capacity as senior minister of health in Canada, urge that a full immunization program be started without delay. Then, and only then, can we be assured that we have done what we should do with the knowledge we have of the viruses of polio, which it appears at the moment require further study, and regarding which a further report will be out next week. I also want to draw to the minister's attention that, as far as I know, all provinces, with the exception of Ontario and Nova Scotia, use the Sabin vaccine.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will be very short. I refer my colleague to my comments on this particular subject on May 7 of last week, as reported at page 13276, of Hansard, in answer to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).
Adjournment Debate
I should also like to express my thanks to the hon. member for drawing the attention of the House and the Canadian public to this particular situation and to the importance to getting immunization. As the hon. member well knows, we have had for years a universal program of immunization in this country which is available and which is free. I must also advise that we have an ample supply of vaccine to meet the demands of anyone who wants vaccination.
I am also glad that the hon. member gives me the opportunity to stress that these vaccinations are not good for life; after a span of about five years one should get another vaccination. Unfortunately, a lot of people have forgotten this.
Two years ago I sent a reminder with family allowance cheques, and another one last summer. I intend to put in another reminder as an insert to one of the forthcoming issues of family allowance cheques. I hope in the cheques for June there will be a special mention drawing this fact at least to the mothers' attention. Unfortunately, or fortunately, in this country we cannot send the police to bring people in for immunization. This has to be done by the individuals. They have to realize their own responsibilities in this respect. I only want to thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity of stressing this point again, and for drawing it to the attention of the public.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-MINING NICKEL FROM SEABED-INVOLVEMENT OF WORKERS IN DEVELOPING STRATEGY FOR NEGOTIATIONS POSITION TAKEN BY INCO
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the nickel industry in Canada may very shortly be facing a serious crisis which can only spell disaster for those communities and workers who are very dependent on this particular mineral.
At the recent Law of the Sea Conference the United States, our major trading partner, presented plans which if carried out will, over a period of ten to 25 years, mean the extinction of nickel mining in Canada. The plan presented by the United States calls for the mining of nickel resources from the seabed beyond the 200-mile limit, thus effectively placing the industry beyond the jurisdiction of nations or of trade unions. They want the amount of this seabed mining to increase by a minimum of 6 per cent a year, in spite of the fact that demand will not increase that quickly.
Present increases in nickel output are shared among the world's nickel producing countries. Canada, in fact, used to supply over 50 per cent of the world's nickel requirements, but its share of the market has been dropping to the point where Canada supplies slightly over 30 per cent of the world's nickel needs.
According to Charles Elliot, a director and former president of the Mining Association of Canada, an increase in production of undersea nickel of the magnitude the United States envisages would constitute a disaster for the Canadian nickel mining industry.
When we speak of a disaster to the Canadian nickel mining industry we are not just talking about a drop in profits on shares held by shareholders of the companies. We are talking about the lives of whole communities which

May 11, 1976
Adjournment Debate
are completely dependent on the nickel mining industry. We are talking about the death of such communities as Thompson, Manitoba, and Fort Saskatchewan. We are talking about completely destroying the economic base of the Sudbury Basin, my own riding and yours, Mr. Speaker. In that area alone 13,000 people are employed by INCO and another 4,000 are employed by Falconbridge. Counting the workers' families and all the persons who are involved in the service sector of the Basin's economy we can get the full impact any such cutback would entail.
Just today Statistics Canada revealed that the unemployment rate in this country is 7.4 per cent. If the nickel industry in Canada is wiped out, we can imagine the implication both in human and economic terms for Canada. As developed nations like the United States strive to become self-sufficient in resources, having learned their bitter lesson after the OPEC situation, our pigeons are coming home to roost.
Past actions by provincial and federal governments to allow Canada to develop as a resource economy have left us basically hewers of wood and drawers of water. Lacking the industrial base we need to process our own minerals to finished products, we are now finding ourselves at the mercy of these sorts of changes as proposed by the United States at the Law of the Sea Conference.
While it is very clear that Canadian workers, in fact all Canadians, will be hurt by this kind of action, we can bet our bottom dollars that the nickel mining companies are flexible enough to benefit from the switch from surface mining to undersea mining. As a matter of fact international Nickel Company, Canada's major nickel mining company, is part of the consortium that will be mining the seabed for nickel. Indeed, Mr. Elliot of the Mining Association of Canada made this crystal clear when he said:
The Canadian mining companies and their shareholders might benefit considerably, however, by getting involved in sea bed operations.
So much for the patriotism of big business. Who has the gall to suggest to me the equality of the corporation and the union?
The International Nickel Company Limited, has just changed its name to the International Nickel Company Limited, a move that has some justification considering its probable role in this problem. It is making profits from Canadian workers and Canadian resources now. But if this situation goes the other way and it is decided to mine from the sea, it will make a profit there too. The company has a foot in both camps and you can be sure it will put pressure on all governments concerned to take the steps which will be most profitable to the company. If it turns out to be more profitable to go after the under sea nickel, and this is quite likely considering that the U.S. government is obviously prepared to subsidize these operations with large sums of money, then it will phase out its surface operations.
The Canadian government appears to have been caught with its pants down in the latest revelation by the United States at the Law of the Sea Conference. It is quite obvious that the Americans have already lobbied the other nickel producing countries and promised them a share in any increased production in nickel as a result of seabed mining.
This, of course, leaves Canada on the outside looking in. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
At this moment the Canadian government should be sitting down with those directly affected by this proposal, the workers, the communities, and the mining companies, to determine strategy and plan proposals which would be much fairer to all concerned.
Moreover, the federal government should elicit from International Nickel Company and all other nickel mining companies which may have feet in both camps their full support for the government's position. The government ought to be prepared to nationalize immediately any of those companies which do not support the position which the government puts forward.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), I would first express the concern of this government over the nickel proposal tabled at the very end of the last session of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which ended on Friday, May 7. That proposal, most likely originating from the United States, is aimed at controlling the production of minerals in the international zone of the sea bed, by restricting it to the annual increase in the world nickel market, arbitrarily estimated at 6 per cent. If adopted, that formula might have serious repercussions on the production of nickel in Canada and other countries, in cases for instance where the actual yearly expansion of the nickel market were below 6 per cent. Canada feels such a formula is unacceptable.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs met the American Secretary of State, Mr. Kissinger, in Nairobi, he took the opportunity to explain the effect on Canada of such a provision. It was agreed our two countries will hold consultations at the official level to find a solution. Similarly, the American representatives to the Conference on the Law of the Sea implied they had no intention of solving at the expense of Canada the problems faced by the United States in respect of mineral resource supplies.
I should add that, paradoxically, such a controversial formula was never discussed at the Conference on the Law of the Sea. It is however expected it will have high priority on the agenda of the next meeting slated for August. Canada for her part is urging a solution that would protect land producers of nickel, copper, cobalt and manganese, while allowing mining of these minerals from the international sea bed to the benefit of the international community. Our delegation at the conference already expressed these views to other countries that might be affected by the American formula. For the most part, they share our concerns.
We do not yet know INCO's reaction, or that of other mining companies. It would however be quite normal, and even desirable, if representatives of miners' unions, the mining industry and the provinces affected expressed their views to the government before the next meeting to be held in August 1976.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, May 12, 1976