1976-06-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 concerning a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
On Sunday, June 6, 1976, Canadian veterans of World War II will remember the D-Day invasion of Normandy by allied forces. Unfortunately, thousands of our Canadian youth lie in graves in France because of this holocaust and it is our duty that parliament pay respect for those who fell. I therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton):
That this House gives recognition and pays tribute to war veterans who took part and to the families of those who fell on June 6, 1944 on this, the 32nd anniversary of D-Day.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House before such a motion can be introduced. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion, is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the extreme anger expressed by the Quebec milk producers on Parliament Hill yesterday and being fully aware of the normally tranquil attitude of the Canadian farmer who is used to adversity generated by government, bad weather and uncertain markets, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House instruct the cabinet to enable the Canadian Dairy Commission to direct our industrial milk surplus into the production of Cheddar cheese by revitalizing and operating all the idle cheese factories to compete with Kraft and other companies who now have a
detrimental monopoly that curtails the utilization of surplus summer milk and forces excessively high retail prices for Canadian Cheddar cheese upon the Canadian consumer.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED RELEASE OF SKIM MILK POWDER FOR USE AS ANIMAL FEED IN THE WEST-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Having regard to the huge supply of skim milk powder in storage in Eastern Canada, estimated at well in excess of 200 million pounds, and the fact that export sales remain at prices below 10 cents per pound as animal feed while domestic prices are being held in the 40-50 cent range, and given the fact that domestic markets are available in the West for feed grade skimmed milk powder at reasonable prices for use as milk replacer, calf starter and poultry rations, but that insufficient stocks exist there to meet the demand, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Minister of Agriculture instruct the Canadian Dairy Commission to release sufficient quantities of skim milk powder at reasonable prices to the animal feed industry to fulfil present and future demands, so as to improve the viability of this important industry and at the same time reduce feed costs to these animal producers.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on an urgent matter. As the budgetary papers tabled on May 25 make it clear that the estimates for the fiscal year ending March, 1977 and representations made by the President of the Treasury Board are inaccurate and inconsistent with figures now produced by the Minister of Finance, and as the President of the Treasury Board has acquiesced in the tabling of supplementary estimates with respect to Loto Canada and nothing else, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That an immediate reference be made to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs at which time the President of
June 4, 1976

Unemployment Insurance
Treasury Board be asked to explain his own gross incompetency including an explanation o{ the inaccuracies and inconsistencies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the motion cannot be put without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an urgent and important matter.
Considering the prime importance of the agricultural industry for any self-respecting country, considering that one never knows when a serious shortfall may happen and that the European Common Market is likely to face a disastrous crop year because of the droughts now affecting the member states, and considering that faced with this situation and those factors the government cannot bring about the destruction of the dairy industry, the major Quebec agricultural industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That all hon. members in this House, particularly those representing Quebec constituencies, demand that the Minister of Agriculture reconsider his position and give the milk producers the revenues they require.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a subject which I brought out two weeks ago in the House in regard to extensive defrauding of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the one arrest to date by the RCMP of Gordon Gunn of Ottawa in this regard. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):

That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Solicitor General be required to advise the House if additional investigations are now completed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the RCMP, and specifically when charges will be laid by the RCMP against further persons involved, including certain members of the head office staff of the Unemployment Insurance Commission of Canada, 222 Nepean Street, Ottawa, and at least one person at the local Ottawa office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I have indicated many times in the past, I think I have to be extremely careful in those matters. A motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 should be sufficient to describe the urgency of the matter and not get into substantive debate. If the hon. member would put his motion forthwith.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: May I conclude with these words, Mr. Speaker:
-and finally if immediate charges are not pending-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Catharines.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the one hundredth anniversary of the incorporation of the city of St. Catharines, a proud Canadian community situated in the prosperous heartland of the Niagara peninsula, I rise to move, seconded by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail)-


An hon. Member:: He is not even here.


Gilbert Parent: -under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
That this House extend to the citizens of St. Catharines its congratulations in recognition of one hundred years of achievement in education, culture, recreation, commerce and industry.
Further, I would like to invite all the honourable members of the House to visit-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion cannot be put before the House without its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, it is moved by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent), seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme):
That this House extend to the citizens of St. Catharines its congratulations in recognition of one hundred years of achievement in education, culture, recreation, commerce and industry.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
June 4, 1976


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence said that the interest charges of $100 million were considered at the cabinet meeting of November 27 but he would have to check the records to see if there was a decision. Can he now confirm the information that he gave the House yesterday?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The matter is very clear if the hon. member will follow what I have said to the House on previous occasions and to committees, all of which I am pleased to confirm once again. There are in my estimates $1,061 million for long-range patrol aircraft, and at least $107 million of this is for interest. Obviously this would not have been in the estimates if it had not been approved by Treasury Board, and Treasury Board would not approve $107 million in interest if it had not been approved by Cabinet.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: I should like to thank the minister for the openness of that statement. I direct my supplementary to the Minister of Supply and Services. The Minister of National Defence has just confirmed that the $100 million interest charge was discussed in Cabinet on November 27. Can the minister explain how he knew nothing about it on December 27. Can the minister explain how he knew nothing about it on December 2 when he sent the telex?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board authorized the payment of interest after December 2.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not really answer my question. Perhaps I will have better luck with my next one. The Minister of National Defence has confirmed that it was discussed on November 27 at Cabinet. I would expect he would have known by December 2, particularly as this information was reinforced by a memo of December 1 from his deputy, expressly noting that there could be $100 million in interest charges. Can the minister explain the contradiction between his ignorance of this fact and the fact that both the Minister of National Defence brought it up in Cabinet and the deputy minister told him about it in a memo the following day, or the day before December 2?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the authorization for payment of the interest was decided by Treasury Board after December 2. The memorandum dated December 1, prepared
Oral Questions
by my officials, pertaining to the LRPA project, referred to possible cash flow problems with regard to the most cost-effective production schedule. The memorandum indicated that to respect the most efficient schedule DND could possibly resort to commercial financing. No reference was made to financial negotiations held between Lockheed and DND. A copy of this memorandum was sent to the official of DND responsible for the LRPA program. Later that day this same DND official, as well as my own officials, met with me for a briefing session in preparation for a meeting to be held with Lockheed representatives the following day. In both instances, during the briefing session of December 1 and during the December 2 meeting with Lockheed representatives, Mr. Kotchian and his associates, the Department of National Defence, which in this case had exclusive responsibility to provide financing, made no reference to financial negotiations held between Lockheed and itself. Furthermore, DND gave no indication whatsoever that it could not meet its financial obligations. At that point in time I had no apparent reason to mistrust the DND's judgment.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF VERBAL AGREEMENT AND NEED FOR INTEREST MONEY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Yesterday the Prime Minister, when speaking of the verbal agreement, said: "Perhaps we acted imprudently but we did so in good faith based on this verbal agreement". Is the Minister of Supply and Services asking us, therefore, to believe that several other Cabinet colleagues knew of the verbal agreement and the needed interest money, but he did not? Can he produce any other minister who shared his ignorance of these two crucial pieces of information?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and this is obvious.


An hon. Member:: You spoke on behalf ot the Minister of National Defence.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER ATTENDED CABINET AND TREASURY BOARD MEETINGS AT WHICH MATTER DISCUSSED
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services was a member of Treasury Board in December and has placed part of the blame on Treasury Board. Presumably, he would be on the sending and receiving end of Treasury Board advice in this matter. Did the Minister of Supply and Services attend any or all of; (a) the Cabinet meeting on November 27, (b) the Treasury Board meeting on December 1 and, (c) the Cabinet meeting on December 2?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is misinformed. There was no cabinet meeting of which I know on December 2 at which this item was discussed. With regard to the
June 4, 1976

Oral Questions
reference to the Treasury Board, of course I was there. In respect of the meeting of cabinet, I was there for part of the cabinet meeting and I stated that the authorization of payments of interest was made by Treasury Board after December 2 and I was in attendance at that meeting.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have one final supplementary for the same minister. On March 29 this year I asked the minister if he was aware of the financial difficulty of the Department of National Defence. They were having difficulty in finding money. The minister gave me a one word answer, no. This was March 29. He must have had that internal document on December 1, so can he please explain the contradiction?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: There are a whole raft of contradictions.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The hon. member can stand up and make any accusation. I can take any type of accusation. I am telling the truth, and that is all.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Walter David Baker: You are an incompetent minister. You do not have the Prime Minister to protect you today.


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the contented Minister of Finance concerning certain budgetary proposals he made a year ago. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration in committee described as a red herring those who wanted to change the UIC Act away from providing for claimants who have spent eight weeks in the labour force by saying that this would particularly affect the people in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Specifically the minister said:
The incidence of disentitlement or disqualification, as an effect of failure to meet one's obligation under the act, is lower amongst the group with a minor attachment to the work force-
I should like to ask the minister if that was the government's view last year and, since my information is that the evidence has not changed one whit, why has the government changed its policy?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in his statement the other day, pointed out that the careful analysis which the government has had from the Unemployment Insurance Commission about the profile of this particular group in the work force is one which has just been available to the government in recent months and which of course has been reinforced by the careful analysis the government and the country has received from the Economic Council with regard to jobs and the work force and the best way to deal with one of the priority problems in Canada.


REASON FOR BELIEVING NO INCREASE IN WELFARE COSTS IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES AS RESULT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CHANGES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, both the evidence the minister has and the views of the Economic Council are in accord with our view and that of critics of the government's change rather than the government's apologies for its announcement. I should like to ask this as a supplementary: since the Minister of Manpower and Immigration also said last year that the particular nature of the labour market in Atlantic Canada made it essential to maintain the Act as it was and said most specifically:
... I think we get at the root of upgrading their opportunity rather than trying to cut them off because they are a cost or an embarrassment. They would be on welfare anyway ...
It was his view that welfare costs were bound to increase for the Atlantic provinces if the Act were changed in this direction. I should like to ask the minister what evidence he has for believing today that welfare costs will not substantially increase in Atlantic Canada as a result of this change.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration dealt with this view fully in a statement he made in the House earlier in the week. He pointed out as I have just pointed out to the hon. gentleman-and I am not sure that any answers will persuade the hon. gentleman away from the political position he is taking-that indeed those in the work force in this particular group who would go on to the welfare rolls would be something less than 10 per cent. That estimate was based, as I said a moment ago and as the minister said the other day, on the analysis and profile that has been determined. We think it is an accurate one. I think the Minister of Manpower and Immigration reinforced the other day the concern that he expressed a year ago, as quoted by the hon. gentleman, that a far better means of policy making would be to find ways in which either by training or by other continued connections with the work force this group could be kept in the work force rather than having to go on unemployment insurance.


John Edward Broadbent: That might be encouraging if the minister did not acknowledge on television that the government has no such programs to implement and will not have them ready until the beginning of 1977.


Some hon. Members:: False.


REQUEST FOR VIEWS OF PROVINCIAL PREMIERS ON CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: If the minister says this is false, he can get up and repeat that in his answer. Since his colleague had acknowledged that over
300,000	people will be affected by the change and was taking solace in the fact only 100,000 at any one time would be affected, as he said, would the minister now produce some statements to the House from the premiers of the Atlantic provinces, each and every one of whom is strongly opposed to these changes?
June 4, 1976


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The
hon. gentleman is repeating the statement that the minister has given no indication of the programs coming into force. He made a speech on this question in the budget debate earlier this week. The leader of the NDP after making that kind of statement-


John Edward Broadbent: Nor will there be any programs before 1977.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -cannot continue to say that the government proposes to do nothing about it.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister made that statement on television.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is a false statement that the leader of the NDP keeps repeating, which does not make it true by reason of the fact that he repeats it all the time. The fact is that the purpose of transferring the funds is to get at the priority group, the chronically unemployed in the Atlantic provinces, and indeed elsewhere in Canada, so they can continue to have a connection with the work force or can continue to have the opportunity. This is the priority of the government. I regret it is not the priority of the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Champlain.


AGRICULTURE
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture-apparently he is still cleaning up after the milk bath he got yesterday and since he missed the boat when he tried to solve the problem of the producers of manufacturing milk-I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he can confirm this morning that a meeting will be held on Tuesday next, according to the announcement made yesterday at the entrance of the Parliament Building, between the executive of the Quebec APU and the federal cabinet. Could the Acting Prime Minister confirm the holding of that meeting?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding they will be meeting with certain ministers of the government.
Oral Questions SUPPLY AND SERVICES


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASON FOR NOT HAVING VERBAL COMMITMENT ON FINANCING CONFIRMED IN WRITING
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Supply and Services. The minister said in the House on May 28 that acting on the verbal agreement with Lockheed was a big mistake, but the Prime Minister indicated yesterday in his remarks that they did so on good faith based on this verbal agreement. Since the Prime Minister knew that the government took its formal action of sending the December 2 telegram to Lockheed based on the verbal agreement, will the minister say why the Department of Supply and Services permitted this December 2 telegram to be sent without making certain that the verbal commitment was confirmed in writing? Surely this is the sole purpose of the Department of Supply and Services.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I hate to repeat myself but I already have stated many times in the House that I was not aware to this oral agreement.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF COMPANY'S CREDIT POSITION
Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. If the minister is so certain that Lockheed did make such a verbal commitment, about which he found out later, will he say whether he or his department were aware of Lockheed's credit agreement which prevented that company from borrowing more than $50 million, a fact which should have been well known to him or at least to his officials?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I think the hon. member should refer to the fact that I did not know about any oral agreement with Lockheed.


Peter Colwell Bawden: How about their credit agreement?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Of course, if I did know, it was because I did not expect that Lockheed was going to be asked to finance the program. This is very clear.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASON COMPANY COMMITTED ONLY TO BEST ENDEAVOUR TO ARRANGE FINANCING
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Peter C Bawden (Calgary South): If the minister does admit that he finally learned there was a verbal agreement with Lockheed to cover the interim financing, will the minister say why in the final formal letter of commitment of March 31, which he tabled in this House, Lockheed is committed only to a best endeavour to arrange financing? Was the department or was the government at that point letting Lockheed off its verbal commitment? Was the government letting Lockheed off the hook at that point in time?
Jean-Pierre Goyer: The hon. member should change his prepared questions according to the answers he receives. The questions
14156

June 4, 1976
Oral Questions
start with the premise that I knew about this oral agreement before December 1.1 did not.


Peter Colwell Bawden: When did you find out?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of National Defence. Due to the apparent confusion, contradiction and evasion in this whole matter, which lead to a very genuine doubt on both sides of the House relating to the matter, I wonder if the minister would agree that a reference of this matter to the Defence Committee along with the authority to that committee to call, not only the ministers concerned, but also the key civil servants in this matter is now very definitely a requirement?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that this subject has been examined exhaustively by the standing committee with officials present.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the government House leader. Because the civil servants who have been castigated in this matter have never yet had the public opportunity of defending themselves and the members of this House have never had an honest opportunity to get to the bottom of the matter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -I wonder if the government House leader would agree that a reference of this whole matter to the Public Accounts Committee is now a very definite requirement.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. As I said the other day, if the public servant in question has a grievance, there are ways that can be dealt with.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Supply

and Services. Is it the position of the minister that the Department of National Defence on December 2 rejected the idea that there was a financing problem, and if so, would he tell the House what kind of assurance that department gave him which led him to send that telex?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question previously today.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reluctance or refusal to answer my specific question I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Was the minister advised of the aide-memoire of December 1, and if so, would he tell the House how he satisfied himself that there would be no financing problem? Does the minister have documentation to provide, or did he simply rely on wishful thinking?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the discussions at that stage were between officials of both departments. There was very close interdepartmental co-operation at that time, and I have indicated to the House on earlier occasions that my officials were involved with the officials of the Department of Supply and Services in the forming of the telegram which went on December 2.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A hell of a result.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-SUGGESTED INFORMAL BRIEFING OF MEMBERS ON DETAILS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of his remarks a moment ago with respect to a formal reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence would he give consideration to an informal briefing of the members of that committee and the members of the Public Accounts Committee so that we might understand a little clearer the exact implications of the subject matter which is under discussion now?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to appear before the standing committee at any time, as I have on a number of occasions, and I will go through the subject matter once again for any members who may wish me to do so.
June 4, 1976


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder then if I might direct the question first posed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham to the Acting Prime Minister. In the light of the reply of the Minister of National Defence just now would he either informally or otherwise cause the subject matter of this controversy to be referred, in the first instance, to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be desirable to do that at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: It seems to me that there are two questions involved. There is the question of cross-examination of the ministers, and this is being carried out in the question period. It could be carried on on any opposition day that the opposition may wish to take for that purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: As far as public servants are concerned, it seems to me that this is a case where the ordinary procedures which are provided by laws approved by this parliament should prevail.


Mr. Horner:: Somebody has to protect the civil service.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Considering that the Board of Directors of Air Canada met on Wednesday, June 2, to review the language policy of the corporation so as to pattern it along the lines of the Official Languages Act, and considering that 500 Air Canada mechanics voiced their intention of joining the corporation's pilots so that the guidelines and conditions of employment they are subject to take into account the requirements of the Official Languages Act, can the Minister of Transport inform the House whether he and Air Canada representatives had the opportunity to re-examine the corporation's regulations with respect to the Official Languages Act and the language policy he announced in Montreal on December 15, last, and whether he intends, as minister responsible for Air Canada, to urge the corporation to review the working language policy under which the corporation's mechanics operate?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this morning at nine o'clock the president of Air Canada issued a statement which reviewed the corpora-
Oral Questions
tion's position and its endeavours to introduce the spirit of the official federal bilingual policy into Air Canada. He set out in some detail some of the difficulties and problems but also some of the steps which already have been taken and ones which will be taken. He certainly confirmed the view of the corporation that its obligation and objective is to incorporate the spirit of bilingualism, as known by this House, into its operations.


COMPANY POLICY WITH REGARD TO PILOTS USING PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS ON AIRCRAFT TO COMMENT ON BILINGUALISM
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport tell the House whether the management of Air Canada has any policy with respect to captains while on duty commenting about this problem which is now before parliament?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been several incidents in recent days of Air Canada captains or others using the address systems of airplanes for matters other than those necessary to the flights. Air Canada management has indicated to them that that is strictly contrary to policy and that their use of the public address systems on the planes is to be limited to matters necessary for flights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. My question is in connection with the Habitat Conference. Would the Acting Prime Minister explain to the House the government's position in rejecting the admirable proposal put before the conference by the U.N. Secretariat that profits from land sales be returned to the community, particularly when this surplus value arises from public improvements rather than private effort, and will he also explain to what extent the rejection of the U.N.'s position arises from the control of the Canadian delegation by a former land developer and a present land developer?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with that particular question, the instructions given to the Canadian delegation at the present time are that it should not accept in an unqualified way the proposal made by the Secretariat of the Habitat Conference. As the discussion continues at the conference the Canadian delegation will be able to make its position more clear and it does not represent an outright rejection of the principle that has been proposed by the Habitat secretariat.
95568-62V2

June 4, 1976
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF LAND SPECULATION TAX
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what could be any more of an outright rejection than the statement made at Habitat by the Canadian delegation that this is a matter of private profit and we are not going to interfere with the system. It seems to me they are taking a pretty conclusive position and it is quite contrary to the position taken by many other countries. I should like to ask the minister if the government is prepared to bring in a full capital gains tax, if not a speculation tax, in order to control profits from land speculation particularly in view of the government's own antiinflation program in which they say they are trying to control costs, particularly land speculation costs which are one of the most blatant examples of what is wrong with the anti-inflation program.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is obviously a budgetary matter.


ALLEGED OBJECTION OF FRANCE TO CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN ECONOMIC SUMMIT MEETING IN PUERTO RICO
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As it has been announced that Canada has been invited by the United States to a seven country economic summit meeting which will be held later this month in Puerto Rico and which is a follow-up meeting to the one held last November in Rambouillet, France, would the minister indicate the basis of France's objection to our participating in the Puerto Rico meeting and to whom were the objections made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his own inimitable way has been following this issue and perhaps he might like to respond. It is not a budgetary matter.


Mr. Fairweather:: You two are better than the other two, I can tell you that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there have been no communications between the government of Canada and the government of France with respect to the position the latter may have taken concerning Canadian attendance at the economic summit in Puerto Rico. The invitation to Canada was extended to the Prime Minister by the President of the United States and we believe our presence is justified because of the natural significance of Canada as a member of the industrialized community.


REASON CANADA NOT INVITED TO ECONOMIC SUMMIT MEETING AT RAMBOUILLET FRANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, this time to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that we have received an invita-

tion to the meeting in Puerto Rico which the minister indicates we are justified in receiving-and I agree- would he indicate why we were not invited to the Rambouillet meeting last November, bearing in mind that it appears rather inconsistent that we should now be invited to the follow-up meeting after having been snubbed at the original meeting in France?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my conclusion is that the international community has recognized that Canada has a rightful place at a meeting of this kind. I regard this present invitation as an acceptance by all members of the international community that Canada should be invited. It is certainly a step forward from the situation that existed at Rambouillet.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of certain statements in some newspapers concerning the appointment of Mr. Keenan to the effect that as the union's adviser, he had distinguished himself with his most virulent campaigns against bilingualism while serving the air pilots' union, would the Minister of Transport advise whether, before appointing Mr. Keenan, he had conducted an inquiry or was aware of his actions, and if so, why did he appoint him?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of the fact that on several occasions Mr. Keenan had acted as counsel for CALPA, the pilots' association. I was also satisfied that he was qualified in terms of his knowledge of air matters, and legal matters associated with them, and that he was a very reasonable person who could approach this issue in a completely unbiased fashion, so there would be no impact upon his work from this previous association with CALPA.


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF FRENCH-SPEAKING MEMBER TO KEENAN COMMISSION
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
In view of the circumstances, it seems that the association of French-speaking pilots has serious doubts as to the impartiality of this commissioner. Would the minister, to give this inquiry all due credibility, review his decision and appoint also a French-speaking associate commissioner so as to meet the objective he has set for himself?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all persuaded that there has been any argument which would lead to that as an appropriate
June 4, 1976

conclusion. The suggestion has been made, and on occasion it has been put in terms of a desire, to appoint a Francophone to the commission. I think it should be understood that Mr. Keenan is in fact fluently bilingual-and I mean completely and fluently bilingual. Indeed, I think if one were to do a blood test he is more Francophone than Anglophone in blood, if you are going to follow it that way. I hope the hon. member is not such a chauvinist as to suggest that it makes a difference if it is the father of his father who was Anglophone and only the mother of his mother and the mothers of his mother and father who were Francophone.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister told a press conference following a two day meeting of federal-provincial health ministers that the federal government is determined to introduce an income supplement program and is prepared to do it unilaterally. A number of provinces have admitted that they cannot support the cost of such a program by 1978. Would the minister advise the House if the federal government is firmly committed to the introduction of such a program before 1978?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stan Darling: A supplementary question. Will the minister further advise the House if he has received full cabinet support for a unilateral introduction of an income support scheme? If this is the case, can he indicate with any precision when such a program will be in place?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall be quite pleased to send the hon. member a copy of the communique of the conference, a transcript of my press conference and photocopies of the press report on the subject-and my picture, too, if he wishes. He will find that nowhere did I say that I or cabinet had decided to proceed unilaterally. I quite clearly indicated that the government was committed to the support of the working poor in this country, that this was an area in the field of social security which had not been covered up to now; and that there was a real need to look after the working poor better. Our social security system should have a program with incentives to work, a factor which it does not have at the present time.
I then said that the preferred option of the government was to proceed on a cost-shared basis developed jointly with the provinces. Seven provinces out of ten endorsed the proposal in principle, two did not pronounce themselves; one, the province of Ontario, objected to the plan. As far as the government is concerned, we prefer to proceed on a joint shared basis on this one. If the provinces eventually come to the conclusion that they cannot or will not proceed on a cost-shared basis, I stated that we would
Oral Questions
have to seriously consider proceeding unilaterally but I did not say that we would.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns the Professional Institute of the Public Service and the agriculture group arbitral award which came down on April 13. The President of the Treasury Board made representations with respect to that particular award and on May 20, the Anti-Inflation Board gave the Treasury Board its decision without communicating in any way with the institute. Can the minister advise why the Treasury Board is apparently making separate and secret representations to the Anti-Inflation Board without ensuring that the institute has an equal opportunity to be heard?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular incident. However, I will seek information and report to the hon. member.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: It is the second incident.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we at Treasury Board have to negotiate with the unions, but at the same time the Parliament of Canada has voted a legislation which determines the levels of salaries that must be paid to all employees-


Donald W. Munro: They should be informed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and if the board contacts one of the parties, I may have no knowledge of that because I am only one of the two parties. The board therefore must face its responsibilities.


ALLEGATION OF DOUBLE COUNTING IN COMPUTING TOTAL COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is probably aware that Treasury Board has been computing total compensation by double counting of holiday time and other matters. This is a serious area of dispute between the institute and Treasury Board. Can the minister now say to this House that he will ensure that this error in computing is brought to the attention of the Anti-Inflation Board so that board is not confirming or making decisions with incorrect facts as to the computation of total compensation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when I was in Toronto not long ago, I met with the leaders of the unions. We discussed that fact. We were

June 4, 1976
Oral Questions
making the calculation based on the requirement of the Anti-Inflation Board. We had some discussion with the AIB on that and I understand they have changed their ruling. This is why we have been able in some cases in the past week to make a better offer. Previously, it was not our way calculating but the way the AIB was forcing us to calculate the increase.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
Further to an increase of $86 million under the dairy policy of 1976-77, the amount allocated to this sector just passed from $535 million to $621 million, and considering that about 48 per cent of the industrial milk producers come from the province of Quebec, does the minister have some authority in this field? If so, is he ready to take action to insure a fairer distribution of the quotas, to suppress the monthly quota and to encourage a stronger representation of the industrial milk producers on the Canadian Dairy Commission and the management committee?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister appeared before the agriculture committee he said he was prepared to meet the producers to discuss this matter.


TRANSPORT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. As a result of the chronic difficulties experienced by the B.C. Railway with management, labour and financing, have there been discussions with the province of British Columbia or between the CNR and the province of British Columbia in order to work out an arrangement by which CNR could assume ownership of that railway?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such discussions. The subject matter did come up on one occasion when I happened to be with the premier of British Columbia, but not in a serious way. I do not know if the matter has been followed up.


Frank Oberle: As the railway only operates about 50 per cent of the time because of the difficulties I have mentioned, is there any way by which the Department of Transport or CNR can intervene in order to save some of the key industries in that part of the country such as the wood fibre industry and the energy industry which are

dependent on this railway to bring their products to market?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, at the present time it is a matter within the jurisdiction and control of the government of British Columbia. I indicated there have been no discussions that I know of pursuing an alternative arrangement.
I should say to the hon. member that if British Columbia shows any real interest in such alternative arrangements, I am perfectly willing to discuss it.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. At 5:30 a m. on June 2 on Highway 17, an AECL truck carrying a 6,700 pound cannister of solid uranium 235 overturned in a single car accident, following which the driver was charged. Is there any review being made with regard to the condition of drivers before they get into their trucks so that we can avoid this hazardous transportation of radioactive fuel?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make a judgment on the condition of the driver. I am in the position of being able to say that the driver, Mr. Gallagher, escaped without serious injury. The shipping flask containing the radioactive material remained secured to the truck bed and was not damaged. An instrument check confirmed that there was no leakage of radiation. The container was transferred to another truck for onward transport to AECL's South March plant. This unfortunate incident was quickly remedied and the radioactive material which was going forward for processing into medical supplies continued on its way very quickly.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Also on board that truck was a further package carrying strontium 89, a radioactive material, which was in a glass vial and packed in a styrofoam and plywood box. Can the minister advise whether that is sufficient safeguard? I might say that the second package was added to the truck at the last moment.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that there was no danger to public safety in the transporting of these materials.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I will put my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that over $280 million has been spent by the Great Lakes Water Quality Program with
June 4, 1976

little or no progress, as outlined in the latest report by the International Joint Commission, and because of the high density presence of dangerous chemicals such as PCB and others which continue to increase in large quantities and at least one of which is known to cause cancer, can the parliamentary secretary explain to this House how and why these dangerous chemical concentrates were allowed to reach this present unacceptable level and, more important, what immediate steps the government intends to take to eliminate these and future dangers which potentially could affect over 30 million North Americans living around the Great Lakes?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has noted the report. He should note that as far as the presence of PCB's in the Great Lakes is concerned, four times the amount that comes into the Great Lakes from waste water systems in Canada comes from the air. That is a very important point. We as a government can make restrictions on non-electrical uses of PCB's and, in the future, a no-use of PCB's even for electrical uses. That is fine, Mr. Speaker, but when you look at the total amount of PCB's in the Great Lakes, the amount that falls from the air is of great importance. It take two to tango and the United States, as the report shows, is the greatest polluter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech, even though it did not relate to my question. In view of the seriousness of this matter, I will direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of these potential dangers that now exist in the Great Lakes, and because of the sluggish progress being made by the International Joint Commission, can the Acting Prime Minister advise this House whether the government would consider or is considering the introduction and implementation of far stiffer penalties to industries and municipalities which continue to dump new types as well as old types of pollutants into our rivers and lakes?


George Baker: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, we are considering it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the statements made by the Co-chairman of the Symposium on Development, Maurice Strong of Petro-Can, and Barbara Ward in which both condemn Canada's nuclear policy. In view of these statements by these eminent persons, and in view of the growing feeling at the Habitat Conference in condemnation of Canada's nuclear policy, would the minister advise us whether any active task force is presently reviewing that
Oral Questions
policy and whether the House can expect recommendations in the near future concerning a change in that policy having regard to the world-wide condemnation it has evoked.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I differ from the hon. member's assumption that the Habitat forum singled out Canada for particular reference. What I understood was that the forum called for a moratorium on the transfer of nuclear technology. I believe the forum ought to set itself more achievable objectives than objectives which at the present time are unattainable internationally.


POSSIBILITY OF CANADA REQUESTING MORATORIUM ON NUCLEAR SALES AT SUPPLIERS' CONFERENCE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I understand at the present that Canada is meeting in London with other members of the nuclear suppliers group. Are any specific proposals being made by the Canadian representatives at that meeting for a moratorium applicable not only to ourselves but to other suppliers until there is better agreement on this subject?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I have already stated that in my view such a goal is unachievable.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege having to do with a statement made earlier in the House by the Minister of Finance. I can well understand the minister trying to weasel out of the implications of his own budget with particular reference to the harm it will do to the unemployed in Canada, but I cannot accept his imputation that I uttered a falsehood in the House of Commons. I said earlier in the question period-and I repeat-that the government has not indicated that it has programs ready to create new jobs with specific application to the changes made in the Unemployment Insurance Act. This meant, now-this year.
Further, I said that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, speaking on television the other night, stated that such programs would not be forthcoming until next year. If I remember more precisely, he referred to January, 1977. I call upon the minister to reconsider his comment-the imputation that what I said was a falsehood. He should be defensive about his budget, but he should not accuse people on this side of the House in a way which questions their honesty, when in fact I was repeating statements made by his own colleague.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, both inside the House and outside it, has stated at some length that he will be presenting programs additional to those already proposed for the purpose of dealing with direct employment measures and further retraining, together with other measures of that kind, as set out in his speech. I suggest to the hon. member that he read the speech as a start. When the hon. member says that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has not put that position forward in the House, I say that is a false statement.


John Edward Broadbent: I said for this year.

June 4, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The next question is whether the leader of the NDP is deliberately misleading the House and attempting deliberately to mislead the country by what he is saying, or whether he is saying it because he does not know any better. We do have a parliamentary custom in this country, according to which I have to assume he is not deliberately trying to mislead the House. Because of that custom, I must assume he is saying it because he does not know any better. In any case, it does not matter what his motives are: I accept that he is just uninformed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Rather than a pure question of privilege, this seems to be something of a disagreement between two members and perhaps the matter can be pursued in some other way.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot think of any other avenue through which to raise the matter of the extraordinarily excellent police services which were provided yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I believe most people would be impressed by the coolness and the efficiency of the protective staff, the RCMP and the Ottawa police.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: This in no way judges or prejudges the merits of the case the demonstrators were putting before the government.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the point of order just raised by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, may I say that were it not for the fact that I bear ultimate responsibility for that force and, indeed, for all those who serve in the House of Commons on a regular basis in connection with our security, I would have made a similar comment. However, I thought that if I made it from the chair it might appear to be a little self-serving.
However, I may say I was impressed by the quality of the performance yesterday, in very trying circumstances, by the Sergeant-at-Arms who is responsible for the security in this building and, indeed, by the RCMP special force which he called into play, a force which seemed to me to act with dignity and tact in most difficult circumstances. They deserve to be congratulated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to something which occurred during the question period today. I refer to the difficulty which seems to be apparent, and the mud in the sense of the lack of clarity in the government's position with respect to the knowledge of the Minister of Supply and Services in this whole matter. I do so, and I hope the President of the Privy Council will accept it in this way because what is happening here is that the government's refusal to answer the request of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East is affecting the operations of the House of Commons. Moreover, what has occurred during

the last few days has affected the very important relationship which ought to exist between the government and the public service. I rise on this point of order because the President of the Privy Council was himself a public servant and ought to be aware of the situation. Therefore, I hope he will consider what I propose to deal with by way of a point of order.
The facts of the case thus far-at least those which are ascertainable-are that on December 1, 1975, the Minister of Supply and Services received an aide-memoire from his deputy minister which dealt with a number of things, but particularly with financing.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter David Baker: The aide-memoire said that the cash flow requirement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am, of course, presuming that the hon. member intends to proceed to the point of order as quickly as possible, and I should like to have the opportunity of hearing him do so.


Walter David Baker: The aide-memoire said that the cash flow requirements for the most cost-effective production schedule exceeded the amounts that DND could provide in the early years of the contract. That is a quotation from a memorandum to the minister, from the deputy minister, on December 1, 1975.


Some hon. Members:: Prove it.


Walter David Baker: Yet when he answered on March 29, 1976-


An hon. Member:: Do you have any gum-shoes?


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre put a question to the minister as follows:
In an effort to clear up the confusion surrounding this contract once and for all, I should like to ask the minister whether he was aware that the Department of National Defence had only $30 million available to start production of the LRPA, and was he aware that Lockheed had made a verbal agreement with DND to provide the interim financing itself?
The minister's answer on that occasion was "No." My point of order is this. Either through inadvertence or otherwise-and I would like to adopt the words of the Minister of Finance a few moments ago and say it was inadvertence-it may be that the minister does not know there has been this contradiction in the record or does not understand what the facts may be-there is a contradiction on the record. I think it important to the operation of the House that that question be cleared up.
The Minister of National Defence, in answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, indicated his willingness to appear before the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons. I presumed that that willingness of the minister extended not just to himself but to the public servants involved. In order to clear this matter up completely, I hope the Minister of Supply and Services would express the same kind of
June 4, 1976

willingness to appear before that committee with his officials to answer questions. One of those officials would be Mr. Stopforth, whose reputation as a public servant has been impugned and who, despite the statements by the President of the Privy Council, has really not had an opportunity to defend himself. It is not enough to say that he has remedies under access to the courts. If I may just make one further small point, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: It is a very interesting argument, but I am in fact having great difficulty in seeing where the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is establishing anything to do with what is a potential or an actual point of order. It is a very interesting point of debate, a matter that may require further urging and questioning, and I do want to let the hon. member have the opportunity to develop what might be a fundamental point of order. However, unless some aspect of it has not been developed so far, I would urge upon him that he has a point for debate, a point for discussion, rather than a point of order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to satisfy Your Honour on that score; and if I cannot, then I cannot. However, the issue is important, and it becomes doubly important because information has been given to me that the deputy minister of supply and services has asked Mr. Stopforth to resign. Mr. Stopforth has refused to resign. On the basis of the question that I raised a few days ago in connection with cabinet responsibility and the importance of a cabinet minister not being allowed to impugn the reputation of a public servant, I contend this is a matter of order in this House of Commons-surely here, if nowhere else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I believe that this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness, the hon. member will surely realize that he is dealing with a matter of substance. It may be a matter of great substance, but nevertheless it is a matter of substance, not a matter of procedure. We have to be careful, if we are to adhere to the procedures of the House, to see that an argument on a point of order is confined to the procedures of the House. The hon. member is arguing a question of substance, not a matter of procedure; it is a matter that does not directly relate to the orders of the day, to the business of the House, to business that is to follow today. As I say, it may be a matter for a substantive motion if the hon. member feels strongly about it, but I am not able to ask other hon. members to debate the merits of the hon. member's case. In my view, it would only be prolonging a matter that has been dealt with in questions today. I would respectfully suggest that the hon. member is not raising a point of order, and that the matter should be left there.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would say at the outset, most respectfully to the Chair, that I would not want it in any way to be interpreted that I am questioning the ruling of the Chair; this I am not doing. I wish to rise to seek clarification from the Chair as to why it was out of order for me, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 earlier this day, by way of a motion, if the
Oral Questions
House had permitted me to introduce the motion, to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the RCMP, when charges would be laid against certain members of the head office staff of the Unemployment Insurance Commission of Canada for taking part in a gigantic fraud of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which to date has uncovered the fact that in the Ottawa office alone over $100,000 of taxpayers' money has been embezzled.
I felt that I was bringing out a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, one that involves taxpayers' money. Obviously, the matter is of a very serious nature, and in view of the fact that it is reported to extend to a number of other officers across the country and to have very serious implications over and beyond, such as what the money which has been obtained in this defrauding process has been used for, I felt it was of urgent and pressing necessity. I really rise to ask clarification as to why the raising of such a matter is not considered in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not disagree with anything the hon. member said in his point of order. He did, in fact, raise a subject that does not in any way disqualify itself from being treated under Standing Order 43. But what the hon. member did, as other hon. members have done recently, was to go on to add to his brief statement of the urgency of the matter, a matter of controversial information, a matter involving discussion, disagreement and debate. I have indicated that when an hon. member goes beyond the limits of explaining the urgency of the matter and goes into matters of debate and disagreement, then he ought not to proceed. I asked the hon. member to desist from that, but the hon. member then went on to put further matters of controversial information and it was at that point that I felt he should be stopped.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would draw Your Honour's attention to remarks directed in the House yesterday in the course of debate by the hon. member for St. Boniface. I have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member says he is referring to proceedings which took place yesterday and he proposes to develop a question of privilege based on them. To my knowledge, I have had no notification from him, as required under the Standing Order, so I cannot accept a question of privilege at this time unless it arises out of today's proceedings.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Then I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is rising on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of privilege that affects the rights and privileges of all members of the House. It has only now come to my attention, and at the first opportunity I want to bring it to Your Honour's attention. It has to do with certain admissions made by the hon. member for St. Boniface respecting his activities in the House. I should like to have the opportunity of giving Your Honour the basis for my question of privilege which, as I say, only came to my attention a few moments ago as a result of certain answers.

June 4, 1976
Fisheries


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You were not even here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel somewhat helpless. The Standing Order and the practice of the House clearly require that, if a question of privilege is to be raised with respect to the previous day's proceedings, some notification must be given to the Chair. If it relates to a matter that came about today and no notice is therefore possible, then that is a different matter. But the hon. member is raising a question relating to a previous proceeding. If the hon. member sought to raise it today by way of a question of privilege, then the Chair would have to have been notified. The fact that the matter has just come to his attention at this moment, if I accept it, could always be used by a member to circumvent the provision of notice to the Chair of a question of privilege. I am not particularly happy about it, but in the circumstances I feel helpless to assist the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I stated in the House on May 18 that information concerning the position which Canada will take at the forthcoming ICNAF meeting would be conveyed to the House. Our position at the ICNAF meeting cannot be discussed separately from our position on extended Canadian fisheries' jurisdiction to 200 miles. I wish to make a statement on both these issues and to announce today the government's decision to extend the fisheries jurisdiction of Canada out to 200 miles from the coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Implementation of this decision under existing Canadian legislation will come later this year, and in any event will be in place by January 1, 1977. The state of our fishery resource and the situation of our fishermen, of our fishing industry, and of our coastal communities, make this action imperative. There will be no fishery resource left to protect if action is not taken now, because the fish stocks will be so depleted as to disappear as a resource of commercial significance. Not only the fish, but our Canadian fishermen too are an "endangered species", as I have heard them describe themselves.
The protection of Canadian interests is of concern to us as a result of the extension of U.S. fisheries jurisdiction in March, 1977. Mexico, our other neighbour on the North American continent, has left compelled to act and has recently adopted legislation to bring about an extension of jurisdiction to 200 miles.

The government last year instructed Canadian officials to conduct bilateral negotiations with major fishing states operating off the Canadian coast regarding the terms and conditions that Canada will apply when permitting foreign fisheries in respect of any resources surplus to Canadian harvesting capacity within Canada's 200-mile zone. Agreements have been signed with Norway, Poland and the U.S.S.R., as well as ad referendum agreements with Spain and Portugal, in addition to the agreement with France entered into in 1972. These various agreements, when they are all in place, will cover major foreign fisheries off Canada's Pacific coast and more than 88 per cent of the foreign catch in that part of the ICNAF convention area to be incorporated within Canada's 200-mile zone. They will provide for a smooth transition to the new regime of extended Canadian fisheries jurisdiction.
There will be a continuing need, following extensions of fisheries jurisdiction by coastal states, for multilateral fisheries co-operation. New multilateral arrangements will be needed to bring the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries-ICNAF-and other fisheries conventions into line with the new jurisdictional realities. The instructions to the Canadian delegation to the ICNAF meeting in June have been formulated on the basis of Canada's decision to extend its fisheries jurisdiction by January 1, 1977. The delegation has been instructed to make clearly known to other delegations Canada's intention regarding extension of jurisdiction and possible future multilateral arrangements for the northwest Atlantic.
We will also give notice to other nations fishing off our coast that conservation and management measures for 1977 will be established by Canada to provide for effective protection and rebuilding of the stocks and must ensure, within such conservation limits, that the needs of Canadian fishermen are satisfied. At the same time, we are prepared to commit ourselves, as we already have in the bilateral agreements, to allow other nations to fish in Canada's 200-mile zone for stocks surplus to Canada's harvesting capacity, and to carry out appropriate consultations with such countries in the development of regulations within the zone. We are prepared to co-operate with other nations in this way, but in return we expect their co-operation in achieving our objectives.
I wish to emphasize that the government will in no way abandon its deep commitment to reaching multilateral solutions to problems of the Law of the Sea in general, and fisheries in particular. We will continue to work within the UN conference on the Law of the Sea to reach agreement not only on fisheries but also on the other vital and difficult issues facing the conference, issues such as the establishment of an international authority for the management of the resources of the deep seabed and ocean floor which constitute the "common heritage of mankind"; the preservation and protection of the marine environment, including the Arctic; and the breadth of the territorial sea and the other related question of passage through straits used for international navigation. These issues must find an early multilateral solution.
We knew from the outset that the spring session of the Law of the Sea conference in New York could not achieve final agreement on a new convention. At least one more session will be necessary for this purpose, and the confer-
June 4, 1976

ence will convene again in New York from August 2 to September 17. We hope it will succeed, but must anticipate that even then there would still be formalities to be concluded. I said at the United Nations General Assembly last fall, then at the Law of the Sea conference in New York, and most recently in the House of Commons, that 1976 must be the year of decision for the conference. I wish to make clear here and now that 1976 is also the year of decision for Canada's extension of fisheries jurisdiction out to 200 miles.
The decision I am announcing today to extend Canada's fisheries jurisdiction does not constitute unilateral action that either leaves no room for negotiation or ignores the interests of other countries directly concerned. It is action for which we have carefully prepared the way through both bilateral and regional negotiations within ICNAF and within the multilateral framework of the Law of the Sea conference. It is action based on a growing consensus among nations, a consensus which is increasingly finding its way into state practice and is reflected in the provisions of the single negotiating text that emerged from last year's session of the Law of the Sea conference in Geneva and has been confirmed in this year's revised text. It is action that is based on Canada's obligation as a good steward or custodian to protect and preserve a perishable resource which is increasingly threatened with depletion while growing in importance as a source of food for the world at large. It is action that will ensure the fishery resources off the Canadian coast can be managed wisely for the benefit of Canadians and, indeed, of the entire world.
In conclusion, Canada is better prepared than perhaps any other country for extension of fisheries jurisdiction. Since the amendment of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zone Act in 1970, we already have the necessary enabling legislation for establishment of the 200-mile limit and, after giving statutory notice, need only promulgate an order in council. That order in council will be promulgated at an appropriate time this year so as to have the 200-mile limit in place for January 1, 1977. We have also completed the necessary technical preparation. We have already concluded much of the necessary negotiation with the major distant-water fishing states concerned. Above all, we have the expertise and determination to carry through and implement our extended jurisdiction in an effective way, without rancour, without confrontation and without prejudicing the hope we share with the world that a multilateral solution to fisheries problems can ultimately be found, even while states take the national measures of protection that are so urgently needed.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the minister and would like to congratulate him for finally making this most welcome announcement concerning Canada's extention of its limit to 200 miles. The Progressive Conservative party has long advocated a 200-mile limit, and it is good to see the government finally following suit. I should like at this time, also, to thank the minister for the courtesy he has extended the official opposition by making a copy of his statement available prior to its presentation in the House, a practice that I would suggest might well be followed by other ministers of the Crown in making important national statements.
Fisheries
The minister has rightfully pointed out that "the state of our fishing resource and the situation of our fishermen, of our fishing industry, and of our coastal communities make this action imperative". There will be no fishery resource left to protect if action is not taken now, because the fish stocks will be so depleted as to disappear as a resource of commercial significance. There is nothing I could do to condemn more adequately the inaction of the government in this important matter to date than by referring to a similar statement by a previous Liberal minister, as follows:
Now we are engaged in an even bigger enterprise; one which will have the support of at least two-thirds of the membership of the UN; one which will almost certainly carry the day at the next Law of the Sea conference; one which will bring practically all of our offshore fish stocks under Canadian control.
This was a statement by Jack Davis on May 23, over three full years ago. Naturally, our party and the Canadian people wonder what caused this delay, for because of this delay the Canadian fishermen, the Canadian fishing industry and the Canadian economy as a whole have suffered heavily. Now, the fishermen-certainly those in Atlantic Canada-are adopting a "wait and see" attitude. "We will believe it when we see it", seems to be their view, and this is understandable. In 1972, for example, total fish landings in Canada were 2,258 million pounds; in 1973, they were 2,190 million pounds, in 1974, 1,839 million pounds; and in 1975, 1,578 million pounds-or a full 30 per cent decrease from 1972 figures. For particular species such as redfish, the situation is even worse. The redfish fishery is near a state of collapse, producing a situation pitting Canadian against Canadian, because certain areas of the Gulf have been closed to certain Nova Scotia and Newfoundland fishing vessels. As a result, we have had to go begging to the Russians for part of their redfish quota. This would not have happened if we had declared a 200-mile limit earlier.
The minister also has said that the bilateral agreements will provide for a smooth transition to the new regime of extended Canadian fisheries jurisdiction. But do they really? I have pointed out previously in this House that the wording of the recent Canada-U.S.S.R. fishing agreement is not clear as to what extent Russia would recognize or even obey a Canadian directive, especially if it was directed to fish for less quota. The Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) recently signed an agreement in Moscow which gave to the Russians an increased quota in caplin in exchange for some of the redfish quota which they presently have. But I would remind the House that the redfish quota given up by the Russians was not on the Soviet shelf but was on our own shelf. I would also remind the House of a fact which seems to be ingored by the present government, namely, that there is some order in the food chain and that the caplin quotas should have been reduced rather than increased because caplin is the food stock for all our groundfish species. If our groundfish stocks are to be rebuilt, we must make those original food stocks available in the food chain.
This raises another matter. The Department of Fisheries officials, ICNAF officials and the Fisheries Council of Canada-in fact, almost everyone but the Minister of State for Fisheries-have asserted that Canadian fishing

June 4, 1976
Fisheries
research is less than adequate. We do not know the breeding patterns of most fish species, nor how much fish there is within the 200-mile limit, nor how much fish should be caught. Presently, we rely to a great extent on the fisheries research of other nations. The Fisheries Council of Canada has decried this fact. The fishing industry on the east coast has offered to take scientists, free of charge, out on their boats to conduct research and, on the west coast, the Pacific Trawlers Association has offered additional funding to the department for its research program. Both offers were refused. What sort of attitude is this?
By his actions, the minister has allocated quotas and allowable fish catches without knowing the quantity of the stocks available. I say that one of the most important steps now required is an increase in fisheries research. We must formulate discussions with the industry on our long-range fisheries goals and plans for management of all marine stocks off our coasts. We need an increase in personnel, equipment and facilities in order to do this work, and wherever possible this work could, and should, be done from Canadian commercial fishing ships. Only in this way can we be assured that the stocks will be rebuilt. Unless this happens, the 200-mile limit declaration, which should offer a challenge, only becomes an illusion. The announcement is welcome, but it is only a beginnings-just one small step. There is much more to be done before the Canadian fishery can recover and regain its former good health.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, we too, in the New Democratic Party welcome the announcement today. It is better late than not at all. I should like to say that in spite of the myriad problems facing our fishermen on both coasts, the announcement of a 200-mile limit

which has long been advocated by the fishermen of the west coast-will go some distance toward assisting us in the protection of our stocks. However, I cannot unreservedly be congratulatory with respect to the 200-mile zone from the point of view of the Pacific coast. First of all, we have some very serious problems on the Panhandle in negotiating catches with the United States. We have some very serious problems in terms of interception of salmon on the coast. These problems need more active attention by this government. They must be resolved, and until they are the 200-mile declaration can be quite empty and useless.
The position Canada has taken at the Law of the Sea conference for a long time has been a 200-mile zone or the continental margin. On the east coast, only a Liberal fishing policy, it seems to me, could have put the "Greenpeace" organization in the same camp as the Fishermen's Union of Newfoundland. Amazingly enough, they are now both together in opposition to the kind of Liberal fishing policy this country has seen. In view of their great differences over sealing, it would be only a Liberal policy which would bring those two together. Amazingly, it has done so.
On the east coast, the Hamilton Bank, the George's Bank and the Grand Bank portions of those major fishing areas are outside the 200-mile zone. Canada's position at the Law of the Sea conference was not 200 miles; it was 200 miles or the margin, whichever is the farthest. I think it is amazing that the minister today can introduce this statement without giving a single explanation of why the declaration did not include the margin on the east coast. Surely he has a

duty to this House to explain the discrepancy between the position taken by Alan Beesley and the fine Canadian delegation at the Law of the Sea conference and the position this government is now taking which is inconsistent with that position.
I hope the minister will spend a good deal of time in the question period trying to satisfy the House about this most serious discrepancy. I suspect it might have something to do with the treaty recently negotiated with the Soviet Union concerning the area outside the 200-mile zone. But, surely if the purpose of the declaration is to improve our negotiating stance at the ICNAF conference-and I suspect that is one of the reasons, and I suspect, by the way, that it could have been done two years ago and would have resulted in better fishing limits being established at that conference, but better late than never-now that the minister has made the declaration, how do we go to that conference with the margin open? Surely our hand would have been strengthened in June if we had gone for the margin and then negotiated from strength.
Again, it is a halfway position. We should have gone for the margin. We should have gone to the conference with strength, and then we could have reduced our fishing catches on the east coast. The date is significant. The date for implementation is January, 1977. The United States legislation will be effective in March, 1977.
It was assumed at the Law of the Sea conference that Canada would simply follow the United States, that its declaration would be effective shortly before the United States declaration, and that we would act under the umbrella in terms of the United States military strength to prevent a confrontation on the coast. But Mexico, for example, and Canada have different positions on the coast. The 200-mile zone meets the situation in respect of Mexico and the United States, but it does not meet the needs of Canada. I am amazed that the minister today would come forward with a declaration which is inconsistent with the right position which is the position Canada had taken at the Law of the Sea conference. Nevertheless, this is better late than never. We welcome the declaration. It is long overdue. This is a typical Liberal compromise on an important matter. I hope the minister will give immediate and serious reconsideration to the 200-mile zone and extend it to the edge of the margin on our east coast, where it belongs.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the minister for having advised us ahead of time of the statement he intended to make at this time on our work on the 200-mile territorial limit.
As the other speakers from other parties of the opposition said so clearly and eloquently before me, in fact the minister made today a statement of intent on the general policy the government will adopt with regard to the protection of our coastline to a 200-mile limit. Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, that is what it is. The minister recognizes it in his statement, and I quote:
There will be no fishery resource left if action is not taken now.
June 4, 1976

We are at least three years late in taking positive steps to protect our fisheries and encourage their development. In fact, nothing was done to preserve them either by the present Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) or by his predecessors. The minister said in his statement, he admits it implicitly, and I quote again:
Not only the fish but our Canadian fishermen too are an "endangered species", as I have heard them describe themselves.
The minister thus recognizes, Mr. Speaker, that this measure is not only late in coming but that it stands a chance of missing completely its objective, namely to stimulate the fishing industry in Canada and protect employment in fields related to that fundamental industry in the field of natural resources.
The minister is caught in some sort of diplomatic straightjacket, on the one hand in bilateral relations, the agreements signed with Norway, Poland, U.S.S.R., Portugal, Spain, and the United States-that is still to come- and on the other hand, in multilateral co-operation. On studying closely the statement of the minister and those of his predecessors on that technical and important topic, we note, Mr. Speaker, that the multilateral agreements, to come, and the co-operation will not be achieved tomorrow. In this regard, the minister says, once again:
New multilateral agreements will be needed to bring ... into line...
That is not done, Mr. Speaker, and the minister did not specify either in his statement whether or not he intends to take any action to achieve those multilateral agreements. All things considered, the minister recognizes now after three years that the government is late in taking any measures. He also recognizes that many fish species and especially the employment associated with the industry are both endangered, as he says.
The Minister also said that an order in council will be issued in 1977 which will establish the Canadian policy. But let us not be mistaken; it will be once again an order in council dealing within our own country limits and it will not necessarily make a success out of the policy announced by the government on preservation and bilateral or multilateral agreements.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent general statement of policy we are well accustomed to hear. It is well written but it does not, in the end, create a single job in the fishing industry nor insure any kind of investment for the preservation of fish species that are the main natural resource of this country. Further, we have no guarantee, no indication even, that the multilateral agreements to come will get a chance to succeed.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the minister emphasizes the importance of protecting these natural resources and I believe that every member and the whole world agree on that, but when the time comes to implement such an agreement, we will see whether our diplomats headed by the minister will be efficient enough to put it into action and see to it that our industry and our jobs will be protected.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in this field as in many others, for instance the textile industry, the shoe industry, I fear the government will take action when jobs will no longer be there. The government now allows into the country large quantities of foreign prod-
Fisheries
ucts, it does not do a thing about it, but just before election time, it will try to do something under the pretext that it wants to protect jobs that no longer exist.
The minister tells us now he will protect the industry that is nearly extinct. I think that what we need now is something more than pious assurances, but action to preserve these industries. Tomorrow may be too late.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of questions that I should like to ask the minister, following his welcome declaration. I missed the first few sentences of it, but it was my understanding that it was the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries that was being extended. While I am aware that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) has to be somewhere else today, I would have preferred to have had him here so we could question him on specific things. The first question I should like to ask the minister is, what steps has he taken to assure the future of our anadromous species? Has he some guarantees that the species that are spawned in our waters off the west or east coast and which go out to sea beyond 200 miles will be under the control of Canada in the fishing stages of their life?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, obviously the case of the anadromous species is an important concern and has been an important objective of the Canadian delegation at the Law of the Sea conference which attempted, successfully, to ensure that the state of origin would have the principal responsibility for this resource. The Canadian objectives have been substantially reflected in the negotiating text and in the revised text. We believe that that is a major achievement on the part of the Canadian delegation, and obviously its acceptance must await the conclusion of the Law of the Sea conference.


Donald W. Munro: My second question in the series has to do with those other elements which were in negotiation and what guarantees we are going to have, because they have an effect on fisheries. I am referring to the environmental element, the surface and subsurface navigation elements of an extension to 200 miles and the subsoil resources element of this proposition. It has been mentioned, but the extension of the edge of the margin is a very important one, too, and it was not included in the statement. So, is any provision going to be made with regard to jurisdiction over the environmental, surface and subsurface elements and the subsoil resources element?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member realizes, under the international law, Canada already enjoys sovereign rights over the resources of the continental shelf. This includes mineral resources as well as the sedentary fish species on the shelf. The revised negotiating text at the recent Law of the Sea conference merely reaffirms the existing law on this particular point. Questions of the marine environment, scientific research-all important questions-are matters of further negotiation at the Law of the Sea conference.
The hon. member spoke about subsoil. I presume that the subsoil is included under mineral resources, but I will take further advice on that question. The hon. member referred to the question of the continental margin. It is true that

June 4, 1976
Fisheries
the Canadian delegation at the Law of the Sea conference had pursued the objective of securing for Canada authority for the management of the fisheries resource to the edge of the continental margin; that still remains an objective of the Canadian delegation and will be pursued at the subsequent meetings of the Law of the Sea conference.
However, I should remind hon. members, and particularly the spokesman for the NDP, that that particular aspect of the fisheries situation must be kept in perspective. According to the statistics I received from the Department of Fisheries, less than 5 per cent of the ICNAF catch is taken between the 200 miles and the edge of the continental margin. That must place the situation in perspective- and obviously the Icelanders recognized the particular importance of the 200-mile economic zone in their recent negotiations with the United Kingdom.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in commending the minister, I remind him of the opposition day recently when we suggested that we should go one step at a time and extend the 200-mile fishery zone. I am glad he listened to our advice.
The minister indicated in his speech the instructions to the Canadian delegation to the ICNAF meeting, but he did not say anything about the details of the instructions. I wonder if Canada will agree at the ICNAF meeting this month to the various quotas which will be decided upon. Will Canada be locked in to those quotas, which will be for a period of a year? How can the minister reconcile extending the 200-mile limit-and which will take precedence? The second question is, what coincidental planning is taking place by the Department of Fisheries, by the Ministry of Transport and by the Department of National Defence, and what co-ordination of efforts is now taking place in order to patrol and provide surveillance over the 200-mile zone?
I have one further question-and I am asking these all at once-with regard to the tentative agreements we might have and the common problems that we might have with United States and France, particularly when article 9 of our agreement states that no provision of the present agreement shall be interpreted as prejudicing the views and future claims of either party concerning internal waters. What negotiations are going on with regard to the equidistant line which presently exists? How do we reconcile this? And, can they not extend the 200-mile limit south of St. Pierre and Miquelon? I hope the minister can remember those three or four questions and answer them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In the first place, the timing of the announcement today is related to some extent to the ICNAF meeting which is to take place next week in Montreal. At that meeting, the Canadian government will tell its partners that regulations which come into effect for 1977 must be in conformity with extended Canadian jurisdiction. It seemed to us that we ought to make that clear to our ICNAF partners and that we ought to make clear to the House today that that was our position.
I appreciate the commendation of the hon. member for the action we have taken. Obviously, we have all been wanting to take this action, but in my judgment we have

taken the action at just about the right time, not only because of the ICNAF meetings but because of the completed successful bilateral negotiations with the distant fishing states which will allow us to make what I consider to be a smooth transition to Canadian jurisdiction.
I realize that important fishery discussions with the United States are to take place in the future. It will be a major concern of mine that we reach satisfactory conclusions with the United States with respect to the boundary questions which exist with that country. I already communicated to Dr. Kissinger this morning the decision taken by the government of Canada and the necessity of taking a very serious attitude toward these bilateral negotiations between Canada and the United States. We have not yet completed our negotiations with France, but we do believe that it would be unrealistic, in view of the land base involved, for Canada to permit a 200-mile zone on the seaward side.


Jack Marshall: The minister did not answer with regard to the surveillance.


Mr. Speaker:: In the light of the hour, I wonder if hon. members would agree, in attempting to get some regional equality into this, that perhaps this matter might be concluded by allowing a clarification of the point just raised by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), as I see the minister wants to clarify that. We could then permit a question by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Legatt), which might enable us to conclude this in such a way as to extend the sitting a few moments to clear up routine proceedings. If there are more questions, I do not want to restrict the minister. This is a very important subject, but if that is agreeable to the hon. members, we might try it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Marshall: The minister did not answer my question about surveillance and patrol capabilities when we do extend.


Donald W. Munro: St. Pierre and
Miquelon.


An hon. Member:: That is the important part.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is important, and it seems to me that the question of enforcement will be much easier because of the consent we have achieved through our bilateral agreements with the distant fishing states to our extended Canadian jurisdiction. It will not be a repetition of what happened off the Iceland coast where the British contested the Icelandic declaration. In our case, 88 per cent of the fish caught in the ICNAF area is covered by bilateral agreements in which the distant fishing states acknowledge, either explicitly or implicitly, extended Canadian jurisdiction.
Apart from that, which is the main question, of course, is the fact that we do have within the government a task force which has been working for some time on the preparations for surveillance. Surveillance is already being carried out off the Atlantic coast, and we are making preparations to ensure that appropriate surveillance will take place. However, the acquiescence of distant fishing states
June 4, 1976

in our jurisdiction is much more important than any other factor in this situation.


Donald W. Munro: What about St. Pierre and Miquelon?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I am in agreement with what the minister said about his success in the bilateral negotiations. I do not think we should be overly-critical of the minister at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: To that extent, his approach was very worth-while. However, my question is on the very important matter of surveillance of the new zone of both coasts. Has the minister a task force, or has there been any special study carried out by DND or people in his department concerning the capacity of Canada to enforce that zone? We have heard a few generalities, but I would like the minister to be a little more specific, because I have not seen anything in the DND budget nor in the minister's budget which indicates that we are now prepared with the fast-pursuit craft or additional aerial surveillance which is necessary to enforce the zone. I wonder if the minister would direct his attention more specifically to what form of study there is, and what form of recommendations we are receiving in terms of now enforcing this extended zone.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can tell the hon. member that there has been established within the government an interdepartmental task force to make preparations for the surveillance and enforcement of this particular zone. I am satisfied that it will be possible to provide resources to make surveillance and enforcement possible. That is what is taking place within the government, but any preparations we would undertake, no matter how extensive and grandiose, would be largely futile unless we had the acquiescence of the fleets which normally fish in what will be Canadian waters, to our jurisdiction. The cause of the cod war between Iceland the United Kingdom was simply that the United Kingdom did not acquiesce to any extension of Iceland's jurisdiction, so let us keep our eye on the main game, which is the acquiescence that we believe will exist in our case.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We have acquiescence on the margin; there is no question about that. We have not extended it to the margin. There is clear acquiescence on our part in not moving out to the margin. The government mentioned that less than 5 per cent of the ICNAF catch is margin: how much of that is breeding stock that feeds on resources of the banks off the east coast? How much have we abandoned there, in terms of supporting the fishing reserves of the fishermen on the east coast?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The percentage that they give is as I have learned it. It is not to be discounted, because it will be our objective at the Law of the Sea conference to extend our jurisdiction to the edge of the margin. In assessing the significance of our action today, we ought to bear in mind the relative percentage of fish taken within the 200-mile economic zone, and then the range between the 200-mile economic zone and the continental margin, which I under-
Order Paper Questions
stand to be less than 5 per cent in the terms that I have described. These are not sedentary fish that we are talking about. I cannot tell the hon. member exactly how the breeding proceeds in that particular place.


QUESTIONS OF THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 5,149, 5,447 and 5,509.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	What have been the total expenditures, of whatever kind or nature, on the CN Tower in Toronto up to March 31, 1976?
2.	As of that date, what is the estimated total cost?
3.	What are the total estimated gross revenues and net revenues for the project, and from whom is it anticipated the revenues will be received?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Transport):: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. $50 million.
2.	$57 million.
3.	Revenues are obtained from T.V. and radio stations, from concessionaires (food, merchandise and attractions), and from charges paid by the general public for access to the observation areas. The net return on the investment is projected at 10-12 per cent based on estimated gross revenues of $9.5 million in 1977.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	For the taxation year 1974, how many taxpayers deducted from their personal income, contributions to the Registered Home-savings Plan and what amounts did they deduct as a whole?
2.	For Canada and each province, how many taxpayers claimed such tax deductions and what amounts did they deduct as a whole, according to the income bracket (a) less than $5,000 (b) from $5,000 to $9,999 (c) from $10,000 to $14,999 (d) from $15,000 to $19,999 (e) from $20,000 to $24,999 (f) from $25,000 to $49,999 (g) over $50,000 and according to the age group (i) under 20 years of age (ii) from 20 to 30 (iii) from 31 to 40 (iv) from 41 to 50 (v) from 51 to 60 (vi) 60 and over?
3.	How many taxpayers claimed such deductions and what amounts did they deduct as a whole, according to the kind of financial institutions they were doing business with (charter banks, life insurance, trust or mortgage companies)?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: 1
and 2. At this time, only limited information is available with regard to contributions to Registered Home Ownership Savings Plans claimed as deductions from income for the 1974 taxation year. The tables, extracted from Preliminary Taxation Statistics for 1974, show the total amount of contributions by province and by income class for all Canada. More complete information on the number and

June 4, 1976
Order Paper Questions
amount for each province by age and by income class will not be available until the release of Taxation Statistics (1976 edition) this summer.
3. The Department does not collect statistics on financial institutions in which these Home Ownership Plans are administered.
Contributions to Registered Home Ownership Savings Plans 1974 Tax Year-By Income Class
Income	Amount of Contribution
Class	($000)
less than $5,000	15,563
5,000-9,999	70,350
10.000-	14,999	64,09515.000-	19,999	26,65620.000-	24,999	9,89425,000	and over	12,868
Total
199,426
Source: Preliminary Taxation Statistics (1974 Tax Year).
Contributions to Registered Home Ownership Savings Plans-1974 Tax Year By Province
Province
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Yukon
Northwest Territories Outside Canada
All Canada
Amount of Contributions
($000)
3,327
5,075
3,301
43,977
83,729
9,212
7,117
16,587
24,676
752
199,426
Source: Preliminary Taxation Statistics (1974 Tax Year).


Mr. Beatty: What special assistance, if any, is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to make available to producers who recently entered the dairy industry and whose ability to continue in business is most jeopardized by the government's dairy policy?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The
Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee on which the provincial producers and government agencies are represented, is finalizing the provincial regulations regarding market sharing quotas. Under the Terms of the Supply

Management Plan the provinces decide on the allocation of market sharing quotas to producers who recently entered the dairy business.


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


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, that in view of the extremely serious financial difficulties facing the Canadian dairy industry resulting from the 15 per cent cutback in industrial milk production as announced by the Canadian Dairy Commission, a cutback which is resulting in disastrous loss of farm income and the dumping of high quality milk, this House should give immediate attention to implementing and financing a school milk program so that the surplus milk will be fully utilized in Canada to ensure that all children get some of this surplus nutrition and necessary food product.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26, the hon. member has given the Chair notice of this intended motion and the Chair has therefore had an opportunity to give the matter some consideration. There are a number of factors involved in any such application to set up an emergency debate, as it were, or to set or accelerate hours for the purpose of considering the matter. Some of those considerations are quite well known.
I do not propose to allow the motion, for two reasons. First, it is clear that the matter, while it is a severe problem and one, obviously, of great interest in view of the number of questions that have taken place in the House, culminating-not necessarily culminating, but at least reaching some kind of a climax in respect of yesterday's demonstration-but because the matter has been raised so many times in the House it is obviously of continuing concern as opposed to some crisis which I think ought more properly be seen to be the subject matter of motions under this Standing Order. That is not to say that matters of continuing concern are ruled out, but I must consider, having reference to Hansard of March 19 this year, some three months ago, that the matter was debated upon a motion of the Social Credit party on an opposition day, all through the day. I do not take that as an indication of anything except that the matter has been before the House in some form or other for some three months.
The second consideration in the language of subparagraph 5 of the Standing Order is that we have to bear in
June 4, 1976

mind the nature of the subject matter. Here again, because it is a matter of continuing concern, I think the decision within subparagraph 5 of the rule is effective; that is, that the very nature of the matter might affect other opportunities that would exist to discuss it. In this particular case, not only have several opportunities been taken in the past during question period and other areas and, I am sure, in respect of the minister's estimates before standing committees, but it seems to me to be a subject which might be given some attention in the three budget days which remain, when the subject will be relevant for discussion, and in the five opposition days that remain in the short period before us in the trimester that finalizes at the end of June-whether the House recesses at that time or not.
Bearing in mind the continuing nature of the problem, and because it is of a nature to be before us in the next few days, I have decided that although it is a matter of importance and concern to a great many Canadians, it ought not to be set aside for special consideration under Standing Order 26.
Order, please. Orders of the day.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Jean-Jacques Blais: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.




Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps in my haste I overlooked a motion that stands in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). The President of the Privy Council, seconded by Mr. Drury, moves:
That the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the crop year ended July 31, 1975, tabled April 8, 1976, be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Does the House would give its agreement to consider the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day having been called, and it now being after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Capital Punishment


Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-81, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act with respect to the escalation of certain payments thereunder, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 31, 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. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, when beginning these remarks last Monday evening I was suggesting that there was growing concern in the country as to whether this chamber was capable of representing the views of Canadians in general. I am concerned that not all members will take the opportunity to debate this subject fully, particularly in view of the fact that the government House leader seems to think that 70 members having already participated is a rather extensive number.
I wish to speak for a few moments about the obligations of those of us who oppose the abolition of the death penalty. I believe that a member of the House of Commons has a greater duty to his constituents and the country than merely to get up at the appropriate time to cast a vote in this chamber, important as that may be. A member of the House of Commons has many obligations. He not only has an obligation to speak for his constituents, but for Canadians in general. In this particular case, a large number of members who oppose abolition of the death penalty are remaining silent. They are not participating in this debate. I urge hon. members to reconsider their position and speak in this debate before the second reading stage is concluded.
I am told that a number of people who want the abolition of capital punishment are not going to participate. They feel that if there is an early vote, the chances of success are greater. They believe that the longer it goes on, the less chance there is of the measure failing, as I believe it should. Those of us who oppose the abolition of capital punishment not only have a duty to our constituents but to many other Canadians whose voices will not be heard

June 4, 1976
Capital Punishment
through their member of this House. Over the years there have been a number of petitions, including a very large petition for a referendum on this subject. I have always felt that if there is one subject that is deserving of a referendum, it is that dealing with the retention or the abolition of capital punishment.
Most members on all sides of this House agree that it is a matter of conscience as to whether this should pertain. It is obvious that one member cannot reflect the conscience of everybody in his constituency. The government, of course, has been very stubborn with regard to allowing a referendum. They know that if this question is put to the people directly, the government's views will be soundly defeated. There is no question about that. Those of us who believe as the majority of Canadians believe, namely, that capital punishment should be retained, have an obligation to spin out this debate until the next election. That election could be something of a referendum on the subject we are considering. Indeed, that is the only reason we are discussing this issue.
The government has been completely dishonest in its approach. We have had a five-year period of abolition, commencing in 1967. In 1973 the government wanted the period extended by a further five years. At that time, the Solicitor General said it was only a second five-year period and that in the long run the government wanted a third before the question was finally decided. Of course, the second five-year period would ordinarily expire around the time of the next election. The reason the government is bringing this measure before the House now is that we are midway between elections: they want to get the question disposed of so that it will not be an issue in the next election.
To my mind, that is a dishonest approach because when the government brought forward Bill C-2 they said it would be the law for a certain period of time. Now they are asking us to change it again. We just cannot believe what the government says. The people are being denied the right to express themselves directly. Those of us who believe they ought to have that right should use every tactic and manoeuvre available to us to frustrate the will of the government on this matter, since the government does not have the people behind them. I hope everyone who favours the retention of capital punishment will exercise his right to speak and delay this measure so that it can become an issue at the time of the next election. If retentionists fail to do this, they are not being true to their professed stand; they are abusing their retentionist vote and regarding it as merely vote-gathering; they do not really believe retention is the proper thing. Even though I would agree with the way they vote, I cannot respect an hon. member who would do such a thing. At least the abolitionists are acting in the spirit of their conviction, but until I see all these retentionists speaking I question the spirit of their intentions; they may be simply bowing to the public will, and I do not think that is a good attitude for a member of this House to take.
As I say, the government has been dishonest in its approach to the whole subject. This is demonstrated by its failure to obey the law as parliament was asked to enact it. I understand that when Bill C-2 was brought in, an undertaking was given to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. 
Stanfield) that the government would obey the law. But they have broken their undertaking, as they have broken so many others.
I was opposed in the last election by a candidate who said the Liberal government had abolished capital punishment. That seemed to be the understanding of Liberal candidates, and that has certainly been the de facto situation because there has not been an execution in this country since 1962. The last major change in this area, before these experiments began in 1967, was in 1961 when the government of the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a significant change in the law, bringing in the distinction between capital and non-capital murder. There is no question that this was a great advance in the field of penology. But it has not had an opportunity to work, because only a year after the change in the law was made, the last execution took place and we have had de facto abolition ever since.
As far as the idea of a free vote is concerned, to my mind that is so much window-dressing. I am somewhat amazed to find the government suggesting an extension of hours to deal with this matter and only this matter. They want to extend the hours for the debate on capital punishment and get rid of it.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is not what I would propose.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The government would give everyone the opportunity to speak on the bill, it is true, but we would have to get it finished, by hell or high water, by the end of June. That is not my idea of a free vote following full and free discussion.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member a question? If we had an extension of hours covering government business, including Bill C-84 but not restricted to it, would he support that proposal?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I could probably support it, but I certainly would not be speaking for this party.


An hon. Member:: Who does speak for that party?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: On this question, there should be nobody speaking for this party.


Mr. Paproski:: It is a free vote.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I, for one, would agree to the extension of hours for other government business, but I know there are some members of this caucus who would object to such an arrangement because Bill C-87 is of more concern to them than it is to me, for example. I think there are some members on the government side who are quite concerned about that bill, too. But as far as the bill before us is concerned, I do not believe the government should be playing hanky-panky with the rules. Last week I heard news about a parliamentary group going to Paris for ten days. Is it just coincidental that seven out of ten of those people are retentionists? I may be oversuspicious, but this seems to have a bad odour-


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the hon. member a further question? I have been considering the issues to which he is referring, and I am quite prepared to ask for an extension
June 4, 1976

of hours for all government business. I am also prepared to accommodate the votes of those particular members. I should like to ask him whether, if this is done, he would agree.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I am happy to hear the minister make those guarantees. As far as I am concerned, if I have an opportunity to end my remarks and say what I want to say, that is fine. But I cannot bind other members of the caucus who are concerned about this rush to end discussion of this legislation before the last day of June. I cannot see the need for it, because I think it is a breach of faith on the part of the government to introduce the measure at this point, let alone to want it completed in all stages before the end of June. Obviously, every vote is going to count. I do not agree with those who say it will be a free vote as far as the other side is concerned, because the cabinet, in any case, will be united. Last week the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) wondered whether the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) would fall into line. Everyone knows the vote is likely to be close and that such decisions are likely to affect the final outcome. I notice that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in no way questioned what was said last Friday. So there we have lost another retentionist to the lure of advancement in public life.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Drury:: We are not allowed to question motives in this chamber.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The hon. member mentioned that there was a group leaving Canada to go to France and that most of them are retentionists. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. I am the one who arranged for this group to go on these visits to other countries. I am a retentionist myself, and I certainly would not send any retentionists over there if I could help it. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this group are evenly paired. An equal number on each side is going on these trips, and anyone who says otherwise is incorrect or is making a prejudgment. There is an equal number on each side, so that the one balances the other.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, I think the hon. member for St. Boniface has raised a point for debate which could have been raised at some other time. The time taken will not be deducted from the time of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher).


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. All I can say is that it is still seven out of 10. It appears to me that the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), the very excellent chief government whip, must be very happy in his duties.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: There is no doubt about that.
Capital Punishment


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I am sure he would like to continue in them for a great length of time.
If this government really wanted to have a free vote on this subject, it could have adopted the procedure used in 1966 when the private members' route was used. If this government gave its blessing to a private members' motion or bill on this subject I am sure it would have got appropriate consideration in the House and we would not have had to worry about its being talked out or anything like that. The last time this procedure was used, I think six members of the administration voted for retention, including the Hon. John Turner. If the government were really sincere about having a truly free vote on this question, then this is the method that they would have adopted. Until they adopt such a procedure, Mr. Speaker, I question how free this vote is going to be. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that it is not.
As far as this whole so-called peace and security package is concerned-the government is afraid to call it a law and order package-the other element of dishonesty is the blatant bribe to members to pass the legislation in return for some very harsh and severe terms of imprisonment. The government is proposing a term of imprisonment of 25 years without any possibility of parole. If that were going to be the case, even the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) would feel compelled to vote against it. He does not really believe that the government is serious about this, though he certainly does not like what is being offered in this regard. It is clearly an out-and-out bribe to enable members to salve their consciences and support the government in this matter, in return for a very harsh, cruel, inhumane term of imprisonment.
Such a term of imprisonment is no bribe to me, because I do not think the government is honest anyway. It just is not honest, Mr. Speaker. What the government is offering now, it will start chipping away at later. We have had evidence of what the government wants to do in this area. We have heard the government's ideas about temporary absences, sending people off on trips, having people to go to Spain to get married, and so on. That is the government's idea of rehabilitation. Because of terrific public opposition to this sort of thing, the government is now changing its colour, like a chameleon. I suggest that if the House is foolish enough to fall for the government's proposal in this measure, within a year or two it will start chipping away at the term of imprisonment and we will end up with absolutely nothing.
If a convicted murderer does receive a 25 year mandatory sentence, we are told that after 15 years a panel of three judges could perhaps change the sentence so as to allow for parole. I think statistics now show that the average capital murderer is released from jail after 13.2 years. If, under the new law, he is paroled after 15 years, all we have added is 1.8 years, which to me is not that significant. There has been this great foofaraw about a 25-year maximum term. I do not think it is true about the 15 years, because if it were the government would lose support. Nevertheless, it is a poor show for the government to resort to this type of bribery in addition to all the other chicanery it has engaged in on this subject.
As far as my own constituency is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have conducted a couple of polls and it is quite clear

June 4, 1976
Capital Punishment
where my constituents stand, which I suppose makes my job easy since in no way would I be in opposition to the vast bulk of my constituents. In 1971, 76 per cent were in favour of capital punishment, 20 per cent said no, and 4 per cent were undecided. In 1973, 79.4 per cent favoured capital punishment, 18.4 per cent said no, and 2.2 per cent were undecided. In the latter poll I also asked whether, if life really was life, they would have a different view; 41.7 per cent said they would; 54.2 per cent said that they still wanted capital punishment even if life was life.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Explain.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Even if life meant life it was not satisfactory to 54.2 per cent of my constituents; they still felt capital punishment should be retained. Much of this has to do with the situation in our penitentiaries. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has also said that in order to protect society we shall have to improve the situation in our penitentiaries; that there will be great reforms. We have been having great reforms in our penitentiaries for 15 years or more, Mr. Speaker, starting when Alan MacLeod began the new wave of penal reform. I do not know what kind of reform we are achieving in view of the sort of situation that has arisen in the B.C. penitentiary. I should like to read a couple of paragraphs by Doug Collins which appeared in the Toronto Star for April 30 last and had to do with that institution. He said this:
The B.C. penitentiary, that grim, ancient, shabby and hopeless pile in New Westminster, has to be the laughingstock of the country. Hostagetaking now seems to be taking place every week, prisoners demand flights to everywhere and sometimes get them (in exchange for a guard who in return doesn't get his throat cut) and there is a general atmosphere of what-will-happen-next?
What will happen next, if those close to the scene know anything, is that the place will explode. Concessions to the violent lead to more concessions, guards hate prisoners, prisoners hate guards, and everyone-guards, prisoners and public alike-hates Ottawa, which is supposed to control this mess.
It is obvious that the government cannot deal with this situation. Instead of discussing this bill we should be getting down to the root of the problem in our penal system. If the government can show us there is no hope for our penal system, then maybe some of us would be obliged to change our minds; but surely at this time there is no argument for changing one's mind in respect of the retention of capital punishment.
In a little over a month the Olympic Games will be commencing in Montreal. We are spending some $30 million, $40 million or $50 million for security there, and we are being warned all the time that terrorists may be coming in from outside this country who will take disruptive action at the games. Our immigration procedures are being tightened, along with the United States regulations to protect against this. All sorts of things are being done. I wonder what the attitude among terrorists in the world would be if two or three weeks before the opening of the Olympics, Canada abolished the death sentence. Surely that would give some support to the idea that we are not really as serious about this subject as we ought to be. If for no other reason than that one alone, we should be postponing the conclusion of this legislation. It should wait until the fall before coming to a decision.

Let me return again to what I was saying about our penitentiary system. It is quite obvious, from some of Mr. Collins' comments, that the system is out of control in British Columbia and in some other places in the country. I might point out that the penitentiary located at my place of residence, Drumheller, Alberta, has been called the gem of the system. It certainly creates the least problems. I know there are problems there, but they have not got out of control as they have in other places in the country. We are very fortunate and I am very proud of the staff of that institution because they have worked things out very well. However, if we are to continue with the sloppy way in which the government is dealing with our penal system, I am afraid that even the situation at Drumheller will deteriorate.
I, for one, feel that in order to keep the situation in these institutions under control we must pay more attention to what has been said by the director of the B.C. penitentiary and others across this country. They feel they should be able to use the paddle to effect some sort of discipline and order in these institutions. It is intolerable when the inmates run the institutions. That is just not acceptable. Instead of following this advice, the government is continually chipping away at the effectiveness of punishment in this country, whether in the institutions or outside.
I do not like to be critical of my friends of the New Democratic Party, particularly when there is no one representing them in the House at this moment, but I find it rather unusual that such a democratic party can be so united in its opposition to the death penalty when such a large proportion of its grassroots supporters in the country favour retention.
Dr. Fattah, criminologist at the Simon Fraser University, who has been referred to by some as the high priest of abolition in this country, carried out a study on behalf of the Solicitor General regarding support for this measure in various party groups. Of course, the supporters of the Social Credit party in Canada are the strongest in favour of maintaining the death penalty, followed by the Conservative party and the Liberals. However, even in the NDP a substantial number of people want the death penalty retained. The latest figures in the study are for 1971, and they show that 43.75 per cent of NDP supporters want the death penalty retained. That is a significant number and I wonder how, among 16 here, there is not at least one who would speak on behalf of that element of that party. I find this very unusual, and I think it should be commented on by the grassroots of that party to its parliamentary membership.
Popular belief would have it that everyone in the NDP in this country is opposed to capital punishment. That is not true. In 1960, when it was the CCF party, 61.1 per cent felt that capital punishment should not be abolished-and that is only 16 years ago. These are national figures. Someone in the NDP should explain why their parliamentary group is so opposed to capital punishment, contrary to the belief of a great many of their grassroots members. That is not very democratic at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 4, 1976


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to know that the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) will explain that later today.
Many people have suggested we cannot have capital punishment because there is one law for the rich and one for the poor. I think the teeth of that argument were pulled long ago. We have a tremendous legal aid system in this country now, supported by millions of dollars. From my own experience in Alberta, there is never a shortage of funds to hire proper counsel to make sure that justice is done in this area-so that argument just does not apply.
In conclusion, let me suggest that the law after 1961 was never allowed to function. Some still argue this matter on the basis that people who kill as a result of passion will be hanged. That is not the law. The law as it was passed in 1961 is that capital punishment shall be reserved for those people who, on a planned and deliberate basis, or on a contract basis, go out and murder somebody, or kill somebody in the commission of a planned and deliberate criminal offence. That is not in any way, shape or form a crime of passion. So that argument is completely meaningless.
Capital punishment is a deterrent to those who might otherwise set out on a deliberate plan or course of action that would likely result in somebody's death. Human nature is such that individuals place great value on their lives and people are not going to do something that will likely threaten them. I agree that capital punishment does not have much deterrent effect in respect of those who may commit crimes of passion, but this is not the law and that is not what we are arguing. We are suggesting capital punishment for those who deliberately plan murder. Those people should not have the ghost of a chance of ever doing the same thing again.
I urge all hon. members to participate in this very important debate and use every means at their disposal to make sure the real feelings of the Canadian people are expressed, whether right or wrong. If the Canadian people are wrong, we will have the opportunity to correct them. In the meantime, there are a great many families and dependants of victims to whom we have a duty. We cannot confine our thoughts or considerations to those who have actually taken somebody else's life; we have a greater duty than that.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the numbers present this afternoon would indicate that Friday is not a vintage day among all parties for attendance in the House of Commons. I mention that, not by way of criticism but simply to point out the fact that I am informed discussions are now taking place concerning the enlargement of this House because of the increase of members that will follow the acceptance of the new redistribution measure. Indeed, Your Honour, the throne will be moved back some distance. I suggest there be no increase in the size.
One reason for the power of the parliament of Westminster in so far as the House of Commons is concerned is that the membership cannot always find seats, benches, on which to sit and the result is there is a feeling of urgency. Indeed, when I was prime minister I endeavoured to bring
Capital Punishment
about a change. I had fairly good support, but one would require general support to remove the desks and substitute benches. However, the quality of debate in this House would multiply very greatly. Now that the House is to be increased in size, I suggest there be something done along the line of not increasing the size but of providing benches at the back for those members who are not present and therefore cannot occupy seats. When people visit the gallery and see the House of Commons virtually unoccupied, there is no greater criticism offered than that when they return home. When the discussions take place, I would like the opportunity to present my views before those who will be charged with the determination of this matter by way of recommendation to the House because I feel very strongly that an increase in the size of this House in the way of provision of extra desks can only extend still further relationship which is not in keeping with parliamentary procedure in that there is no close intimacy such as is assured in the House of Commons at Westminster.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the remarks made about this House. The hon. member who just had the floor suggested that those members who are not present are remiss in their duties. That is not fair. The hon. member knows there are members attending committee meetings and there are members who are performing duties in other parts of the country away from this House. Because of the reduced capacity of the House to listen to the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), that hon. gentleman should not allow his ego to be offended to the point that he would make remarks of the kind he just made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: The Chair, probably like anyone else here, recognizes that the House never is filled to capacity to listen to anyone. It does not seem to be a strong point of privilege. Certainly the Chair has not taken the words of the right hon. member for Prince Albert as an indictment of our practices. It seems to me to be more in keeping with what all of us have come to recognize as the reality of a Friday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, of course there was no question of privilege, but the hon. gentleman has made his presence known. I feel sure that as a result of that interruption he will find himself, possibly, in a preferred position when the next promotions in the government take place. I have watched him with interest and I have come to the conclusion that he is one who endeavours at all times to interfere in the manner in which he has just now, without regard to any rule or regulation but simply for the purpose of making himself known among members who otherwise might not recognize him or his presence.
Mr. Speaker, I speak as one who throughout the years has been an abolitionist. I speak as one who has had experience in the courts. I need not go into that. I speak as one who knows that on occasion an innocent man has gone to the gallows. Indeed, in the last year or so in the United Kingdom there have been several examples that are extraordinarily appealing to the people as a whole concern-

June 4, 1976
Capital Punishment
ing the danger of capital punishment under the circumstances which now exist. However, if this bill had been brought in, premature though it is, a year and a half before the present law will elapse, and there had been omitted therefrom that portion with which I intend to deal particularly, I would have been unchanged.
As an abolitionist through the years, I have stated that there is no inconsistency in the view I express, that so far as an offence against the state, such as treason, is concerned, everywhere in the world the penalty, with the exception of very few countries of not very great significance, is death. The other day, when I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I think on May 18, whether or not he would remove that portion of the bill in which treason will have an open season if this bill is passed, he then asked me whether or not I spoke for the opposition. That gave the position away-that there was anything in the nature of an unqualified free vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Either the question was amusing on his part or, on the other hand, it was a revelation of the fact that when the government as a whole is voting solidly one way, namely, for this bill, the question of a free vote becomes rather nebulous. Then, in addition to that, when speaking in British Columbia on the second last occasion on which he was there on vacation, he was asked what he would do if the bill were turned down. In the forenoon he said he would resign as Prime Minister. By noon that day I was communicated with by my press representative in British Columbia and I could not believe that the Prime Minister would have said that. But I would point out that if he said that and carried out the threat that if the bill was defeated on a free vote he would resign as Prime Minister, the incentive to vote in order to secure that desirable end would have been awfully difficult to ignore.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: However, that afternoon he said, "Oh, I was just musing". Musings of that kind with the life of individuals at stake on the part of anyone are not amusing. Then later on, when faced with the fact that overwhelmingly across Canada there is a demand for capital punishment for murder, he said, "Well, if public opinion is aroused, then I guess we will have to have a few hangings". That, to me, is not the kind of statement that is in keeping with the seriousness of the question that we face.
We find that not only was the legislation passed in 1973 to be repealed, but a further section has been included in the bill to abolish the death sentence for treason. I ask the government: what group of Canadians have asked that it be abolished for treason? Certainly, it has not been the organizations that ordinarily deal with civil liberties. Nowhere, at any time, has any organized or unorganized group in this country asked the government to abolish what is accepted everywhere in the world as the punishment for treason. Why is it included? When I suggested to the Prime Minister that he withdraw that, he became very petulant, peevish-not unusual today-and then he became annoyed with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather), very annoyed with him. Why? Why is the gov-

ernment, in 1976, bringing in legislation of this kind, when during the summer at any time, and particularly I emphasize during the present summer, from all parts of the world people will gather for the Olympics?
I will read to hon. members the law as it is now, so that there will be no mistake about it. This law has been on the statute books for years. The Canadian Civil Liberties Organization has not asked that the law regarding treason be repealed. Again I challenge the government to name one organization or anyone of responsibility across Canada who has asked for this. The sections in question should be placed on the record. Sections 46 and 47 at present read as follows:
46(1) Every one commits treason who, in Canada
(a)	kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
(b)	levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto;
(c)	assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities ...
(d)	uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
(e)	without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada...
47(1) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable
(a) To be sentenced to death if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(l)(a), (b) or (c)-
That is the killing or the attempted killing of the Queen of Canada, to levy war against Canada or to assist an enemy at war with Canada. Why has this been changed at this time? Nobody has answered that. Again I repeat: there is something gratuitous about the government's action in this regard. Then so far as penalties are concerned, if all one does is to use force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province, they may be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life.
There is something behind this, and that is what we have not found out. What has activated the government of Canada to bring before the House legislation which will make Canada an open place for assassination and treason subject only to a jail sentence in a world in which terrorism marches and assassinations and kidnappings with assassination take place all over the world? Just at this time the government of Canada decides that it must be kind to terrorists, international murderers and those who raise rebellion.
I ask those who, together with me, believe that so far as murder is concerned as an offence against the individual- and of course an offence against the state-it should not be punished by the death sentence. I ask those who believe in the abolition of capital punishment, how can they, in their own conscience, vote for this bill which contains the particular clauses to which I have referred? The parliament of Great Britain has abolished the death penalty for murder. I have the bill here, which is entitled, "Abolition of the Death Penalty Act". In the observations made thereon, the following appears:
June 4, 1976

Sentence of death can still and only be awarded for high treason, piracy with violence-
And one or two other offences.
-when a person is convicted of treason, sentence of death must be pronounced.
Why at this time, with the law in effect that the government of Canada stated three years ago was the epitome of all legal perfection, is the government changing this law? I said it would not work, dividing murder according to the occupation of the victim. I voted for it because, as I pointed out, half a loaf is better than none. I said it would not work. It is still in effect and will be in effect until December of 1977. Why, then, this sudden rush, this haste on the part of the government, to force through parliament before this session ends something that carries with it the possibility that each of us can imagine?
As one who, as prime minister, had this responsibility, I know what it means to sign the death sentence. That is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the acting prime minister in his absence has to do by way of a recommendation to the Governor General of Canada. I know what it means. When I was prime minister if there were any reasonably extenuating circumstances, commutation took place, but when there was no such justification, the sentence was carried out. The last two who went to the gallows in this country went on an order or a direction signed by me. The law was enforced until the present government started playing around with the problem, and since then no one has been executed. Today there is almost a platoon of individuals in our institutions waiting, waiting and wondering what is going to happen.
Why the ungodly haste to bring in this legislation at this time? This House has been sitting now since September of 1974, the longest session in all history and the nearest approach to parliamentary eternity ever seen in our country. And here at the last moment this bill comes along, and we must pass it or continue to sit. Why?
I mentioned a moment ago that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association did not ask for this. Nowhere in its statement of conscience, signed by many of the most responsible of Canadians, is there any question of abolition for other than murder.
I have read these sections of the bill. When I first found out, I could not believe that the Government of Canada in this year-or any year, but this year particularly-would bring in this legislation. Happy days are here again for terrorists all over the world, for those who would destroy, and for those who would undermine the Government of Canada. Am I overstating it?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) said, I believe, that the expenditure for security at the Olympic Games would be $40 million or $50 million. Battalions of armed forces-and I am using "battalions" in an exaggerated form-RCMP, city of Montreal police and provincial police are mobilizing and training for the purpose of meeting any potential danger. Do hon. members think that the Government of Canada or the
Capital Punishment
government of Quebec would countenance expenditures like this unless there was danger? I ask hon. members to ponder that when they vote on this matter because I will not vote for a bill which provides an open season for terrorist mob murderers or those who would achieve immortality by assassination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am not making a partisan speech today. I am making one from the heart, regardless of whether somebody may say I am guilty of inconsistency. Not at all, for I repeat, treason is treason. In a year when the Olympics take place, above all times, we are asked to say, "Come unto me all ye who would destroy; come, PLO and all the other alphabetical individuals of that kind, to Canada, and if you destroy, all you will be subject to is a comparatively short sentence".
I can just see Castro-because he has become somewhat of a highly regarded individual in some parts of our country by some people-sending some of his 12,000 up here. Could we stop them? We have no right whatsoever; they can come here. Today they are operating in Africa and in South America. Castro has threatened that they will operate elsewhere. This suggested amendment is the most unbelievable I have seen in this House in my time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There are some in this country who are so fond of Castro that they go to see him face to face. He tried to see me in 1962, and I was busy, but there are others who found it necessary to endeavour to visit him by canoe. They did not get there. Greater love hath no man than he who would endanger his life in a canoe to get to Cuba.
Under this legislation a group of individuals in Canada who want to set up a Marxist state by force can do so, but subject to what? A comparatively short period of imprisonment! Surely in the heart of hearts of all, and in particular of those who are abolitionists, there must be some concern about this.
I do not want to be repetitious, but when I asked the Prime Minister to remove this he asked me whether I was speaking for the Conservative opposition. In that he revealed the transparent deception of a so-called free vote in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That is my first and main point. I will be back. I have to be away because I did not expect that parliament would be sitting for so long. Nobody else did either. The reason parliament today in large measure is in contempt across Canada is the fact that it is being used as a plaything. We sit, we talk for an hour and ask questions-as does the hon. member who interrupted me earlier, but our questions are more intelligent than his-and then what happens? The House sits and goes on. Unless every one of us begins to realize the feeling of the Canadian people, I fear for the future of a free parliament, for everywhere in the world history shows that democratic countries go under when citizens begin to lose faith in their democratic leaders.

June 4, 1976
Capital Punishment
I can understand the attitude of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). He is widely criticized. He carries the mark of Cain on him, but he is doing what the government requires that he do within the powers which are granted to him. He is frank about it. He has withdrawn his suggestion that if this bill passes, he is out-with one change; he has said he will be out of the cabinet to start with. Now he has said, "I should like another portfolio".
Sir, no vote will be more important than this one. I am not going to draw a frightening picture of July, 1976, at the Olympics but I am telling you that unless a fraud is being perpetrated on the Canadian people by the government in contending that we have to spend, among the two or three levels of government, approximately $1 million on security-if that is so, then by passing this bill we are placing ourselves in the position of accessories before the fact. This is dangerous. To take such a course at any time would be dangerous but to do it now-Mr. Speaker, I do not want to express how much I fear the consequences.
Some suggestions have been made that we will pass the bill and put it into committee. I know there are some worshippers of committee in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Mr. Speaker, I have been here longer than most and I believe that many wish that had not taken place, but I have formed opinions. Committees are fine when they are dealing with matters that are non-partisan, are simple inquiries. Is there any member of this House who would say that if he were on the committee, regardless of what others would do, he would insist on the removal of this portion that has no place in it whatsoever?
Some people ask what will happen if the bill is defeated. Well, until December, 1977, the law will still be in effect. The government brought it in and said it was the nearest thing to Utopia in criminal procedure; it was going to bring about a new heaven and a new earth. Now that a lineup of individuals is awaiting execution, the government insists that this be passed. What will be the result, Mr. Speaker? If it is passed, we simply pass back to the government its responsibilities under the law. I am not here to say there should be no commutations-nothing of the kind. The matter of commutation naturally rests with the exercise of the Queen's mercy. No government should permit itself to be forced into a position to execute anyone simply by the force of public opinion.
All we will do if we defeat the bill because of the insertion of this reprehensible clause is give the government back the responsibility that it assumed in 1973 of deciding whether an individual shall live or die. Send it to the committee? We may just as well stand on our heads and expect to be effective in the House of Commons as to bring about the removal of that clause through a committee.
Other people ask where we go from here. That is not for us to say, Mr. Speaker. No one in this House of Commons, to my knowledge, has ever discussed the abolition of capital punishment for treason. We should defeat the bill, set up a committee and hear evidence in that place. It is as simple as can be.
Sir, I was going to say much more. I shall not do so. I am an abolitionist by conscience and by experience. One time

Churchill was taking a stand which was believed to be inconsistent, and he was charged with it. He said, "I have no defence against the charge except when events change, principles sometimes have to change".
Bring in the bill without that clause and I will vote for it. Bring it in in its present form and make Canada the Mecca-if I may use that expression in this oil world-for all the thugs, terrorists, PLOs and Castros. As for me, my conscience will be clear when I vote against it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, the arguments for and against the abolition of capital punishment have been debated in this Chamber and in many other legislative bodies in many countries throughout the world. In spite of the millions of words that have been spoken, we still have murders committed in countries with capital punishment and in countries where the death penalty has been abolished. And, Mr. Speaker, the commission of murder will continue regardless of the outcome of this debate. Man is not a rational being, he is only capable of reason. And man is not a perfect being either, so his imperfections and weaknesses will continue. The point is, how best do we control man's imperfections in the interests of law and order, safety and security for the great majority who live within the law?
I am an abolitionist because my conscience tells me that violence begets violence and that the state should not lower itself to the level of its most wretched citizens. This of course is a very personal and subjective argument. I make no claim that my conscience is any more pure or moral than the consciences of those in this House who support capital punishment. Indeed I will make no attempt to persuade hon. members to accept my point of view. We must all stand and be counted as individuals when the vote is recorded.
What I will attempt to do is to explain why I am an abolitionist, in full knowledge of the fact that a majority of my constituents want capital punishment at this time-I emphasize that last phrase-at this time. I am also aware that should the voters of Brant at the next election choose to appraise my work on this single issue, I may not return to the House of Commons. This is the chance that I and other abolitionists must take in the free spirit of parliamentary democracy.
I mentioned that my support for abolition of the death penalty was based on my conscience. This certainly is not the only reason, because if I thought that the evidence with respect to capital punishment clearly showed that this kind of cruel and unusual punishment was in fact a deterrent to the commission of murder, or other crimes of violence, I would on this issue accept those facts and vote for retention.
I would now like to look at the evidence we have all studied over the last three and a half years which, I suggest to hon. members, most Canadians outside this Chamber have not studied thoroughly.
First I should like to state, as other have thus far, that concentrating on the issue of capital punishment will do

little to protect Canadians from increases in the over-all crime that is occurring in this country. People who have written letters with regard to capital punishment have not only expressed their fear and concern about murder. They have also made it known that they are equally appalled about robberies, attempted murders, assaults, sexual offences, as well as other crimes.
We note, for example, that 1974 assaults accounted for 75 per cent of all violent crimes. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) stated in his opening remarks in this debate that unless we are prepared to exact the death penalty for those who indulge in assaults, then those who argue that capital punishment is the only effective deterrent available will be leaving aside as much as 80 per cent of all other violent crimes. Keeping this in mind there can be no doubt that the re-institution of capital punishment would be totally inadequate as a means of dealing with the total crime scene in this country.
I am reminded of a statistical report on crime prepared by the city police force of Brantford, Ontario, in my constituency, Crime in that city rose 25.8 per cent in 1975 over 1974. Obviously, citizens there are concerned and rightly so, and so am I. If one looks at the types of crimes committed, it becomes evident that either retaining or abolishing capital punishment would have absolutely no effect on this since none of these would be punishable by death.
Break-ins, fraud, theft, and assault accounted for most of the increased crime in the city of Brantford. By and large these are the types of crimes citizens are concerned with, and I reiterate that concentrating on the issue of capital punishment will not provide us with a means of dealing with over 75 per cent of our crimes.
This having been said, I would like to return to the specific question of whether capital punishment acts as a deterrent. I believe that in order to analyse fully the deterrent or non-deterrent aspects of capital punishment we must not only look at the statistics of murder but also the nature of the acts committed and of the people who committed them.
Paul Reid has studied this subject extensively and, in a paper entitled "Murder in Canada", he states that most murders are committed at home by people who have been drinking. Furthermore, the weapon most used in the 545 murders committed in Canada last year was a gun, most often a rifle or a shotgun. Fewer than 11 per cent of the deaths occurred during the commission of another criminal act such as rape, robbery or arson, while 36.3 per cent involved domestic relationships.
This study, as others before it did, suggests that, generally speaking, murder is not the deliberate act of the hardened criminal but rather an impulsive, irrational, unthinking deed either by an average citizen momentarily impassioned, or by the mentally unbalanced. If we accept this analysis it becomes clear that the vast majority of murders usually involve passion and little thought is given to the possible punishment.
Numerous other studies have been done which suggest that capital punishment is not a deterrent. In the United States, U.S. criminologist Thorsten Sellin found that there were no real differences in homicide rates between states that had and had not capital punishment. Sellin also noted
Capital Punishment
that there was no upsurge of murder in states which had abolished capital punishment, nor was there any real decline in states where it was restored.
Professor Sellin's conclusions were found in earlier years by the British Royal Commission studying capital punishment. The commission found, and I quote:
-there is no clear evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment had led to an increase in the homicide rate or that its re-introduction had led to a fall.
It is interesting to note that not long ago in the British House of Commons, which represents 48 million to 50 million people in the United Kingdom, where there has been a lot of terrorism and brutal murders in northern Ireland, bombings in London, Liverpool, Manchester and other places, in their wisdom they overwhelmingly rejected the re-instatement of capital punishment.
Going back even further in time we find that in nineteenth century England-I know this example has been worn threadbare, but it is still relevant-pickpockets were hanged in public yet the best time for a pickpocket to carry out his trade was during a public hanging.
This relates to another issue which bothers me to a considerable degree. If we brought back capital punishment for first degree murder-


Mr. Dinsdale:: We have it now.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: -after 15 or 20 people have been hanged, juries may become extremely reluctant to bring in a verdict of first degree murder when in fact the murder was first degree. They will bring in a verdict of second degree murder simply because they are by nature abolitionists. As happened during the fifties, society will get tired of the responsibility of having to declare that someone should forfeit his life. Retentionists should keep in mind that within five years' time this could conceivably happen. People will get very upset, and jurors will let a man off for first degree and convict for second degree. Instead of spending 25 years in jail that person would be out much sooner as a result of a lesser conviction.
In Canada the most noted study on this subject, compiled by Ezzat A. Fattah of Simon Fraser University, again suggests, and I quote:
-that the cause of homicide and murder cannot be found in any single factor but in a total situation in which a special law or particular punishment can have little or no effect.
The professor also pointed out that:
-other offences of violence for which there has not been a change in punishment should show no increase or at least a lower increase than that in criminal homicide.
In other words, to those who argue that the suspension of a particular type of punishment leads to an increase in a category of crime, I would simply ask, for instance, why the rate of assaults in a city like Brantford has increased dramatically? Obviously the sentencing in 1975 was no different than in 1974.
I have become convinced that capital punishment is not the solution to lessening murder rates. An examination of the evidence that I have presented today, as well as of evidence provided by other members and specialists outside this Chamber, indicates that capital punishment does not effectively lower the murder rate.
14180

June 4, 1976
Capital Punishment
In dealing with this matter we must also necessarily deal with the irreversibility of the death penalty. While it may rarely occur, there is that possibility of error in our judicial system. Professor Charles Black in his book "Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake" concludes that, aside from the moral implications, capital punishment should not be instituted because of the vulnerability of the criminal justice system to caprice and mistake. Hon. members cannot ignore this on the basis of the odds involved. Even if one innocent person is hanged, it is the mistake of those in this House. A brief review of the empirical or factual evidence leads me to believe that you cannot support capital punishment on deterrent grounds.
I have noticed that in some of the speeches given by hon. members capital punishment has been supported and refuted on the basis of moral arguments. While I don't intend to indulge in a moral or philosophical approach to this topic I would like to deal briefly with the religious authorities which some have used to support the retention of the death penalty. I do this because much of my mail on the subject cites the Scriptures in favour of capital punishment.
It has been pointed out, not only by the Solicitor General but by other members as well, that narrow scripture citations can be used to support almost any point of view. In this regard I would simply like to quote what my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The-Islands (Mr. Douglas), had to say about using the Scripture on this subject:
The Bible has been quoted in times past to support slavery, child-labour, polygamy, and burning of witches. Furthermore the Mosaic law provided at one time the death penalty for over 30 crimes, including adultery, homosexuality and witchcraft.
Obviously use of Scriptures out of context should not be emphasized in this debate. Let us not play God.
The main concern, indeed, our main task during this debate, is to determine whether capital punishment-its retention-will resolve our problems with crime, not only violent murder but all crime. I mentioned at the outset of my remarks that most people who have written to me on the subject of capital punishment fear for their own as well as their children's safety. What they read in the papers daily and what they see on their television nightly is frightening them. Yet much of this may be overplayed.
There has been some evidence presented in the House to suggest that the media has heightened the public's perception of its own safety. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) as well as my colleague from New Westminster have cited an article in the April edition of Psychology Today which indicated that one of the effects of violence on television is to create a perception in people's minds whereby they believe the violence they see on TV is like the real world around them. It is worth while quoting from the conclusions drawn from the article. The article states:
We have found that violence on prime time network TV cultivates exaggerated assumptions about the threat of danger in the real world. This may lead to increasing demands for protection and to increasing pressure for the use of force by the established authority.
The same conclusions have been reached by Hans Mohr, a criminologist, who in 1969 became the first non-lawyer

appointed as a full-time faculty member of the Osgoode Law School. For two years Mr. Mohr was also a member of the Law Reform Commission. In a recent interview with Quest magazine Mr. Mohr said that the incidence of crime isn't quite as high as some would have us believe. The situation, he says, is exaggerated by society in general and by the media in particular. He says:
Communication is so good today that we seem to hear about everything. If we live in Vancouver we hear about a murder in Toronto. If we're in Charlottetown we know about a killing in Victoria. The important thing is that this is all we hear.
What he refers to here is that we rarely hear about the nature of the crime committed, something I mentioned earlier. For instance we may get a story on the late night news that a murder has been committed, but what we don't learn is that it was a husband who shot his wife while they were both drunk. Mr. Mohr concludes, "We don't find out that this is not the sort of murder that is very likely to threaten our own lives".
I do not mean to infer that crime in our society is no less a serious problem that it was five or ten years ago. As in my own riding, crimes of all kinds are on the increase. Yet we have to realize that this debate, focusing narrowly as it does on a form of punishment for approximately 10 per cent of our crime, will do little to deal with the other 90 per cent of criminal offences.
I believe that the sizeable majority of those in this country who favour capital punishment simply want to be assured of their safety. I share this concern for safety. We must ensure that parole boards do not grant temporary paroles or temporary leaves to prisoners if their release would pose a threat to society at large. We must also ensure that those who are in prison remain there-in other words, that our prison system is secure. Bail reform must be structured in such a manner that bail is not granted to those whose release may be dangerous to society.
More important, the whole Criminal Code needs to be reviewed to ensure that punishment serves a purpose. In one of the Law Reform Commission Reports it was found that four out of seven offenders in crimes involving property went to jail for a first offence. Most of us here must surely find that intolerable. The Commission concluded that society would be better served by a system of 'diversion', i.e. a method whereby offenders and victims are given the opportunity to find their own solutions instead of having the state impose a sentence in each and every case. This type of system could be used in cases where there is a good chance that the offender will not commit another crime. As criminologist Hans Mohr stated:
What we need most... is a change in the public attitude toward punishment, away from the idea of harsh sentences, with no real purpose. When someone commits a crime you have to look at two things: What caused the crime? How do you punish it-and what will the punishment accomplish?
Finally we must direct most of our energy to finding the root causes of crime within our society. It has been said before, but needs to be reaffirmed, that hanging is a simplistic response which may satisfy our understandable desire for vengeance and safety but does nothing to solve the problem of violence and crime.
June 4, 1976

I would like to end my brief remarks in this debate by quoting Hans Mohr once more. This last quotation summarizes my feelings towards capital punishment. He said:
I would not be against it if it did any good, if it prevented murder. But there is absolutely no indication that it does. And I cannot see the sense in trying to prevent the killing of people by killing other people.
I mentioned earlier that juries were reluctant to convict anyone of first degree murder because they are either abolitionists or are simply tired of seeing society or the government take a life for a life. I want to end on one or two more notes. I refer to capital punishment as cruel and unusual punishment, a phrase which comes, I believe, from one of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I believe it to be so. I also believe that 25 years in jail is an equally cruel and unusual punishment. There is absolutely no incentive toward rehabilitation regardless of that 15-year time span in which a convicted murderer may petition three Superior Court judges and then, hopefully, go to the Parole Board and perhaps in the next few years be released. Twenty-five years behind penitentiary bars, in this country at least, is probably a punishment worse than death.
What I would like to suggest, and I know it is not novel, is that the hardened criminal, the criminal who refuses to try to rehabilitate himself and be receptive to rehabilitation programs within the penitentiary system, should be forced to work at meaningful jobs in extreme protective custody. I would suggest that such prisoners be paid and that part of their money be banked, the money to go to supporting their families, if they have them, and toward defraying the cost of their own support instead of forcing the taxpayers to pay the whole load.
Speaking now of the hardened criminal, the hit man, the contract killer, if there is one thing that these people are absolutely terrified of it is an honest, hard day's work, because they have never lived that way in their lives; they have lived by crime. It is doubtful that this will ever get to committee, but I would suggest that some day this provision be incorporated into the 25 year or 20 year life sentence. The government is proposing 25 years now, but it may be 30 years at some point in time or it may be reduced to 20 years. Simply to lock these people up and keep them in prison like animals is inhumane. So I reiterate and re-emphasize that, as an abolitionist, I suggest the government consider getting these people out of the penitentiary for at least eight or 10 hours a day and putting them to meaningful work, which would be the toughest punishment for them but would not be inhumane.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the last speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member for Brant permit a question?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable attention to the hon. member's speech. On general principles I agree with his comments about the incredibly long term of imprisonment, the question of whether it is humane and whether or not it is going to create problems
Capital Punishment
within the institutions which are almost beyond solution. But under this particular bill-I do not think the hon. member touched on this-when people are convicted of second degree murder, which is that type of murder that is not planned or premeditated and does not come within the special cases involving policemen, prison guards and so on but is related to crimes of passion, murders committed on the spur of the moment, usually committed by someone who has never committed a crime before and probably never will again, there is a mandatory ten year sentence.
I should like to use a dramatic example to illustrate my point.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Ask your question.


John Allen Fraser: I will come to my question in a moment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest that the hon. member put his question; he is getting into debate.


John Allen Fraser: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I must remark that when there is a debate on an issue like this and questions are permitted, which is rare enough in this House, I think all hon. members should accord an hon. member the chance to put his position.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. Would the hon. member put his question?


John Allen Fraser: My question to the hon. member is this-he did not touch on this point-is he prepared to support an initiative on the part of other members to amend that particular clause so that discretion is given to judges or parole boards not to lock second degree murderers into a mandatory 10 year sentence which, if I can use the hon. member's word, I too think is inhumane?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question because I addressed myself almost totally to capital punishment and hanging. I definitely agree with the hon. member that a crime of passion that results in murder usually happens only once; it is very seldom repeated. It is an on the spot thing, something that happens off the top of your head as a result of passion, alcohol consumption, a mixture of alcohol and drugs, or an uncontrollable urge. I also agree that it would be equally cruel and inhumane punishment to cause a person to spend at least 10 years in jail before parole. The hon. member who asked the question is a lawyer and I am not, but if I am not mistaken this is one classification of prisoner in our federal penitentiaries who in the past and down to the present has been the most receptive to rehabilitation. There is no reason in the world why they should be forced to remain behind bars for 10 years if they are receptive to rehabilitation, and most of them are.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, to me this debate on capital punishment is very important. It is also troubling, for a reason I would like to explain.
We have now before us some very specific legislation reflecting the intentions either of cabinet as a whole or of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and his advisers. This bill was not prepared and written under the influence of members but rather some expert types who prepared it
95568-631/2

June 4, 1976
Capital Punishment
according to their knowledge and opinions. This means we have to decide on a very specific bill that does not necessarily reflect the views of members on the crime situation in Canada and the treatment of criminals.
I would like to put on record that by conscience I cannot favour capital punishment. But as a member of Parliament,
I have received a mandate from my constituency. I hope therefore I reflect the opinion of one part of this country. I will therefore endeavour to see beyond my own conscience and my own views, to evaluate in the fairest and most objective way I can the crime situation in Canada, in the light of which I will make a judgement on the specific legislation introduced by the Solicitor General.
Under this bill, we would abolish capital punishment once and for all, and replace it by 25 years' imprisonment for some kinds of murders. The bill explains the various kind of murders. They call this peace and security, this bill respecting the control of firearms and capital punishment. Mr. Speaker, as the member for Lotbiniere, I cannot support the bill. I am forced by my conscience to vote with those who want to retain capital punishment, for the reasons I shall explain.
There are five factors around which this debate should be centered. First of all, everyone in the House will recognize that there is a serious increase in the crime rate in Canada. This is not restricted to one province or one area, but is generalized. We can look at the hearings of Quebec's Commission of Inquiry into Organized Crime and see how criminal organized forces in a premeditated, organized and even super-organized manner, direct operations which are not only illegal, but also murderous for their own profit. It is a kind of parallel government or power. It controls the automobile market, prostitution, thieving, and so on. This is the first fact that everyone will admit.
The second fact is the one which concerns me most, is spite of the fine statements of principle of the Solicitor General who, to this date, has been satisfied with making statements. Action is still not for today, it seems. Juvenile delinquency in Canada is still seriously increasing and directly related with the crime rate. What about probation, assistance and support programs for young people who have committeed only one offence, which is not necessarily criminal? What are we doing to help these young people rehabilitate themselves? Very often they commit offences of this type because of an unbalanced or unsteady family context or because of money, education or schooling However, this minister who is asking us to abolish the death penalty has done absolutely nothing concrete to prevent crime among young people and to help them.
Fourth everyone will once again admit that the penitentiary system in Canada is completely inadequate. People go in and come out constantly, and we are no longer surprised in Canada that someone can go to prison, be released, go back in and come back out again. This happens constantly. A criminal is arrested and has a trial which costs a lot of money. The criminal is set up comfortably in prison, in spite of what some of my colleagues will say, and the first thing we know is that he has been released. When he does not get out by himself, it is with the help of the Solicitor General through the National Parole Board. And the criminal regains his freedom.

In this respect, Mr. Speaker, the National Parole Board is mainly responsible for the great concern of the public as regards the crime rate. The minister tells us: believe me, if you want us to abolish the death penalty, I promise you that we will not grant paroles in such or such a case and that we shall be very strict. This is what he says, but in the same breath, he says that if we do not approve his bill, he will resign. This is blackmail and it distorts the debate; there can no longer be a free vote under these conditions. Those who want the Solicitor General to resign will certainly vote against the bill and those who want him to stay will vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I think we should consider these factors during the debate on the death penalty. To abolish the death penalty, we would need not only the assurance but also the promise, within the framework of a very specific program that we would make assessments to control the crime rate in Canada. What methods shall we use? What shall we do? It's very nice, Mr. Speaker, to watch on Quebec TV criminals appearing before the inquiry commission, it is very entertaining. But what does it change to organized crime? What safeguards do we give to the public?
Mr. Speaker, this is a first point on which the Solicitor General shall decide once and for all. What does he intend to do to control organized crime in Canada? We do not have any answer on that subject. The minister is a staunch abolitionist but he proposes absolutely nothing to control and contain the increase in crime. It is absolutely essential and with an example I will illustrate this attitude that I cannot understand, this lack of action on the part of the government.
A criminal commits an armed robbery in a jewelry. The police is called. Policemen are paid for this as it is their function, their work to defend and protect the life and the property of the public. In Canada, policemen are armed. So they arrive on the scene of the robbery and there, Mr. Speaker, they risk their life instead of the owner if he is not there to prevent the robbery. The thieves went there not empty handed but with arms in a premeditated manner. So they chose a course of action. They developed a strategy. So they go to carry out their robbery and they are armed in case society should try to prevent them from doing so because, according to them, they have the right to take someone else's property. There are lots of laws in Canada against theft, but in the mind of those hardened criminals it is not a theft. I do not refer to the one who commits a crime of jealousy or non-premeditated offences, I refer to the organized criminal who commits a robbery. It is premeditated. He intends to take someone else s property.
I believe that in Canada we still recognize the right to private property. Society pays policemen to prevent that kind of incidents. What does happen? If policemen arrive on the scene of the crime, obviously shots will be fired. Why? Because someone wanted to earn his living honourably through his work and someone else decided not to work and not to live honourably by robbing the property of the one who works honestly all day long. This is a theft.
Such a theft is usually made by someone who refuses to proceed in the normal way to get an income and wants to take advantage of the income of another who has worked and took some pains to earn one. Then, Mr. Speaker, the

June 4, 1976

policeman risks his life to protect and prevent such an action. The thief who is caught or taken by surprise takes flight, trying to save his skin. For the policeman, it is self-defence since he is on duty. This is why he wears a uniform, he is armed and trained.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, two things might happen after such a hypothetical incident. The policemen finally catch the criminal or the thief who is tried and with supporting evidence is finally jailed. Then the Solicitor General intervenes after merely a few years. The statistics are there to show that the same thief is caught back and discharged again. Such a thing happens.
When gun shots have been exchanged, Mr. Speaker, and a police agent has been injured, and I know at least two who are completely paralysed, who will be incapacitated for life, and a third who is all crippled following an act committed while on duty, it is therefore a premeditated murder. Some might say, it is an accident, that it derives from the theft. That is the argument put forward by my predecessor from the NDP-


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


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, there have been ongoing and fruitful negotiations, as befitting the prospects of a nice week end, relating to private members' business. It has been agreed by all parties that we will deal with the report stage and third reading of Bill S-33. This bill will be dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mclsaac), and it is my understanding that it will proceed through the report stage and third reading. We will then deal with Bill C-242, which is being reported to the House, standing in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). I understand there will be a short speech by a member of the opposition on that bill, and then we will proceed in the normal course to Bill C-245, again standing in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore. There is agreement as well that all other private members' motions and bills would be stood at the request of the government in order for us to proceed in this way.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I just want to make sure I heard the parliamentary secretary correctly. Did I hear him say that first we would be dealing with the Bill S-33, and then Bill C-242 in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson)?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Right.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, so far as the public bill, S-33, is concerned, there is no problem. As the House leader suggests I am prepared to say we will consent to the two stages today. I have nothing to do with any negotiations in respect of private members' bills. I just wish to make that clear.
Smoking Ban


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding that Bill C-242 will come up automatically.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, it will, but there have been negotiations.


Steve Eugene Paproski: No, there have not. With whom have there been negotiations?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, we will let things fall as they may.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Do I understand that we have unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: that Bill S-33, respecting United Grains Growers Limited, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Joseph Clifford McIsaac: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


PRIVATE MEMBER'S PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-242, respecting relief to non-smokers in transit, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be concurred in.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there are two Bakers involved in this bill. Where is the other Baker? Is there another member?


Jean-Jacques Blais: The one who seconded the motion has just stepped outside, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: I do not want any misunderstanding. I said earlier this is a private member's bill and I do not want to become involved because in terms of private members' hour I think it would be improper for me to do so under these circumstances.

June 4, 1976
Smoking Ban


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, there are two Bakers in the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I am sorry, but there is no debate at the report stage. The motion now is for third reading.


Mr. Yewchuk:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to point out that I am not clear concerning why the Chair decided there would not be any speeches at the report state. There indeed were about five amendments made in the committee. I was present at the committee meeting when they were made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Standing Order 75(14) states:
When a bill has been reported from a standing or special committee, and no amendment has been proposed thereto at the report stage, and in the case of a bill reported from a Committee of the Whole, with or without amendment, a motion, "That the bill be now read a third time and passed", may be made in the same sitting.


William Kenneth Robinson: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore (Mr. Robinson) for his efforts on behalf of a large number of Canadians. There is no doubt that the hon. member who sponsors this bill is doing so on the basis of kindness and consideration for others. If you prefer, he would seem to be placing the well-being of others before one's self. I am sure non-smokers, particularly those who suffer from asthma, emphysema, or a similar ailment, are grateful to the hon. member for his efforts to enable them to travel in comfort. In some cases people are unable to travel because of the effect of smoke in a confined area.
I believe we should stop to consider how this bill, if it should pass, could be administered. Would a passenger, whether on a bus, a train or an airplane, who insisted on smoking be charged with an offence? Who would have the responsibility of charging him or her if the law had been broken? A passenger cannot be removed from a vehicle which is airborne. There would be fairly disastrous results. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to remove a smoker from a train or a bus midway between the place of boarding and the destination.
As a non-smoker I agree with the purpose of this legislation, and I appreciate the problems many travellers experience while en route in a smoke-polluted vehicle. The question is, can a human being's habits or behaviour be totally controlled through legislation? Surely our society has not reached a level where common courtesy has disappeared and ordinary manners have been overlooked or forgotten to the extent that laws have to be enacted to force one human being to treat another in a humane manner. I would

certainly not want to believe that degree of selfishness has developed, or ever will.
I know one Canadian airline for a while placed all non-smokers toward one end of the aircraft, at the back, with smokers forward. There were too many non-smokers, so their positions had to be reversed to retain balance. This proves that the majority of the travelling public would probably welcome an arrangement whereby they could travel in a smoke-free vehicle. Would those who dislike smoke or who suffer from inhaling it be willing to have a member of their family or a friend seated elsewhere because he or she would be smoking? Would a family travelling together accept the rule, if it were in effect, that all smokers had to be seated in a separate area?
Think of the inconvenience, for example, if one parent smoked and the other did not. They would be compelled to sit in separate sections, only one of them being with the children. The father or mother would not be able to leave the smokers' area to join them because there would not be space for her or him, since the space paid for was for the entire journey.
In earlier years trains had a coach for smokers, and that did not seem to cause any problem. Passengers merely returned to the regular car until the next smoke. Theatres have designated areas for those who smoke, and many restaurants have recently set aside a room so non-smokers can enjoy their meals in comfort. One does not need to suffer from a respiratory illness to find smoke-filled air unpleasant, or even sickening, and the fact that smoke-polluted air can cause ill health, in itself should be sufficient reason for smokers to refrain from giving in to the habit while travelling, or being very sure that they are not adding, to too great an extent, to the discomfort of their fellow passengers.
With the railways and airlines in this country financially running in the red, so to speak, year after year, would they not be willing, even desirous, of formulating policies on their own to ensure the well-being, comfort and health of their customers? Perhaps a little encouragement in the right way, offering reasonable suggestions and pointing out that such a policy would be to their financial advantage, would result in positive and effective action being taken without creating force through legislation, which this bill would do.
I have been informed that at least one airline in Canada will make an attempt to take care of travellers to whom smoke is a health hazard. If the passenger cannot manage to contact officials prior to his flight time, he or she should be able to mention the fact when having his or her ticket processed. An additional simple step in the right direction would be for the stewardess who demonstrates the use of oxygen masks or serves meals, etc., to ask if anyone on the plane wishes to move to a smoke-free section, and if there is anyone who would be willing to transfer with a traveller who should be in his area because of smoking or not smoking.
If airline passengers knew the rules, and those rules were emphasized right on the ticket envelope and in ticket offices, as well as in newspaper advertisements, most adults would go along with the policy. I doubt that as
June 4, 1976

many would willingly be removed under this proposed law when smoking in a restricted section of an aircraft, be charged with breaking a law, and eventually pay the penalty, whatever it may be. Would reasonable and ordinary procedures such as this not be acceptable without adding another restriction to the lives of Canadians? Adjustment takes time, but people can be persuaded more easily than they can be forced. Good public relations must never be overlooked when one human being is associated with another.
Unfortunately there will always be those who have no feeling for or consideration of others, and there is no doubt that is why the member for Toronto-Lakeshore introduced this bill. He did so because persons have experienced difficulty, healthwise or because of concern for their future health, and I too have received representations for assistance to have a sensible policy adopted.
As far as buses are concerned, most of them are air conditioned, and little would be gained by assigning a certain number of seats for smokers. The smoke would circulate, but would be removed at the same time.
With all respect to the hon. member who sponsored this thoughtful bill, I can only repeat my earlier question: can manners be legislated? While a habit such as smoking is not ill-mannered, the abuse of any privilege is inconsiderate, and I would say that falls into the category of politeness and courtesy. To sit in a train, a bus, or a plane and blow smoke on to a fellow traveller or into the air around that person or persons is just as impolite as letting a door close behind you without looking to see if someone is following and could be hit. A program of self-analysis, through various departments is needed to point out what living is all about, that this world is made up of people, not just of one selfish, self-centred, self-indulgent human being.
Can people not place themselves in the shoes of others, at least part of the time? Could one who is a heavy smoker stop long enough to think how he or she would like fumes blown into his or her face, on to his or her clothes, and through the air around his or her immediate area? Would a smoker, whose sense of smell I have been told is not sensitive, like to breathe garlic, cheap perfume, or some unpleasant odour, for an indefinite period without any means of escape or relief?
I was amazed to realize just recently that visitors to hospitals expect to smoke right in the sickrooms. Some were indignant because they were refused entrance to an area where oxygen was in use to save lives. If that is not an example of thoughtlessness and lack of consideration, it would be hard to find one. Legislation cannot change that type of person-education and advertising could on the part of the carriers.
The solution to the problem of habitual smokers would seem to me to be one of education-signs, as used in stores; warnings in appropriate areas about health hazards to smokers and to everyone; a sentence or two added to advertisements for trips; travel agencies could co-operate. I would even go so far as to suggest that the CBC-which (jannot be interfered with by the cabinet or reached by anyone else in this Chamber who has criticism or suggestions-be instructed to remove the use of tobacco from its televised productions. Not being a TV viewer on a regular
Smoking Ban
basis, I have been told that seldom, if ever, is there a show on CBC without a cigarette or pipe hanging from the mouths of the performers.
The Department of National Health and Welfare is attempting to curb the smoking habit, and that deserves the co-operation of every Canadian. Why not have this Crown corporation, which reaches practically all homes in this country, join that department in its efforts and even mention that smoking is a health hazard? Could the CBC not have programs without anyone smoking, or consuming alcohol for that matter? If a producer feels that he is harming viewers by omitting the use of tobacco, one of the performers could say a sentence or two about polluted air, good health and how precious it is. That would be a service to smokers and non-smokers, to children and to adults, to restaurants, hotels, airlines, trains, and buses.
I understand well that it is not easy for anyone in business to try to dictate to a customer, and I would not expect that type of service. A few well placed signs, however, and the comment that there is a separate area for those who desire to smoke would not be out of place when a person enters an establishment. That would be far better than to ask people to leave after they have become settled, causing embarrassment, and more than likely losing future business.
Again I say that legislation to control the manners and personal habits of people would be looked upon as another restriction. What would the punishment be if anyone refused to avoid or leave a prohibited area on a federally controlled vehicle on land, water, or in the air? Would a traveller who broke the regulations be refused accommodation in the future? Who would decide on the penalty? How could such legislation be administered on a just basis? In my opinion the general public is already faced with and hampered by too much legislation and government interference-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: -without getting into the implementation of rules relating to their habits.
I agree that a problem does exist and that the health of everyone is affected by smoke, whether inhaled directly or with polluted air. I also believe that people, if approached in a sensible and reasonable way, will follow limits put into effect by the operators of public vehicles. They get along all right in theatres and stores where smoking is prohibited; they would go along with designated areas for their use while travelling.
I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. member, but the passage of this legislation, in my view, is not in the best interest of Canadians. I do not think it would accomplish that which the hon. member would like it to do, and for that reason I do not think that the House of Commons should allow its passage at this time.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would make a few comments on this bill as well since it is connected with health in a general way. I do not think anybody will argue with the idea that non-smokers are entitled to clean air no matter where they may be, whether it be in transit or at work, at home or at play, or anywhere else.

June 4, 1976
Smoking Ban
We know from many years of experience with smoking that it is a hazardous habit creating all kinds of difficulties for many people. I suppose the most common difficulty we face is allergy. A very high percentage of Canadian people are allergic to cigarette smoke. Some of the problems it causes for them are stuffy noses, runny, itchy eyeballs, and of particular significance in transit in an aircraft is the swelling of the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract which result from the allergy which results in obstruction of the channel between the middle ear and the throat, known as the Eustachian tube. With the obstruction of this tube resulting from irritation by smoke one can experience severe middle ear pain during ascent or descent of an aircraft. For that reason alone, if for none of the many others, it is a good idea to ensure that people who have allergies to cigarette smoke are given access to transportation conveyances which are free of cigarette smoke in the interests of their own comfort.
We also know that cigarette smoke, and perhaps pipe and cigar smoke-although pipe and cigar smoke have not been incriminated as cigarette smoke has in these areas- contribute to a whole host of respiratory tract disease such as bronchitis, bronchiectasis, emphysema, and even cancer of the lung. Cancer of the lung is not necessarily the worst one because the others can lead to death as well in the long run. Most people who have studied this problem realize that cigarette smoking is a health hazard. Whether the smoke is inhaled by smoking or inhaled secondhand from someone else's exhalations, the results are the same.
However, I want to point out that over the past 30 years one particular habit has been going on; I am sure everyone has seen signs in trains, buses, airplanes and so on saying "Cigarette Smoking Only", as though cigarettes had some kind of a sweet and healthy quality about them as opposed to pipes or cigars. The fact is that in studies which have been carried out, pipe smoking and cigar smoking have been shown to be less hazardous to health than cigarette smoking. I do not want to go into the technical details of why and how, but many of the studies I have examined tend to point in that direction. Therefore it is rather strange that over the years the pipe smoker and the cigar smoker have been somewhat abused, with the cigarette smoker having his way pretty well everywhere he goes and causing a lot of trouble for the non smoking portion of the public.
What we have had for the past 30 years essentially is that pipe smokers or cigar smokers in transit have become non smokers. I think that is something we should look at very carefully. We should consider the fact that this segment of the smoking population, when in transit, does not smoke at all.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are you a cigar smoker?


Paul Yewchuk: It is possible, therefore, to give up smoking while in transit because the cigar smoker and the pipe smoker have been doing it for many years. When a cigarette smoker in transit complains his head off because he must have a cigarette while in transit, I have no real sympathy for him because it seems to me that if a cigar smoker can give it up-and I do not think anybody will argue the fact that a cigar is much more pleasant smoking

material than a cigarette-we should be thinking about the possibility-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Will the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member expressed a great deal of concern about cigar smokers being deprived of the right to smoke while in transit. Is he suggesting that this bill is really doing the opposite to what he suggests? In other words, is he suggesting that we should be expanding the bill to allow cigar smokers to smoke rather than just to deprive cigarette smokers and pipe smokers?


Paul Yewchuk: I will try to clarify this matter for my hon. friend to the best of my ability.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Answer him at your next caucus.


Paul Yewchuk: Perhaps we will take up the discussion at the next caucus.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This is a private member's bill.


Paul Yewchuk: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) raised a very important point, and I do not want to be in a position where I may be misinterpreted in so far as my intentions in this debate are concerned. I am simply pointing out that smoking is unnecessary.


An hon. Member:: So is drinking.


Paul Yewchuk: I will get to that in a minute, but we know from experience that certain types of smokers have been able to give up their habit while in transit, and I am trying to make the point that it is possible for all smokers to do the same. I hope that clarifies my position in that regard.
Some of the things we noted while this bill was before committee were representations made by the railways, the airlines, and the bus companies. They made the point very emphatically that they thought this kind of legislation was totally unnecessary, mainly because they have already been following the practice of designating smoking sections and non-smoking sections on a voluntary basis for quite some time. It leads one to wonder why the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) felt that it was suddenly necessary to pass laws to cover something which is already being done. The hon. member appeared before the committee a couple of times, but on neither of those occasions did he provide any satisfactory explanation for wanting this bill rammed through the House in a hurry to become law.
As Conservatives we believe we have faith in humanity. We believe that the ordinary citizen of this country or of any other country is a considerate and humanitarian person who is always courteous enough to consider the feelings of other people in his vicinity, and if a sign has been put up voluntarily by an airline, a bus company or a railway company, we take the position that because of this basic courtesy people tend to obey these signs regardless of whether there is a law.
On the other side of the coin, if there is someone who is so discourteous that he will not abide by a sign such as the one I have just described, then I cannot see how this law would make any difference at all. In committee we
June 4, 1976

explored in some detail the idea of the application of this bill if it should become law, and the fact is that it is almost totally impossible to enforce. The proponent of this bill himself stated that he felt there would be many occasions when it would be impossible to enforce any law emanating from this bill.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) briefly touched on the application of this law, and I would like to go into a little more detail in that regard. It seems to me that the situation is that if a smoker is in the non-smoking section of an aircraft over Saskatchewan, smoking to his heart's content and refuses to put out his cigarette when one of the beautiful hostesses asks him to do so, there is nothing more she can really do. She cannot fight or wrestle with the fellow, or hit him on the head with a club. She might simply ask him for his name, and when the aircraft lands report that name to the first policeman she can get her hands on. Normally in Canada there are RCMP constables patrolling air terminals.
I suppose the idea is that a hostess would find a policeman, point out the culprit as he was getting off the aircraft and expect the policeman to lay a charge. That looks all right on the surface, but when we consider that the laws are applied by the provinces, we have a problem. If a man is smoking over Saskatchewan and gets off the aircraft in Ontario, he cannot be charged in Ontario. He has to be charged in Saskatchewan. The RCMP would have to wire back to their colleagues in Saskatchewan to lay charges and have him appear before a magistrate there in the hope that he would plead guilty and pay the fine, or try to explain things. It is my impression that he would not feel obligated to take the next flight to Saskatchewan to face charges-indeed he might never go back at all.
We will wind up with a lot of charges on the books that will never be carried through. That just takes care of the situation within our own borders, mind you, and the international situation becomes much more complicated. If a flight lands in Canada and the offence is committed in Canada we might eventually get to the bottom of it, and perhaps the individual would be fined. If the flight is going outside Canada, to the United States, for instance, it happens that RCMP constables just do not patrol air terminals there nor in Europe. If the lady gets off the aircraft she has absolutely no recourse, nobody to whom to complain. Perhaps if she happened to come back to Canada the next day and the culprit were on the same flight she could lay a charge when she arrives in Ontario and it would be relayed to Saskatchewan. It becomes very complicated, Mr. Speaker.
There is then the problem of aliens who commit an offence over Canadian territory and refuse to abide by our laws. Once they are out of the country no charges can be laid at all. If the traveller were going outside the country the hostess would probably just forget about telling the policeman. Even if a charge were laid the chances of it being heard before a magistrate in this country are almost non-existent. So, Mr. Speaker, the proposed bill is of doubtful validity.
If an Air Canada aircraft were flying over the United States, or the ocean, or Europe, and a smoker refused to put
Smoking Ban
out his cigarette in the non-smoking section, theoretically that crime would be committed outside our jurisdiction. What would be the point then in the hostess complaining to the police in Canada? They have absolutely no control over anyone who committed the crime of smoking in a non-smoking area somewhere over Europe or the United States.
The witnesses heard before the committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan), and the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, were ill-informed and ill-prepared. They could not give us any statistics on the ratio of passengers flying on Canadian airlines over other countries in relation to the number who fly over our own air space. Without that information it is virtually impossible to determine to what extent this law should be applied. It seems to me if the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore were really serious about wanting the bill to pass, and if the parliamentary secretary who spoke on behalf of the government and said it wanted it to pass-if they had done their homework and presented all the facts we could have made a proper assessment of the bill and determined its validity.
My hon. friend from New Brunswick, who is in the habit of accusing me of taking cheap shots in committee and in the House-


Mr. Corbin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to emphasize that I was not addressing myself to the hon. member across the way who has the floor. The only problem is, he has pretty sharp ears. Now that I have the floor I must say that that was a cheap shot.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Madawaska is so sensitive to hearing the truth.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order I should like to inform the hon. member that the name of my riding is Madawaska-Victoria, and I am pretty proud of that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest that we stop taking cheap shots at each other and get back to the subject of the bill.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that I think that the hon. member's riding is a great place. I was not casting any reflections at all on the riding of Madawaska-Victoria. I am sure he has good reason to be proud to represent that riding. If I represented it I should be proud as well. I was reflecting on the hon. member himself rather than on the riding.


Eymard G. Corbin: That is why I am such a good
representative.


Paul Yewchuk: I will not express any opinion on whether the hon. member is a good representative or not; we will let the people of his riding decide that.
The other thing that bothers me about the bill is the rather narrow approach to the question of smoking in public places. I am sure if the hon. member had given it some thought he would have realized that people spend very little of their living time travelling in aircraft or
14188

June 4, 1976
Smoking Ban
buses. Perhaps members of parliament spend more time than other people doing that, but it still does not amount to more than two or four or ten hours a week.


Mr. Pearsall:: He does not know where B.C. is.


Paul Yewchuk: The hon. member says he spends more than ten hours a week in an aircraft. It is a good place to hide, or work, or sleep.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a short question to the hon. member who just spoke. I gather that he believes in the principle of the bill. Does he support the bill itself?


Paul Yewchuk: I think the principle of the bill is pretty good as far as it goes in that it proposes to provide a clean air space to people in transit. As far as supporting the bill itself is concerned, I think we are going to have to wait until the vote is called.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned by a number of others, this is a private member's bill-a bill respecting relief to non-smokers in transit. It is not a bill on which supporters of the government have been asked to vote in favour, but it has been made very clear that it is supported by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to the extent that hearings have been held.
I want to congratulate the member responsible for carriage of the bill, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). During the committee hearings we learned that the bill was supported not only by the interest groups from whom one would have expected support, such as the non-smokers' associations that are forming all over the country, health associations, the group who represented the doctors, but the carriers themselves supported the bill. The bill is even being supported by the tobacco industry and others from whom one would have expected opposition.
Those hearings indicated conclusively that there was general support for the bill. Now, when the bill comes back in the House, the Conservative party seems to be determined to use the rules of procedure in this House to keep the bill from being voted on today.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We support the bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We have 17 minutes left.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are filibustering.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I urge opposition members to use those 17 minutes constructively to see if the bill will carry and be sent to the Senate.


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to follow my colleagues, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). Over the years, they have demonstrated that they have a great deal of insight. Their astute sense of analytical judgment is surpassed by few in this House.
Nevertheless, upon superficial reflection on this bill, one would think it would be rather straightforward. However, I believe it raises some deep philosophical questions. Being a political scientist by profession-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You wouldn't think so.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: There is my good friend, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). I remember in times past my good friend from Manitoba. I would have thought in this last private members' hour my friend from Manitoba would have been more interested in bringing forth a private members' bill on the Endangered Species Act in order that he may protect the endangered species of Liberals in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: We are a species that will never die.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: There he goes talking about species. We on this side of the House have been interested lately in the Freshwater Marketing Corporation. Speaking of species of fish, the hon. member for St. Boniface is not unlike that species known as a jellyfish, which is .described as a jellylike substance with no backbone.


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


Dean Waldon Whiteway: At last I did come across a man, John Stewart Mills, and his essay of 1859 "On Liberty". Although the flame of that essay was written 100 years ago, it burns as brightly today as the day it was lit. I want to bring to the attention of the House some quotes from that essay. I quote:
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forebear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
I believe that this bill, in terms of the liberty of one to smoke in public places or not, has some deep implications in so far as if it would become law it would become part of our constitution, and we know that some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. However, I know that laws and institutions must go hand and hand with the progress of the human mind.
This is the point that I want to make. The progress of the minds of Canadians is far ahead of the progress of the government and of the progress of the member opposite who is introducing this legislation. In substance, and in the spirit of this proposed legislation, I would not disagree. However, he is introducing legislation that in fact puts into place that which has already been done, accepted, and implemented by most Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: He who would do his country the most good must go quietly with the prejudice of the majority until he can lead them into reason. The reason of Canadians has already led them into the very kind of action that the hon. member is proposing in this legislation.
So that I would know something of which I am speaking today, in order that I can be distinguished from hon. members opposite, I did some investigation. Upon calling Canadian National Railways I found that for 20 years they have had smoking and non-smoking sections on their train cars. They are now engineering and are pioneers in a new concept known as mobile separaters. According to this new innovative technique by Canadian National Railways, they will have these separaters which will be moved according to the number of smoking and non-smoking passengers in any given car. You would not out of necessity have to sit in a smoking section simply because there was a permanent fixture there if in fact you were a non-smoker and they were in the majority in that particular train car. On the new turbo train they have set aside not one part of a car or one car, but two cars on every train as non-smoking cars.
I then thought that while perhaps that may be true of national companies, what about obscure or relatively obscure companies in other areas? Everyone in Manitoba knows that the public transit system in Toronto is run by the Toronto Transit Commission. But I am surprised that
Smoking Ban
many people in Toronto have not heard of Grey Goose Bus lines. Anyway, I phoned Grey Goose and asked them about non-smoking sections in their buses. They informed me that they were years ahead of the hon. member opposite and that the Canadian Motor Coach Association has been, and is, enforcing regulations to this effect-that the first five seats on every bus are reserved for non-smokers.
Because we in this House are perhaps more inclined to fly than we are to drive, some facts about the arrangements made to accommodate non-smokers on aircraft would be of interest. I checked with Air Canada and found that on 747s two of the first four cabins are set aside for non-smokers. On DC-9s as well as on 727s, the first 13 rows are reserved for non-smokers. I could go on. The documentation is massive and exact.


An hon. Member:: Parliament lives!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The facts I have outlined clearly indicate that the progress already made is well in advance of the intention set out in the hon. member's legislation.
I am not a lawyer. I have always made my living honestly.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: We can take a joke.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Speaking of jokes, there was a joke going round St. Boniface in years past. I understand he is now a member of the House of Commons. In the high schools of Manitoba they teach that to be good law, legislation must conform with three basic criteria. It must be reasonable, it must be enforceable, and it must be punishable. I suppose the bill before us does address itself to all three of these ingredients. However, some of my own friends draw attention to the pitfalls which exist with respect to enforceability. I would refer in particular to one provision concerning motor vehicles which travel from one province to another. According to a provision in Part I, clause 2(d), this might indeed apply to smoking in the non-smoking section of a limousine in use for transporting passengers to an airport, and I do not think that is a very practical application.
Above all, a law should be able to stand the test of whether or not it is acceptable by society. The very fact that the purpose of this legislation has already been accomplished de facto makes it unnecessary for a law to be enacted on the subject. There is one thing which can be said of Canadians: they are not under-governed. There is an old dictum of political scientists, perhaps more honoured in the breach than in the observance, that governments govern best which govern least.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: As a non-smoker and one who is in agreement with the spirit of the proposal, unless I should be accused of talking out this legislation with three minutes still left to go, I shall yield the floor to one of my hon. friends.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say at the outset that I am bitterly opposed to this bill for reasons which my hon. friends have stated. Whether an
14190

June 4, 1976
Smoking Ban
individual is a smoker or not has nothing to do with the argument, because the airline carriers and the people who run the bus lines and the railways have already conformed to the intent of this measure.
My hon. friends from Vegreville and Moose Jaw have drawn attention to the conclusion of the Law Reform Commission that we should do away with legislation which has no meaningful purpose. Yet here we have a bill which is without a meaningful purpose. I cannot understand why legislation should be introduced to force somebody to do something which is already being done on a voluntary basis.
I should like to make one comment about the hon. member opposite, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson). I find him to be a very admirable gentleman. I told him in committee that I was bitterly opposed to this legislation and he knows this is my stand. But I think it should also be said in this Chamber that he is a gentleman who has contributed a great deal to the welfare of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. So that we may hear the rest of the
speech of the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) and perhaps reach a decision on this bill, I wonder whether the House would give unanimous consent to sit until 5.30?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Peter Elzinga: It is interesting to note what individuals associated with transportation in this country said when they appeared before the committee with regard to this piece of legislation. Mr. Thompson of the Canadian Motor Coach Association gave evidence that the system which had been introduced in the motor coach industry had been adopted on a voluntary basis, and that whether or not the bill became law he believed that system would continue. Carriers, he told the committee, were obliged to do these things by public pressure whether they wanted to do them or not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. This House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 7, 1976