1976-07-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which some of us feel should be brought urgently to the attention of the government. I therefore move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to bring in legislation that will establish pension rights for homemaker spouses equivalent to the rights of those employed outside the home, and that the government commit itself to the inclusion of this legislation in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the next session of this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
In view of the gravity of the consequences of the conflict generated by the air controllers and pilots of Canada, except for the Gens de l'air du Quebec, as the protocol of agreement signed by CALPA, CATCA and the Minister of Transport constitutes one of the worst affronts ever inflicted upon the government in the history of this country, as the decision of the Minister of Transport is stamped with chauvinism and racism which are contrary to the most elementary rights of the francophone citizens in Canada, and taking into account the fact that all the right-minded hon. members of this Parliament cannot associate themselves with so revolting an act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That this House demand immediately that a recorded vote be taken so that all Canadians might know who, in this House, disapprove or approve of the attitude of the Minister of Transport in the conflict that opposes him to the air controllers and pilots in Canada, a positive vote leading necessarily to the resignation of the minister concerned.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and I do so because of the nearness of the Olympic Games. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais):
That this House welcomes to Canada all athletes participating in the Olympic Games, including those from Taiwan, and that this House approve the decision to allow Taiwan athletes to compete only as representatives of Taiwan and not the Republic of China.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED CONTROL OF INFLATED PRICES ASKED BY TRAVEL AGENCIES FOR TRIPS TO GAMES-MOTION UNDER S.O.
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move an urgent motion.
Travel agencies throughout the world are now selling package-deal trips to allow people to come to the Olympics, at terms more profitable than the best organized hold-ups. For example, a roundtrip airplane ticket between Miami and Montreal for three days, with two-night accommoda-
15114

July 7, 1976
Olympic Games
tion and tickets for one Olympic activity can be bought for the reasonable sum of $1400 per person. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs make representations to the Canadian embassies abroad to ask them to keep a close eye on the abusive practices of those travel agencies, which will cause enormous damage to the good commercial name Canada enjoys abroad.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which I am sure all members will agree does not require any debate because I know they will want to accept it. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That this House calls on the government to establish on a mandatory basis the permissive clause in the anti-inflation program relating to the elimination of sex discrimination in pay practices.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the Olympic Games should not be used to make politics and politicking in favour or at the expense of various countries and considering that the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs which aims at forcing the People's Republic of China not to use their recognized name is a serious intrusion in the affairs of another country and a serious breach of the Olympic ethics,

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House immediately order the Secretary of State for External Affairs to modify his position towards the IOC for his unjustifiable intrusion in the operation of the Olympic Games which should not be subject to the disgusting blackmail from irresponsible people who take advantage of the Olympic Games to make politics.


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:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very important and urgent matter to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that federal and Ontario cabinet ministers are meeting July 9 to discuss the mercury pollution problem in northwestern Ontario, but no representatives of the native people of the area who are suffering the effects of this pollution have been invited to the meeting, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the Minister of Indian Affairs to invite the chiefs of the White Dog and Grassy Narrows reserves to attend the July 9 meeting as full participants in the discussions of this crucial situation.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral question period.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and relates to the meetings he held yesterday with the provincial ministers of finance. In light of the substantial
July 7, 1976

loss of revenue which the provinces will suffer as a result of the government's announced intention to terminate the revenue guarantee payments, will the minister tell the House whether the government is considering the transfer of tax points to compensate the provinces for these losses, and further, given that the federal government has unilaterally changed the formula for the revenue guarantee payments owing for fiscal years already completed thus breaking an existing agreement with the provinces, will the government reconsider this decision so as to restore an atmosphere of basic trust to the current negotiations?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the hon. lady-


Some hon. Members:: Hon. member.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -that the arrangements for the revenue guarantee were with regard to a five year period which would enable the provinces to adjust their own taxation systems to the changes brought about by the tax reform. The program was specifically for the purpose of making that adjustment, and the understanding at the time at which it was entered into was that the provinces should amend their tax systems accordingly. We have made it clear to the provinces that we do not intend to continue beyond 1976 the sweeping revenue guarantee that has existed in the past, and of course it was understood that the provinces over the intervening five years would have to adjust their own taxation systems to take care of the change in revenue that would be brought about.
The hon. lady refers to our claim back for the years that are now closed, 1972 and 1973. It is true that there was a federal over-payment by about $300 million in respect of those two fiscal years. We have made it clear, both in the House and to the provinces, that we are not seeking to claim back that amount for those years.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF FEDERAL PROPOSALS AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE FINANCE AND FIRST MINISTERS' MEETINGS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: The minister did not answer my question with regard to the fiscal years 1974, 1975 and 1976 in which the provinces will be losing $700 million, I should like some reply as to whether or not the government will compensate the provinces for that loss which they will suffer under an existing agreement. In view of the fact that all of these matters must be dealt with by members of the House and because we had been denied information until now, will the minister today table the federal government's proposals and documents, including the briefing books that were given to the provinces at yesterday's meeting, and will he also give the House the schedule for the future finance and first ministers' meetings and tell us when he expects these negotiations to be completed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the first part of the hon. lady's statement-


Some hon. Members:: Hon. member's statement.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -I should point out that in fact the obligation to pay in relation to 1974 will not arise
Oral Questions
until later this year. If the question arises as to what the provinces were expecting for the years 1974 and 1975, and indeed for the current year, presumably one should look at the estimates of revenues which they have made in their own budgetary statements to their own provincial legislatures, from which it is clear they were not expecting the much more substantial payments to which they have now laid claim.
With regard to the documents arising out of the federal-provincial conference, a copy of which I have here, I have asked my department officials to take steps to have this rather voluminous information translated, and as soon as we have it available in both official languages I will be quite happy to table it in the House.
With regard to the timetable of meetings, the next meeting will be held by the consulting committee at which officials will be meeting during the course of the summer. I anticipate that there will be at least one if not two meetings of the finance ministers between now and November, and I think the first ministers are considering the possibility of a first ministers' meeting in November for the purpose also of dealing with this among other issues.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PROVINCES WILL NOT LOSE UNDER PROPOSALS FOR SHARED-COST PROGRAMS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question that I would like to put to the Minister of Finance has to do with assurances to the provinces, assurances which were broken under the revenue guarantee payment. Given the Prime Minister's assurance following the first ministers' meeting in June that the have-not provinces would not suffer under any new proposals for shared-cost programs, will the minister today undertake to give the same kind of assurance to the House that no province which now qualifies, and will continue to qualify, for equalization payments will receive less money under any new equalization formula than it receives at present?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the federal government's assurance on entering into the revenue guarantee, it was to indemnify the provinces for the revenue that they would lose if in fact the new tax system did not yield as much as the.old one. In fact, from the calculations made now it is quite clear that the government has been indemnifying them for that. Indeed, the federal government unilaterally went one step further and has also undertaken and has paid them indemnification for changes which occurred in the provincial tax system as a result of subsequent changes made in the taxation system in this parliament to relieve the weight of taxation upon Canadian taxpayers generally.
With regard to the equalization payments, I made it clear to the provinces that the examples used for the purpose of calculation of equalization on one or other of the three formulas did not indicate an intention to drop the absolute amount, that we would certainly make certain that the new formula would not reduce the absolute amount and that these calculations are for demonstrative purposes only. Of course, with respect to any particular province, it
95570-56)4

July 7, 1976
Oral Questions
depends on the formula adopted and the structure of that province's own taxation system. I think one can say, with regard to the transfer payment system generally to the have-not provinces, that that will not yield less to them in the future in general terms than it is paying to them now.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. As federal revenues since tax reform have exceeded expectations, and as the minister has made this point quite clear in giving reasons why the provincial revenue guarantees should be terminated retroactively, does the minister propose, now that revenue guarantee payments will likely no longer take place, the reduction of federal tax rates so that the excess revenue referred to by the minister and others may lessen and so that the Canadian taxpayer will not be double taxed as a result of the federal action? Let us remember that there is only one taxpayer for all levels of government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Exactly, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I point out to the hon. gentleman, as I pointed out to the provinces, that there was no excess revenue coming to the government of Canada, but if, as the provinces insisted, the full amount of the revenue guarantee, as calculated by the econometric formula, be paid to the provinces, then there would have to be an increase in federal taxation against federal taxpayers for the purpose of paying that greater amount. We feel that the provinces have been indemnified for what they have expected, as indicated in their own budgetary statements, and that they should not be claiming something greater than indemnity.


PROPOSED TRANSFER OF ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAXES TO PROVINCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the minister advocates the transfer of tobacco and alcohol taxing power, a low growth revenue source, to the provinces to assist the provinces in the financing of such programs as medicare and hospital insurance, is the minister concerned that the provinces will be left with no option but to try to accelerate the consumption of tobacco and alcohol in order to stimulate revenue growth, which in turn might create further health problems and thus be counterproductive?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As is
well known, the provinces gain the most from the sale of alcoholic beverages throughout Canada through the profits of the provincial liquor commissions and through the existing provincial sales taxes. I should correct the hon. gentleman and say that the excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco were one of the options we put before the provincial governments. We put several before them for the purpose of their choosing in this respect. I would have to say that with respect to taxation on tobacco and alcohol, this would have provided something of a rationalization of the taxing
[Mr Macdonald (Rosedale).]
of these two commodities since so much of it is already done at the provincial level. This would have put the full responsibility for taxation on the provincial governments and therefore would have simplified the system. We are not insisting on it, however. They have other options to choose.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS EFFECT ON PROVINCIAL REVENUES OF TRANSFER OF TAX POINTS TO REPLACE COST-SHARING PROGRAMS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question with regard to the cost-sharing proposals of the federal government. By giving the provinces, as a substitute for the present 50-50 cost-sharing on health and post-secondary education, a new package which is substantially dependent on tax points, I would like to ask the minister whether he agrees that this leaves the provinces much more vulnerable in these precise areas in the sense that provincial taxes for almost all provinces are levied as a percentage of the federal tax, and therefore if the federal government changes its tax policy, the provinces could well get less revenue than they had planned for, as happened when the government introduced indexing.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should correct the hon. gentleman. The proposal is not principally on tax points. On the several options mentioned, one provides for a 66% per cent payment in cash, another for 50 per cent in cash, with the balance for transmittal in terms of tax points. The basic proposition the hon. gentleman puts with respect to the impact on the provincial tax base on personal income tax is quite correct. I would remind him, however, that at least from some of the provinces-and there was evidence of this again at the meeting yesterday-there has been insistence on the transfer of tax points because they know that in the long run these taxes will return them a far greater yield than would cash payments.


John Edward Broadbent: To be perfectly clear then, the minister is conceding that by shifting away from a 50-50 cost-sharing formula in relation to health care and post-secondary education costs to a system which weighs heavily-I shall not put it more strongly than that-on the tax point system, leaves the provinces in a much more vulnerable position in terms of ability to forecast their own revenue expectations to cover the fields I have mentioned.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There is no doubt that changing the tax base under a uniform tax collection system could have the effect of reducing provincial revenues. This, presumably, was well known to those provinces which sought not only half the transfer but the whole of the transfer of tax points. So, now it looks like it depends very much on where you sit in this country. With regard to the less well-favoured provinces, the cash payment has more effect than the transfer of tax points.
July 7, 1976


AMOUNT OF REVENUE PROVINCES LOSE AS RESULT OF ABANDONMENT OF REVENUE GUARANTEE FORMULA
John Edward Broadbent: I welcome the minister's candor. That, of course, is precisely why a number of provinces are opposed to what he is proposing. Would the minister confirm the estimate made by the government of Saskatchewan that the provinces would lose collectively over the next ten years $18 billion as a result of the government's unilateral decision to abandon the existing revenue guarantee formula?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can
confirm that that is not accurate. In the first place, the premise put forward by the hon. gentleman is not accurate. We have not abandoned the revenue guarantee formula. We have undertaken to pay an indemnity and we are paying it. We have also made it clear that the formula was valid for a period of five years. What the province of Saskatchewan was really saying was this: if there had been a promise to continue it beyond five years, that would have been the figure. Perhaps it would and perhaps it would not, but that is a hypothetical question which does not relate either to the existing arrangement or to the facts.


AIR TRANSPORT
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the sharp protests coming from everywhere following the decision by the minister about the agreement signed with CALPA and CATCA, and in view of the very serious effects resulting from that mistake he made, which is recognized by some cabinet members and even by the right hon. Prime Minister, could the minister tell the House when he intends to resign from the cabinet?


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. As investment by Canadian businessmen in foreign countries during the past five years has tripled-in 1975 it exceeded foreign investment in Canada by $200 million-is the minister considering plans to make investment in Canada at least as attractive as investment abroad with consequence advantages to Canadian production and employment? If that is the case, would the minister announce what these plans are at the first opportunity on motions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am
not proposing at this point to make any statement on further fiscal changes of the kind set out by my predeces-
Oral Questions
sor to stimulate manufacturing and processing investment in Canada. In my view, the principal concern investors might have felt with respect to Canada was the rate of inflation in this country, together with the rate of increase in cost due to high wage settlements. As the hon. member knows, we have set ourselves, under the anti-inflation policy, the goal of reducing the rate of inflation and, as a consequence, reducing the increase in industrial costs, perhaps the most important single factor in reaching investment decisions.


George Harris Hees: Considering the government's obvious lack of intent to make investment in this country more attractive for Canadian businessmen, is it any wonder Canadian businessmen are forced to make large investments abroad, as they are presently doing?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say to the hon. member, and to those in the business community who share his thinking, that the primary goal in Canada for all Canadians should be the overcoming of inflation in this country.


George Harris Hees: What about overcoming unemployment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is always a critical factor. I point out to the hon. gentleman that if we fail to overcome inflation the rate of unemployment will be very much greater in Canada. As for those people who state they would not enter into investments for plant and equipment which would have a useful life of between 20 and 25 years because of the interim nature of the anti-inflation program, I suggest to them that they should do their thinking again. We believe that Canada is and will be a good investment area for Canadian and foreign business, and that they have as much to gain as any of us by supporting the anti-inflation program; and the attitudes of some members of the business community which negate the anti-inflation program really are negating their own interests as well.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It has been reported that Lockheed has reduced the cost of its new proposal for the LTPA by dropping some of the more sophisticated electronic gear. Since we have been told many times that this sophisticated equipment is necessary if we are to do the job adequately with 18 aircraft, are we now to assume that less sophisticated equipment means that we shall do the job less than adequately, or will we need to acquire more aircraft?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: Look who is beside you.

July 7, 1976
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the co-operation between the Minister of Supply and Services and myself has always been very close; now, we are even closer.


George Harris Hees: You are a great stand-up comedian.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Now, we know who is writing your French lines.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Armstrong Richardson: I know the Minister of Supply and Services would join me in telling our hon. friend that the subject he has raised is before cabinet and, when the decision has been reached, I am certain that question and all others will be satisfactorily answered.


George Harris Hees: That was a fine, stock answer.


REASON FOR PLACING LOCKHEED PROPOSAL BEFORE CABINET RATHER THAN BOEING
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, that answer is similar to the one we heard before the last fiasco, before that "Odd Couple" were put down at the end of the treasury bench. Bearing in mind the minister said that if anyone misled anyone, it was Lockheed, can the Minister of National Defence tell us what it was about Lockheed's performance over the past year that led him to place that company's new proposal before cabinet in a position preferential to that of Boeing?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there was a contract definition phase in which the Government of Canada funded not only Lockheed but Boeing as well for several months. As a result of that long study the Lockheed company, as I am certain the hon. member will remember, was selected for a variety of reasons which were all explained at that time.


HARBOURS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I ask whether he has had representations made by the Hudson Bay Route Association concerning the situation created at Port Churchill through the removal of the manager and the reduction of that port from a national port to just one of the other ordinary ports. What has been his reaction thereto?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, of course there was reaction at the time of the change of the port management. I am satisfied that the new port manager will settle all concerns in that regard. The right hon. gentleman is wrong, of course, in suggesting any diminution of the voice of the port of Churchill. Indeed, I have made clear that my strong, personal feeling is that Churchill was and would continue to be recognized as a national port.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was reading from the representation made in connection with the reduction in the status of that port. There is a great deal of uncertainty and feeling in western Canada that western Canadian farmers and the people in general are being sold out again in this connection.


An hon. Member:: They are being sold a port.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister whether he will stand up for the western provinces in this regard and see to it that Churchill port is used to a greater extent than ever before, instead of reducing its potentiality?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I have arranged a meeting with the Hudson Bay Route Association, to keep myself fully in touch with the situation. The right hon. gentleman seems to have missed the fact that we expect a record shipment of grain through the port of Churchill this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I wish he would avoid his usual habit of trying to spread uncertainty by repeating a false statement and suggesting that there is any diminution of the role of the port.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister always resorts to cheap condemnation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him, what is the purpose for the meeting with the Hudson Bay Route Association if it is not a fact that they know he is joining in selling out the west?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I constantly have meetings with people such as the Hudson Bay Route Association. I do not ask the right hon. gentlemans permission to meet with people of all types all across this country. I simply ask him to respect some longstanding traditions of this place, if of nowhere else, and to accept what I said to him in terms of there being no diminution. That is the fact.


CHURCHILL-REPLACEMENT OF INTERIM PORT MANAGER-ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL PORT AUTHORITY
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Although this year, hopefully, is to be a record year for the port, I think the minister has done everything in his power to scuttle that record year. I ask the minister what arrangements are being made to replace the present port manager who is serving on an interim basis and who will leave on November 1? What is being done to promote a local port authority, and who will be selecting the port manager who is to serve full time from November 1?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say to the hon. member that the appointment of Mr. Lauzon to the port has been very well
July 7, 1976

Oral Questions
received, I believe. He is a competent person. I am happy to hear no question of that. I barely detected any note of appreciation for the record year we are enjoying in Churchill. Mr. Speaker, I barely detected any appreciation of that. The management will, of course, be in permanent place in due course. The question of the port authority awaits legislation in this place, and I do not suggest that it will be in this session.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, the minister and also the chairman of the National Harbours Board made a statement to the effect that a local port authority would be in place by April, 1977. I understood it did not have to await legislation. Will the minister now guarantee that there will be a local port commission in Churchill and that they will be involved, along with members of the local port commission from the prairies, in the selection of a permanent port manager?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is somewhat confused.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: There is a new chairman to be appointed to the current authority. The references to April were references by the chairman of the National Harbours Board to his optimism that the new legislation creating the new port authority would be available by that time and that we would have the new port authority in place under that legislation. At present we are looking for a replacement in the case of a vacancy.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's previous statements in this House in answer to some of my questions regarding the construction of an airport facility in northwest New Brunswick, at St. Leonard, I wonder if the minister is now in a position to say if the ministry will go ahead with the project; if so, when; if not, why not; and if it is delayed, how long will we have to wait?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a decision has not yet been taken but discussions are going on; they include discussions with the provincial government. We are seeking the support of the province in the development of the kind of airport that would, in the opinion of the area, be the ideal and which may be beyond that which would ordinarily be there as a result of Ministry of Transport policies. We have not yet had full concurrence from the province and their willingness to share.


AMOUNT OF LOSS ON SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-SAFEGUARDS AGAINST MANUFACTURING PLUTONIUM
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of the renegotiated agreement with Argentina regarding the sale of a CANDU reactor. In view of the fact the chairman of the AECL stated before the standing committee on national resources that on this deal Canada stood to lose at least $96 million and since press reports indicated that the price has been raised by $70.5 million, leaving a loss of at least $25.5 million, can the minister tell the House the estimated total loss on this contract, including not only the reactor but also the sales of uranium supplies, electro-magnetic parts and heavy water? Will he also tell the House why the people of Canada should not only sell the reactor to Argentina but pay over $25 million for the privilege?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I answered a question from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on precisely the same point. I told her at that time that the renegotiation had been virtually completed. It remains to come forward to ministers in both countries for their final approval. I have not yet submitted this renegotiated commercial contract and terms to my colleagues for their approval. Therefore, I am not in a position at the present time to discuss the precise numbers with the hon. member. I can tell him that as a result of the renegotiation there has been a very substantial saving in the cost-


An hon. Member:: The loss.


Alastair William Gillespie: -in the loss.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not make any secret of the fact that we entered into this renegotiation because we were faced with a loss. The reason we were faced with a loss was that the contract was negotiated at a time when inflation rates in Canada and the Argentine were very much lower than they are now. If we had the benefit of the hindsight, of course we would never have entered into that agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: I can say that we have been able to work out very much better terms, which should be a substantial gain for Canada.


Mr, Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Despite the fact the matter has not been to cabinet, surely the House has a right to know what is the estimated loss under this new renegotiated agreement. The chairman of AECL admitted at least $96 million. Some of us worked out figures closer to $160 million. The figures printed in the press upgrade the original price by $70.5 million. That still leaves a $90 million loss, not $25 million. Surely the people of Canada have a right to know. If the minister is not prepared to tell us now, is he prepared to table in the

July 7, 1976
Oral Questions
House all the figures as to the original agreement covering not only the reactor, but the uranium, the parts and the heavy water so that this House will know what is being done with the taxpayers' money with respect to a poorly formulated deal which the government not only goofed in the beginning, but has bungled in the renegotiating?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that when I am in a position to provide the facts to the House, I will do so. I will do that as promptly as I can. However, the hon. member and the House must recognize that until we have an agreement that meets the approval of cabinet, I am not in a position to give any figures.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, can the minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs give any information in view of the fact that Argentina has not signed the non-proliferation treaty and has been building an experimental separation plant for the separation of plutonium? With regard to this renegotiated agreement, has Canada asked Argentina to sign and ratify the non-proliferation treaty, and undertaken to dismantle any separation plant it has and guaranteed that it will not purchase a separation plant?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs answered a question like that earlier this week or last week when he indicated that the bilater-nal arrangements which Canada had negotiated with the Argentine were the strictest safeguards in the world and would fully comprehend the kind of point made by the hon. member.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Regardless of whether the minister and the cabinet as a whole have considered the options for alternatives available in respect of the agreement, which I understand has already been initialed by the head of AECL, the head of AECL has supplied the minister with the estimated figures. They are on the minister's desk now. Regardless of whether cabinet has approved of them or not, will the minister kindly give the House now the estimated figures from the head of AECL?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have already given, I am not in a position to do so at this time.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. What action, if any, does the government propose to take in response to the judicial opinion issued late last week in the British Columbia Supreme Court assigning to the province jurisdiction over the resources of the seabed and the subsoil under the waters separating the mainland from Vancouver Island and also the Queen Charlottes?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we are considering the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia on that reference. No decision as to whether to appeal will be taken until that has been completed.


OIL AND GAS-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT DISCOVERED AT SABLE ISLAND-REASON FOR DELAY IN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the controversy surrounding the ownership of offshore mineral rights, especially in the 200 mile jurisdictional zone, and the statement recently by the government leader in the Senate that three discovery wells off Nova Scotia are sufficiently promising to warrant step-out drilling, can the minister inform the House whether he has any knowledge of the quantity of oil and gas discovered in the Sable Island area? If so, in view of the announced energy shortage, just when can we expect further development of these resources?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to provide any finite figures. I have received information which indicates that the prospects are promising. Indeed, I hope to go to the Nova Scotia shelf myself this weekend and talk with some of the operators in the area, discuss the conduct of the particular drilling operations undertaken by Shell Canada with the assistance of PetroCanada and to discuss with the premier of Nova Scotia some of the reserves and resources which may be off Sable Island, as well as the whole process of trying to come together quickly with an agreement between the maritime provinces and the federal government governing the administration and the sharing of the potential resources on the Scotian shelf and eastern offshore.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Since the technique of drilling for oil and gas in offshore areas is well established in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arabian Gulf and other areas, will the minister inform the House the reasons for the delay in developing the Sable Island wells, one of which is estimated could produce something like 15,000 barrels of condensate daily, including 2,000 barrels of high quality oil?


Alastair William Gillespie: These decisions, of course, have been made in the past by private sector companies for their own reasons. Undoubtedly some of them have been inhibited by the fact that agreement has not been reached between the maritime provinces and the federal government. It has been one of my priorities to urge a settlement and I hope we will be able to proceed very quickly to reach a settlement respecting the administration and sharing of resources on the east coast. That is my priority.
July 7, 1976


PROPOSAL BY NOVA SCOTIA CONCERNING AID IN REDUCING COST OF ELECTRICITY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who some months ago, I think, received a secret and confidential proposal from the government of the province of Nova Scotia regarding assistance for power rates. Has the government of Canada reached a decision with respect to that proposal, is the decision favourable or unfavourable, and if a decision has not been made, when will one be made?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made at the present time, but I can tell the hon. member that the matter is under consideration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate to the House whether there are any discussions planned between the government of Nova Scotia or the governments of the maritime provinces and the minister's department on the minister's proposal regarding possible ways of reducing the cost of electric power in the maritime provinces? If so, when will the discussions be held?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be familiar with the prososal I made to the maritime premiers orally. I have followed that up with a letter inviting the participation of the maritime premiers with the federal government in a study, financed if necessary 100 per cent by the federal government. I will be meeting this weekend, I expect, with at least two of the premiers of maritime Canada and I hope we will be able to advance significantly the terms of such a study.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROVINCIAL PROPOSAL RELATING PAYMENTS FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION TO GROWTH OF FEDERAL REVENUES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and it is a follow-up of questions asked earlier this afternoon with respect to the meeting yesterday of the provincial finance ministers and the Minister of Finance. My question relates to the federal government's proposal to tie its cash payments to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education to increases in the gross national product. In view of the criticism of this proposal on the ground that it poses a threat to the maintenance of existing national standards, something that was of great importance originally to the federal government, is the federal government giving consideration to the suggestion by Ontario and other provinces that such payments relate instead to the growth rate of federal government revenues?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should say that the hon. gentleman inadvertently stated the position of a number of other governments,
Oral Questions
including Saskatchewan, which is related to the expenditure level. The basic principles that we would apply in this regard are that these are established programs, that the cost elements are now well known, and experience over the last several years has shown that on average they have stayed within the rate of growth of the gross national product.
There is this more fundamental question, that is to say whether, if federal expenditures are to be limited, as the government has stated is its intention, there should be a reduction in other expenditures so that expenditures on these particular programs should go up really irrespective of the actual cost experience. We think it is reasonable to expect that costs in this regard will be related to the gross national product, as they will be in other areas, and in that sense that is the basis of the total proposal that we have put forward.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Could he tell the House why his department recently issued new administrative guidelines under which for all practical purposes it will henceforth be impossible to ensure the customs clearance for flights with over 100 passengers at the Sainte-Foy airport in Quebec City, and could he tell whether anyone has looked into the impact of these guidelines on the economy of the Quebec City region whose most important industry is tourism, and whether his department plans to reexamine that matter?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, because of the representations of the hon. member for Montmorency, there is now a study under way on the facilities at the Quebec City airport. Unfortunately, the dimension of the current facilities limits us to a maximum capacity of 100 persons. You will understand that it is difficult to use the airport when we have 350 passengers.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as Minister of State for Science and Technology. The public is really aware of the radical surgery that has been performed on research grants in this country. The National Research Council is now sending out technical bulletins in only one of the official languages. Is this the result of the cutbacks in research? Is this the way they are affecting the National Research Council?

July 7, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this and I will be glad to make inquiries.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It relates to a statement he made with reference to the ban on publication of evidence given at preliminary hearings, with which I agree. If I may just refer to a comment of the minister, he said he was concerned about the way the publication ban at preliminary hearings can backfire, wounding innocent third parties. Does the minister intend to change the law in this regard, since the publication of evidence given at preliminary hearings does directly affect third parties. As one distinguished parliamentarian said, people in public life swim in the nude.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to determine what change in the law should be made in that the law is quite explicit that there should be no publication. We are examining proposals resulting from my work with the Law Reform Commission and the provincial attorneys general for some amendments regarding pretrial procedures. The rule against publication and how it should be enforced could be re-examined along with them, but as I have already said the law is quite explicit. There should be no publication and it is rather difficult to know how to express it more forcefully than it is already expressed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice says that the law is quite clear. Will he make it quite clear whether it is his intention to tighten the law in this regard or to bring in certain penalties in cases where there is disclosure which should not be made, or is the minister going to do away with the ban altogether.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Penalties are already provided, Mr. Speaker, and there is also a prohibition against publication when so ordered by a judge. Therefore, as I say, it is rather difficult to know what further steps to take. I will be happy to review the matter in terms of clarifying either the law's intent and purpose or the penalties associated with a breach of the law. If the hon. member has any suggestions to make in this regard I would welcome them.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State; I gave his office notice last evening of the nature of the question. It arises out of a
[Mr. Friesen.J
great deal of unfavourable publicity given to the administration of multicultural grants in London which for some reason the Secretary of State administers rather than the Department of Labour. An employee in the minister's department, one Carol Aziz, in referring to grant recipients who had not completed the program for which funding had been received, is quoted as saying that "people have a tendency to bite off more than they can chew" and that "their expectations are often too high". She is then reported to have said that it is not important whether taxpayers have gotten their money's worth. My question to the minister is whether it is his department's value to the taxpayer is the paramount consideration in the administration of this program and, if so, has this policy been communicated clearly to those in his department who administer the program?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a grant under the multicultural program which was assessed by officers of the department, who recommended its approval. I think the information in the article-I believe we are referring to the same one-is erroneous. There was no time frame involved. It was an assessment in the crafts area in multicultural communities for internal purposes, in terms of the future allocations of grants in this area. It has been helpful and we have utilized the findings of the people who worked on the survey in London.


William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Aziz is also reported to have said that although she hands out public moneys, her first responsibility is not to the public but to the organizations which receive grants. I would ask the minister whether Mrs. Aziz was stating departmental policy accurately and, if not, would the minister like to take this opportunity to correct that statement if in fact it was correctly reported in the press?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member may be overly critical of this particular civil servant. Of course, it is the policy that our officers and civil servants generally are responsible to the government which they serve and which, in turn, is responsible to the people. In addition to which, she is obviously supposed to respond to and monitor the dealings of the groups for which she is responsible. I do not believe it is entirely necessary to put it on the basis of first and second priorities. She can serve both purposes without contradicting one by the other.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Would the minister be prepared to tell the House whether he himself or one of his departmental staff has ordered a quick study on technical means to make Toronto or Monc-
July 7, 1976

ton responsible for the air communications for instrument flights now landing at Dorval?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there were some standby steps taken to consider what would happen if for a variety of reasons there was a strong feeling within Dorval that there was a need to control traffic from other points. I should like to stress that any reference to that was totally in respect of dealing with an emergency situation. There is no intention of removing the basic control position from the Montreal towers.


SUGGESTION SALE OF GLUE BE CONTROLLED AND ADOPTION OF INFORMATION PROGRAM OF EFFECTS OF INHALING GLUE VAPOUR
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to whom I gave advance notice.
In view of the increasingly generalized habit among young people to inhale glue vapours as a substitute for stronger drugs, does the minister intend to launch an education campaign directed at the young to protect them against this habit which is extremely dangerous for their health, or does he intend to amend the Food and Drugs Act to ensure stricter control on the sale of glue and similar substances, particularly to teenagers?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there already exists a substantial public education campaign concerning drugs as a whole, be it alcohol, tobacco and other substances recognized as specific drugs, or even drug substitutes, such as glue vapours, gasoline fumes and the like.
Our studies seem to indicate that it would not be wise to concentrate a very substantial program on a specific substance, particularly substitutes in this case, because this problem seems to surface only occasionally in limited areas, and further there is a risk of creating an even greater interest in the substance concerned.
Finally, with regard to controls, all aspects have been studied in considerable depth, and because of the very large number of substitutes, whether it is glue, gasoline, paint or other substances, it appears to be practically impossible to impose restrictive controls on all those substances.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had hoped to be recognized during the question period, but I understand the difficulty and I do not say that in any way except to indicate why I am rising now. This involves a question that has arisen before involving parliamentary secretaries to ministers.
Your Honour will recall that I raised a question about the propriety of the number of parliamentary secretaries being paid out of the public purse at the time of the resignation of the hon. member for Papineau as the minis-
Oral Questions
ter of consumer and corporate affairs and his portfolio responsibilities being transferred to the Postmaster General. If the Minister of Justice will check back on the record, he will see that I dealt with the statutory provisions specifically at that time. At that time there was one parliamentary secretary too many for the ministry. Now, the hon. member for Langelier, the former minister of the environment, has resigned that portfolio and is a private member of this House. His portfolio responsibilities, in an acting way, have gone to the Minister of State (Fisheries).
Under the statute as it stands in relation to the number of parliamentary secretaries, which relates to the number of ministers and not ministries, there are now two too many parliamentary secretaries drawing upon the public purse.


An hon. Member:: Twenty-six too many.


Walter David Baker: In response to the comment from beside me-someone says there are perhaps many more too many-perhaps legally speaking there are two too many. I raised the matter seriously before. At that time I was thanked by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council for bringing the matter to the attention of the ministry. It was compounded in the first case by the delay in relation to the parliamentary secretary to the now hon. member for Papineau. It has now been compounded because of the situation arising twice. Quite frankly, I do not know how these gentlemen are being paid or how they are being paid properly.
Quite frankly, I have refrained from bringing the matter to the attention of the Auditor General of Canada, but I intend to do so if there is not some undertaking from the ministry that an investigation will be made shortly, with a report to the House in respect of this matter.
I am glad the Minister of Justice is in his place, as this matter involves the interpretation of a statute. There is a difficulty here in that somehow moneys are being paid improperly, if I am right. I do not know whether there has been an investigation, but moneys will have to be paid back.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Walter David Baker: I should think the parliamentary secretaries themselves ought to be pressing the government for some answer to this conundrum in which they have been placed by the neglect of the government, in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On the previous occasion when this subject matter was raised I gave a preliminary indication that it was my opinion this was a legal matter as opposed to a procedural one. My opinion has not changed and, quite frankly, I do not think the opinion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has changed, either. I think he is making allusions to what we clearly understand embraces a legal problem, nonetheless an important one. I will hear briefly from the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I recall very well having dealt with this matter at the time, but in dealing with it there

July 7, 1976
Report of Committee
was one point I forgot to mention which I think I should bring to the attention of hon. members at this time. It is at the time when there is no minister and no acting minister that the necessity for a parliamentary secretary is felt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Hon. members in all parties are, I am sure, ready to agree that in fact the behaviour of parliamentary secretaries since the beginning of this particular session has been exemplary in the way they have handled questions on behalf of their ministers, which, indeed, justifies twice the salary they are presently drawing.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the response by the Minister of Finance when I asked if he was prepared to table the documents that were made available at the meeting yesterday of federal-provincial ministers of finance. He did, indeed, reply that this sizeable document would in fact be tabled when it had been translated. I must express my concern-indeed, my amazement, sir-that documents as important as this in respect of a federal-provincial conference of finance ministers should have been available in only one of our two official language. I think the minister should be given a chance to explain.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifteenth Report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Robinson.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked for the floor on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). To a question that I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on July 5 regarding his intention to appoint a member from eastern Quebec to replace the Minister of Environment, he replied the following which is reported on page 15010 of Hansard and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that under an order in council there is an acting deputy minister and an acting deputy minister to the acting deputy minister. Thus, the position is not vacant now.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), concerning parliamentary secretaries and their usefulness. If the Prime Minister had deemed the parliamentary secretary was necessary or useful, he would have answered me differently. I think that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is valid since the Prime Minister has himself recently given more power to civil servants than to the people's elected representatives to the House, namely parliamentary secretaries. Consequently I am led to believe, like the member for Grenville-

Carleton, that taxpayers' money is being squandered in view of the fact that when it comes to administering their departments deputy ministers and acting deputy ministers wield more power than the ministers themselves. This is why the Prime Minister is not replacing the former Minister of Environment.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD TABLING OF ORDERS OF REFERENCE RESPECTING CERTAIN COMPANIES
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table our orders of reference to the administrator, under the Anti-Inflation Act, with regard to the firms City Motors Limited and Hickman Motors Limited of Newfoundland, Atlantic Consolidated Foods Limited, and Western Grocers Limited.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,424, 4,425, 4,434, 4,437, 5,329 and 5,710.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Ste. Anne des Plaines?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Archambault?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.
July 7, 1976


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Collins Bay Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Saskatchewan Farm Annex?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	For each year 1970 to date, what departments or agencies have made grants to industries or laboratories whose main operation is the processing of blood to obtain derived products?
2.	For each year and in each case (a) what was the amount granted (b) the name of the industry or laboratory (c) the location of the establishment?
3.	What is the ultimate use of the derived products?
4.	Is the basic product gathered only in Canada and, if not, from where does it come?
5.	(a) Are such products sold (b) what is the relative importance of the trade in terms of nationwide numbers?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: 1. One grant.
2.	(a) The amount offered was $45,546. (b) Dominion Biologicals Ltd. (c) Debert, Nova Scotia.
3.	Products are used in the diagnosis and treatment of hematological diseases and in transfusion-transplantation therapy.
4.	Human and animal blood is purchased through a worldwide network of raw material suppliers. Additional blood is obtained from local blood donors and rabbits.
5.	(a) Yes. (b) The total market potential for diagnostic biological reagents in 1975 was estimated at $4 million. The market is expected to grow at 8V2 per cent a year.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce accorded a grant in 1973 under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act (IRDIA) to a company whose main operation can be described as the processing of blood to obtain derived products. There were no grants in other years of the period 1970 to date.
2. (a) The amount granted in 1973 was approximately $7,900; (b) and (c) under the IRDIA the name and location of the company cannot be divulged in the interest of
Motion for Papers
maintaining confidentiality in respect of the firm's innovation activities.
3.	The use of the derived products in question cannot be revealed but, in general, derived products produced from blood and blood fractions are used in the classification of potential blood recipients, the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of hemolytic diseases and in tissue typing in organ transplantation.
4.	Blood plasma, biological dried blood and gamma globulin are imported from the United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium-Luxembourg, France, West Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Columbia and the United States of America.
5.	(a) Yes, the derived products are sold, (b) There is no data available publicly on export trade of these products but consumption in Canada of derived products is estimated at approximately $5 million in 1975.


Mr. Nielsen: What are the total expenditures to date, whether by loan, grant or the supply of materials or services, that have been made by all departments, branches or agencies of the government and of the Government of the Yukon Territory on the Burwash Museum, Burwash, Yukon Territory?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs as follows: Total expenditures to date for the Burwash Museum Project are as follows: Government of the Yukon Territory, $52,191; Federal Government (Manpower and Immigration-Local Initiatives Program), $121,290; Total Expenditures, $173,481.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the parliamentary secretary to a question which appears on the order paper as starred question 5386 of April 29. I would appreciate it if we could have an early reply to that question.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 102.

July 7, 1976
Capital Punishment


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 102-Mr. Towers:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, travelling expense accounts, wage claim reports, fieldmen's work reports and mileage diaries for personally-owned vehicles between Prairies Farm Administration employees in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the Prairie Farm Administration offices in the Financial Building at 13th and Scarth Streets, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the period May 8 to July 8, 1974.
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable, with reservations, being that documents pertaining to charges laid against an employee will not be produced as the charges have resulted in a stay of proceedings entered by the Crown on December 2, 1975.
The activities of the Prairie Farm Administration have been phased out and all essential records were transferred to the Public Archives. Material such as expense accounts, wage claims, work reports and mileage diaries are available, but internal correspondence was destroyed in the process of closing out the office.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the bill relating to the repeal of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is before the House, I would ask to have this transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, July 6, 1976, consideration of Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motion No. 13 (Mr. Reynolds).
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, at the close of our sitting last evening I was speaking on this amendment which calls for the deletion of section 214 of the Criminal Code dealing particularly with the substitution of life imprisonment for first-degree murder, which would mean a period of 25 years in the case of a person convicted of the murder of a police officer, a prison guard

or a correctional officer. As I said, I support the amendment because if this clause were deleted we would go back to the law as it was.
I pointed out last evening that an undertaking was given by the government 2Vi years ago. It was a promise, a commitment to the House, to parliament and to the country that if parliament would buy the government's part retention and part abolition bill, that would be the policy. Notwithstanding the commitment that was made, that commitment and promise has not been kept and here we are, 2Vi years later, again arguing the same question.
Because I support this amendment I have a few statistics I should like to place on the record. The number of prison guards killed since 1961 totals six. The number of persons who were convicted and sentenced for a first murder, subsequently jailed and who committed a second murder in Canada in the last 10 or 15 years, is five. The number of policemen killed on duty since 1961 is 57. The number of custodial officers murdered since 1961 is six. Yet we have heard the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) at the committee level and in this House on occasion deny that there are any records of second murders.
What protection do the guards and the correctional officers have when, as I pointed out last night and the Solicitor General admitted at the committee level, these people, given a sentence of 25 years, may, with an escort, be released from prison at any time? What is to stop the guard and the escort being knocked off? We had a case of a person being escorted from one jail to another who asked to go to the bathroom, where he obtained a gun and then killed the police officer when he was being escorted from one institution to another. I support this amendment because I think it is very important.
The last thought I would leave is that I am shocked to think of the situation in which we are placing police officers, guards and correctional officers. I pointed out the number who have lost their lives, without adequate compensation for their families who suffer because of either the first or second murder these people commit. I ask the Solicitor General, if this bill should pass on third reading, to conduct an honest and responsible review in an effort to see that the families of the police officers, guards and correctional officers, who are victims, are compensated for the death of the provider.
Surely it is not too much to ask that greater attention be paid to victims rather than to the accused, contrary to what those liberals, with a small "1", wish, which is to change the law and always favour the accused rather than the victim. I have only spoken once in this debate and once on the amendments, and I leave that thought, through you, Mr. Speaker, with the Solicitor General. I am not talking about compensation amounting only to peanuts. I am talking about compensation which would really compensate the family of the victim whose life was lost violently at the hands of people released from prison who commit murder for the second time under the law as it exists now and as it may exist if this bill is given third reading and passed.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief interjection on amendment
July 7, 1976

No. 13 moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), and I might say it is a privilege to follow my illustrious colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who is a very learned lawyer and certainly knows what he is talking about when he speaks on behalf of the great majority of English Canada.
Certainly, a great many of us are well aware of the serious position in which law officers, policemen and prison guards will find themselves if Bill C-84 becomes law, because they know that their lives will be in greater danger than at present even though there is now a form of abolition until, I believe, December, 1977.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North stated most forcefully, policemen and prison guards are wondering what the Parliament of Canada will do to protect them. We have all received a great many letters, and if most of them are similar to those I have been receiving from my riding, the overwhelming majority is in favour of capital punishment, or retention of it in some form. This morning, on the "Canada A M." television program, I saw the hangman's rope depicted and I wondered why we were not shown something to portray the other side of the coin, the victim's point of view. Let me say, forcefully, that this hanging bill, as it has been called, should be called the capital punishment bill.


An hon. Member:: That would be inaccurate.


Stan Darling: Does the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) wish to ask a question?


Mr. Caccia:: Not yet.


Stan Darling: All right. I had the privilege of speaking on an amendment last Monday regarding high treason, and I was subjected to heckling by the hon. member. If he wishes to speak, let him come forward and I will do my best to answer his questions. What I was trying to state is that instead of concentrating on the idea of hanging, the bill should concentrate on the death penalty, because a great many of us who are retentionists are violently opposed to the archaic and gruesome form of capital punishment adopted in this country, namely, hanging. We believe that a criminal who has been found guilty of first-degree murder, without any extenuating circumstances which would lead the judge or jury to advocate mercy, should be removed from society as painlessly and as quickly as possible. I have stated categorically that a drug could be administered, a needle could be given, and that would be the end of it. But no, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) down we keep hearing about hanging, hanging and hanging. I received a copy of a sermon-


Mr. Blaker:: What about your own party leader?


Stan Darling: I have answered that question before.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has the floor and I suggest he should not be interrupted.


Stan Darling: Our own party leader, you ask? This happens to be a free vote on this side of the House at least, and
Capital Punishment
you cannot say the same of your side. Are you going to tell me that 29 cabinet ministers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address the chair?


Stan Darling: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. They certainly cannot sell me that bill of goods, that the entire cabinet, deep down in their conscience, every damn one of them, is an abolitionist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: Nor can they sell me the idea that all the parliamentary assistants are also abolitionists. So far as our leader is concerned, let me say, in answer to my illustrious colleague's interjection, that certainly our leader is not voting the way the great majority of us are, and I am well aware of that; but at least he is doing it on his own and with a low profile. He has made his position known, but he has not been using the big stick, as the Prime Minister has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Because he hasn't got one.


Roderick Blaker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. member who is speaking would permit me to ask him a question on a point of order?


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


Stan Darling: It is a point of order, not a question, he says.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is a point of order first, then a question. Would the hon. member permit it?


Roderick Blaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member permit a question?


An hon. Member:: He already has.


Roderick Blaker: Apparently there is some misunderstanding as to whether we are under any constraint to vote one way or another. I should like to point this out to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling)-and I will pose a question to him so that he can answer it in due course-with regard to whether or not some force is applied on this side of the House to vote one way or another. Because his leader has chosen to have the guts and the courage to go against the wish of the population as demonstrated in the polls on the subject of the death penalty, I would like to know whether the hon. member is prepared to indicate if there is some kind of force on individual hon. members in the House to vote one way or another, because I do not believe there is.


An hon. Member:: Sure there are.


Mr. Epp:: Ask your whip.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure you would state categorically that that is a point of debate, not a point of order.

July 7, 1976
Capital Punishment


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: No, it is a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: As I pointed out, the hon. member was asking a question, not making a point of order.


Stan Darling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my colleague's question I should like to state that he could not possibly state that in their case there is no constraint. After all, there are a good many members on the government side-I believe 37, if my memory serves me right- who voted against the government's bill.


Roderick Blaker: There is no constraint on this side.


Stan Darling: Just a minute. There are different types of constraint. You can beat someone up and have him covered with marks, and all the rest of it; or you can do it in a gentle way with a rubber hose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest we are getting into debate.


Stan Darling: That is what I am trying to do. What I am suggesting, of course, is that certainly it is a free vote in parliament; there is no question about it. We saw a so-called free vote here the other day. When the Prime Minister stood up, he stood up alone, and all at once he raised his hands-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: Yes. He just raised his hands, and they rose as one. So that was the free vote!


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I understand that the rules of this House do not permit hon. members anywhere in this assembly to seek out the motives of hon. members for the way they vote. If I am correct in that understanding, and if the rules of the House do not permit any hon. member on any side or of any rank to attack the motives of hon. members who vote, then I suggest that the hon. member for "something" Davenport is completely out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles L. Caccia: No, it is Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Roderick Blaker: I suggest that when I vote, I do so with the freedom of my own conscience, and I do not want any hon. member of this House, on the hon. member's side or on my side, telling me that I have been forced to vote a certain way. I have not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would like to quote Standing Order 35 which reads as follows:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Now, if I could get back to my brief remarks-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest that the hon. member should withdraw those last remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, on that basis I will certainly withdraw my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What a "darling."


Stan Darling: However, let me qualify that. Some hon. members opposite, who are looking with a very hungry eye at the front benches, might have second thoughts, if you know what I mean. If the hon. member for Lachine-Lake-shore (Mr. Blaker) will keep quiet for a few moments and let me finish my remarks, I want to go, along with 17 of my hon. colleagues on this side, to view the Olympic site and see where much of our money is going. We will be leaving at four o'clock. Is that all right?
If I could go back to what I was going to say, Reverend C. W. Sorley of Stouffville, Ontario, pointed out in a sermon:
The Prime Minister says, "if we retain hanging somebody will get hung." Why is he so concerned about murderers and seemingly little concerned about decent citizens?
The Reverend Sorley is certainly a man of compassion, but he has more compassion for victims than for criminals. To point out how concerned our policemen are, I have here a brief from the National Police Committee for the Protection of the Citizens which says:
If the Solicitor General truly believes that neither the state nor any agency nor anyone has the right to take a life, then we must assume that he will shortly propose that all law enforcement officers in Canada be disarmed for fear that they may take a life while in the lawful execution of their sworn duties.
Hon. members are shaking their heads, but who knows what the next directive from the Solicitor General's office will be? This brief continues:
What preparations have been made by the minister to house the increased numbers of murderers who will be sentenced to long prison terms if Bill C-84 is passed in its present form? We are told that our present prisons are overcrowded, archaic and nothing more than institutions of enforced idleness. How will these institutions and prison authorities possibly cope with the influx of more prisoners serving longer terms?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a very important one because, if I understood the hon. gentleman properly a moment ago, in answer to the hon. member on this side he said that it was very important that he finish his speech right now because he and 17 others are going to visit Montreal. There are only four or five hon. members opposite holding the House here because of a bunch of amendments upon which a vote could have already been taken. Either we are for or against capital punishment. Hon. members opposite are taking a holiday and only a few remain to keep the House going. I believe that is most unfair. The hon. member is the one
July 7, 1976

who said it, nobody else. It is costing the taxpayers a heck of a lot of money to keep this House going.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: That is a matter of debate and not a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is a point of order, because they are going on holidays.


Stan Darling: What do you mean, going on holidays?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You said yourself that you are going to visit the Olympics.


Stan Darling: As a member of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, which approved the Olympics in the first place, or at least the coins, stamps and the lottery-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is a farce that you should say that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. We are debating motion No. 13 and I suggest that the hon. member get back to the motion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That was one of your better interventions, Joe.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker-


Stan Darling: I wish the hon. member for Lachine-Lake-shore would let me finish.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, with the very kind permission of the hon. member I rise on a point of order. I referred to him as the hon. member for Davenport, and I was quite wrong. I know now that I should be referring to him as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). I would be glad if the record would reflect that, and I thank the hon. member for permitting my intervention.


Stan Darling: The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) sits immediately in front of the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore. I thought the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore would at least know that he has represented Davenport and, I must say, represented it very well for a number of years. We will be going through the riding of the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore at around six o'clock this evening.
If I may repeat what I said before with respect to this very important amendment, the policemen of this country wonder where the government will find enough jails. The Solicitor General probably has in his mind, and probably in his estimates, beautiful, palatial, long-term residences for hardened criminals so that they will have a very enjoyable incarceration-and the taxpayers will be paying for that. Deterrence is a reasonably important thing which must be emphasized, especially with regard to killers of policemen and prison guards. An executed murderer cannot murder a second time.
About six weeks ago I said that former governor Ronald Reagan was an abolitionist and during his term of office as governor he commuted the sentences of 12 murderers. They were let out into society, and those 12 murderers committed another 22 murders. If that is not proof that capital punishment would have saved a great many innocent lives,
Capital Punishment
I do not know what is. Some hon. members say that it is terrible to exact the ultimate penalty. Let me tell them that if we are to protect our policemen, prison guards and those in authority looking after prisoners, certainly this amendment should pass. I hope that when this parliament votes, whether it be on Thursday night or at a later date, it will give serious consideration to this amendment.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words to support the motion before us. Recently I had the opportunity to meet a convict who was on parole. Of course the capital punishment issue was raised and I wish to tell you the essence of what this man told me: He said: I favour the amendment to the Criminal Code. I think it amounts to abolishing capital punishment. Bill C-84 proposes to abolish capital punishment and replace it by a period of imprisonment for 25 years. If I am given the choice between capital punishment and 25 years in jail, I shall choose jail in the hope of escaping. Then he told me that his trade was theft, armed robbery and that over a few years he had committed several thefts in different areas of the country and made more than $1 million. He added: I enjoy a certain legal immunity following a court judgment exonerating me of all blame for my involvement in those crimes. You will readily understand, he said, that I am for the abolition of capital punishment and for firearms control as family men and other businessmen will no longer be allowed to have firearms. They will not be able to defend themselves against us who will continue to use firearms. Of course the legislation will not say explicitly that murderers can keep their weapons notwithstanding the regulations, but it is implied as our trade requires the uncontrolled possession of firearms.
This is why syndicates of professional killers exert pressure on hon. members for the abolition of capital punishment. You will also understand, he added, that the people in our trade must be free to operate without the threat of capital punishment.
And we must of necessity have firearms, and also some kind of protection, assurances against those who would not let us take their property or their lives. Contract killers have a right to earn a living without hindrance, don't they, Mr. Solicitor General? I see he is absent for the moment.
Killers and thieves are supported by revolutionaries and outlaws, who also require guns. Once firearms have been controlled and capital punishment abolished by Parliament, killers and thieves of all kinds finally will be able to breathe. In countries where firearms are controlled and capital punishment abolished, professional criminals are quite prosperous. They enjoy complete safety. That is why professional criminals spare neither efforts nor money to ensure speedy passing of firearms control and abolition.
Firearms control and abolition go hand in hand. Through abolition, routine perpetration of theft and murder will become easier. That is what the government can expect if this legislation goes through. Mr. Speaker, certainly it is only human that people get emotional during a murder trial. The majority of people tend to react violently when a criminal gets a sentence out of keeping with what the community expects. Recently the Solicitor General, the

July 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
Hon. Warren Allmand, went on record to state he would not want at any price to be associated in any way with a hanging. This was a debasing act, he said, which did not solve in any way the problem of crime in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, while agreeing that the reinstatement of capital punishment will not solve every crime problem in Canada, the question we must address ourselves is this: Will reinstatement in effect solve the problem for some? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, some time ago in Oshawa, a young man shot his parents and then gave himself up to the police, but he was still holding his loaded gun and was ready to fire at the slightest movement of the policeman who arrested him. During the interrogation he was asked: Why did you not shoot the policeman? He answered quite frankly that he simply did not want to be hanged.
Personally, I am satisfied that on various occasions several police officers or prison guards were saved because, in principle, the death penalty is applied for the murder of a police officer or a prison guard; I think that is the reason. If we could better plan the operations of our rehabilitation institutions and of our penitentiaries, perhaps we could improve and correct several imperfections or problems. Of course, Mr. Speaker, when the Solicitor General of Canada, the hon. Warren Allmand, presented this bill, he was not the only one to support that opinion, quite the contrary.
He feels supported by the whole cabinet and by a good majority of the Liberal caucus. He is more strongly supported by his colleagues than by the Canadian population. As a member of the Canadian Parliament, in all justice, I think that it is undeniable that the present government should take into account that 81 per cent of the Canadian population is in favour of maintaining the death penalty.
The Solicitor General of Canada says that the death penalty will not act as a deterrent for potential murderers. This may be true to a certain extent. But long prison terms will have very little deterring effect, and this logic were carried to extremes, one would have to conclude that criminals should be rewarded.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that many crimes are not premeditated and that those responsible are not hanged for such offences. We, of the Social Credit Party of Canada, want the death penalty to be applied only in cases where premeditation is clearly established. Moreover, the Solicitor General claims that the death penalty does not reduce at all the number of murders in Canada. In this regard, let me point out that since 1962, when the last hanging took place in Canada, murders have increased by 42 per cent, or 1.7 per cent per 100,000 inhabitants and 2.4 per cent for the total population.
In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, by voting for Bill C-84, the members and ministers of this illustrious assembly are giving future murderers who are condemned to life imprisonment a free hand to kill all those who stand between them and freedom. Under this bill, someone facing life imprisonment, either for armed robbery or for any other crime liable to this sentence, would actually benefit from killing the incriminating witness or witnesses or the policeman. This action would have the advantage of enabling him to escape without any risk of increasing the sentence he must serve. The myth that a murderer rarely repeats his crime may be true when the murder is commit-

ted on the spur of the moment, but it is something else when a murder is committed by a professional killer.
If the death penalty were maintained, those would be the ones to be punished and they would deserve it. Moreover, the Solicitor General claims that murderers should not suffer the death penalty. But what alternative solution does he propose? That policemen and prison guards be better trained? Is the Solicitor General of Canada suggesting that all the policemen or prison guards who died on duty were not well trained? To this, I would reply that in most large cities such as Detroit and Montreal policemen are very well trained and armed, but violence is on the increase in these cities.
Moreover an effective gun control system, such as that proposed in Bill C-83, does not give more protection. On the contrary, its sole effect is to restrict the freedom and the rights of honest people. I really believe that the present legislation should be applied more severely to criminals and outlaws. Gun control might reduce certain types of violence, but in my humble opinion, it will have no effect on cold-blooded killers. Our social and economic security programs no longer truly meet present needs. A proof of this is that in the last few years, crime has been increasing. I believe we should review our way of life and take action to ensure that authority at all levels is respected, and to that end, we should start by applying the death penalty in Canada to people convicted of premeditated murder.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, this issue demands our calm reflection. First, let it be said that when the people of a nation make their position on any issue known, there is some kind of emotional underpinning to their position. When it is said that 80 per cent of Canadians favour capital punishment, I think it can be said, equally validly, that most people are not asking for the imposition of capital punishment per se but are saying that they have lost faith in the law and order system of this country.
Consequently, since Canadians across this country have lost faith in our ability to maintain law and order and ask for capital punishment, we are brought face to face with the fact that the government has done nothing to make people feel that if capital punishment is removed from the statute books, they will be secure.
What do the people of this country face? On the one hand they face the prospect of the abolition of the death penalty; on the other hand there is no indication of any identifiable concern with regard to the increasing incidence of violent crime in this country.
The government introduced Bill C-84 as a companion bill to Bill C-83 which was to extend protection to Canadians. It is well known that Canadians do not think Bill C-83 will ensure a greater measure of public security and safety. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) would reinstitute that which the government reneged on during two five-year experimental periods, namely, capital punishment for the murderers of police officers and those engaged in security and guarding roles.
July 7, 1976

If we consider the situation which faces the people of this country, we must recognize that even if this bill passes there will still be a continuance in this country of a form of capital punishment. Therefore, the fundamental question we face is whether there is to be a trial before the imposition of capital punishment. This question becomes obvious when one considers the unfortunate position in which we may place our police officers. As it is, the government has done little to improve our security and decrease violent crime in this country. It has done nothing to lessen the psychology of crime heightened by television and the movies. It has done nothing with regard to child-abuse laws, and has done little to negate impressions created by the press in sensationalizing crime. Because of lack of government action, if the capital punishment sanction is removed from the statute books we shall live in a law and order vacuum, as I shall soon demonstrate.
Consider how police officers will act. Because they will not be protected, we can expect that policemen, faced with people of intemperate or violent temper, will shoot first and ask questions afterwards. Therefore, even under the new regime of Bill C-84 we shall have a continuation of capital punishment but it will be capital punishment without trial. If we look at the question calmly, we will realize that we are not debating whether or not there is to be capital punishment in this country: we are debating whether or not there is to be a trial, whether we are to continue to extend to people the right to a fair hearing before sentence is imposed. If you weaken the protection afforded to the police forces of this country, it goes without saying that when policemen act under duress, people will be killed. Policemen will obviously want to feel secure and, not having the protection of the law, will shoot first and ask questions afterwards.
The real question at issue is not whether we are to be an abolitionist or retentionist state. The real issue is whether the government has taken the necessary measures to protect us all by way of law and order, has taken those measures which are the prerequisite of abolition of capital punishment. How can you remove the sanction of capital punishment unless you have first removed the threat of violent crime in this country? But the fact is that violent crime in the last ten years has increased over 300 per cent-and violent crimes are reported daily in the press and on radio and television.
I do not argue that Canada should never be an abolitionist state, but I do say that the government could explore at least 50 different avenues for making the social environment of the citizens of this country safer and reducing the incidence of violent crime. Only after crime has been reduced can we become an abolitionist state. If we now remove the death penalty we shall threaten the safety of policemen and cause them to use their weapons more readily in order to protect their own lives. That brings us back to the fundamental question I first raised: Even if this bill passes, we shall continue to have capital punishment, but this time without trial.
The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta does not ask whether we have capital punishment; it asks whether we have due process of law. That is something very fundamental that we should
Capital Punishment
be exercising and talking about at this time. If the government wants to take the position of being an abolitionist state, it must first demonstrate clearly to Canadians that they come first and that law and order against violent crime is intact. What is important is not the question of whether we are abolitionist or retentionist, but whether the people of Canada are being protected. According to statistics, about 80 per cent of Canadians are in favour of retention. That is a reflection of the mood of Canadians about law and order, more than a reflection of their mood about hanging or the death penalty.
According to a survey which I conducted in my constituency, 86.6 per cent are in favour of capital punishment. What is really symbolic is that these Canadians have lost faith in the fact that they are secure in this country. It does not necessarily imply that they want people to be hung or executed in some other form, but that before we disband capital punishment, whatever needs to be done ought to be done. The government must earn the right to be an abolitionist state. They must have a valid reason for taking away the death penalty.
The government has twice brought forward an experiment in five years with capital punishment only for those people who have killed a police officer or a security guard. However, that is a period that has never been honoured. Something which disturbs Canadians very much is that they are being asked to accept a change in law with regard to capital punishment when they note very clearly that for a period of nearly a decade the government has not obeyed its own law. If we are to believe in law, if it is to be a fundamental cornerstone of our democratic society, then surely the government must obey and practice the laws that it puts on the statute books. The fact that the government has ignored its own laws and regulations certainly enhances the distrust of Canadians.
I do not believe in the concept of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." That does not underscore any purpose. We would have a whole nation that is blind and toothless. Those who believe in the notion of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth are really saying, "Do not get angry; get even." We must have a feeling that has some purpose. At the present time there is an eroding of the feeling of security and law and order. Without the protection of the death sentence for those who will kill for the second time in order to escape from an institution, once having been incarcerated for a crime of murder, police and prison guards are in the vulnerable position of having to protect themselves in the psychology of "shoot first and ask questions later." We must underscore the fact that the government needs to earn the right to implement an abolitionist state. We must also recognize the fear that our police officers and prison guards will have.
If this amendment is not passed, capital punishment will not be done away with. It will be simply a case of the due course of law not being followed. Police officers and prison guards in this country will, in more rapid succession, be using their weapons in self-defence. The result will be capital punishment without trial.
The government has an obligation to ensure that we retain intact the symbol of peace and security. In my second reading speech I listed in some detail a number of different aspects that would assist our achieving a situa-

July 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
tion of peace and security. It is extremely important that we begin to move toward a psychological environment that does away with the threat of violent crime in this country and brings us to a position where police officers and guards can feel a sense of security and will not use their weapons for capital punishment without the due course of law.
I think we can underscore something that has been established over and over again. A negative kind of input or feed into society reflects itself with negative reactions. This has been done with children. It has been demonstrated psychologically that when people are fed negative kinds of information, the relationship of people one to another is usually that of a more violent negative society. It does not take a person with any academic understanding to quickly recognize that Canadian society today is compacted with negative input. The press hunts for the negative. We do not read the news in the papers, hear it over the radio or see it over television: all we get is a portion of the news, that which is negative.
Until there is a concerted effort in this country to emphasize some of the positive activities and relationships within our society, those who are of weakened psychological balance will always try to achieve public attention and recognition from others. Many actions of people are an attempt to gain recognition from their fellow man. If they cannot gain recognition in a positive sense, the struggle to be recognized is so great that they will gain it in a negative sense.
The obligation of government is not to do away with the position that has been long-standing within this country, but to create the kind of society that gives us a sense of peace and security. If they cannot do that, they have no right to bring forward a piece of legislation that attempts to enhance peace and security but undermines and erodes the opinions of Canadians generally that something is being done to offer a real feeling of security in this country.
It is of the utmost importance, I think, that members of parliament recognize that police officers and security guards are placed in a most vulnerable position should the bill pass unamended. We are placing what is the cornerstone of peace and security in this country, namely, our police forces who are in charge of enforcing the law, in extreme jeopardy. Those who write the law are putting those who enforce the law in an uncompromising position. What we owe these people is some symbol to show we support them. But we must do our work first by bringing about a greater degree of security in this country.
We can ruminate on this subject for some time, but as mentioned before in the House there has been much focus upon the architectural designs of our cities. For example, we can demonstrate statistically that if a city of 100,000 people expands to one of one million people, we should expand our police force sixtyfold, not tenfold. As we increase the size of our cities, so the rate of crime increases.
Studies of animals other than the human species have shown that crowding together produces a change in normal behavioural patterns. The Lithwick report on urbanization

in Canada discloses that in its founding year of 1867 about 80 per cent of the country was rural, whereas now is it something like 85 per cent urban. The report predicts that 95 per cent of all Canadians will be living in five cities by the year 2000.
Although we recognize the danger of concentrating masses of people within a small area, government policies fail to take account of this. I suggest that the transportation and communication policies of this country are winning out over social policies in terms of social welfare, law and order and simply the happiness of human living. We are bartering away what we call efficiency in communications and transportation so as to save money in one particular pocket, without recognizing that sooner or later we will have to pay the cost in another social sense. The fact of the matter is-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arnold John Malone: I simply want to add, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the size of cities that increases the crime rate in this country; it is also the architectural design of our cities. Some interesting studies have been made showing that apartment dwellers, especially those in certain designs of apartments, are a stimulus to the crime rate in this country. The very nature of housing and of housing policies in this country reflects the amount of crime that is committed, and as legislators I suggest we should have something more important to do than simply talk about whether we are retentionists or abolitionists.
This bill is removing from society one of the symbols of law and order. It will create a vacuum. I believe that all Canadians would quite willingly accept an abolitionist stance, but only after the government has demonstrated clearly that peace and security is the right of all Canadians, and that the government has put in place the right psychological environment from coast to coast, and from the forty-ninth to the pole, the kind of society in which violence is deterred.
This may sound in some ways as if we are being over optimistic about the role of government and the behaviour of people, but studies made in numerous countries of the world demonstrate that different societies do, in fact, have different rates of crime. Anyone observing the psychology of human behaviour soon recognizes that crime rates do not differ from one country to another simply because the respective populations live in two different countries but rather because the cultures are different. I suggest that Canadian society has got itself on the wrong track. In Canada violence has become entertainment, not only on television, in our movies and in the press, but even in sport and other activities. We enjoy violence.
In summary, what the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta is seeking is not a return to capital punishment per se, but is asking the Canadian people, through their members of parliament, whether or not the due process of law should be carried out. If we take away part of our present system of justice
July 7, 1976

and leave a vacuum in its place, one obvious result of this will be that the prison guards in this country will be more trigger-happy. They will have no other choice, since they will have been placed in a position of greater fear. This is why the legislation must be amended. Until we have earned the right to be truly an abolitionist state, this parliament has no right to take away what appears to be, to the policemen of this country, a sense of security. We must first assure our policemen-indeed, all Canadians- that it is safe to live in Canada.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke on second reading of this bill and was not planning to speak on this motion. However, since my position is the complete opposite of that taken by the previous speaker I felt I should make a few comments.
I believe that the murder of a policeman or a prison guard is no more, or no less, important than the killing of a child, a fisherman or any other member of our society. I felt our present legislation was discriminatory in that it provided that only two classes in our society were of importance, in that only if a policeman or prison guard was murdered would capital punishment be carried out. I still feel that this is a discriminatory provision, and the sooner we get rid of the idea that some groups in society are more important than others, the better off we will be.
I believe in the retention of capital punishment, for a variety of reasons, but this is in relation to our whole Canadian society and not just one small part of it. The argument that a job is dangerous could be applied to any so-called dangerous job, such as that of a fireman, a pilot and of various other people in our society; but when they get into those jobs, they get into them with the realization that there are dangers involved. Having accepted those dangers, I do not think there should be further consideration given such as we have had under the legislation I consider to be improper, discriminatory and which in fact makes second-class citizens of those people who are not policemen or prison guards but who have been murdered over the years in Canada and in respect of which capital punishment was not applied. Many of us in this House have felt this way.
What are we now attempting to do? We have a motion before us that would attempt to bring back the same discriminatory practice that has existed and which many of us have decried for very good reason. I believe, in all honesty, that if we look at our society, not only in Canada but throughout the world, we will find that in the last 10, 12 or 14 years there has been a tremendous change and the change has occurred in respect of criminal activity. I think when you and I were growing up, Mr. Speaker, it would have required a very deep search to find a case of hijacking of an aircraft, of kidnapping or of terrorist activity. In order to be pragmatic, one would have to realize that our society has changed in the last 10 or 15 years. It is the duty of parliament to reflect these changes and to ensure that the law-abiding part of our society not only feels secure, but in fact is secure.
The argument in favour of capital punishment for premeditated murder is a very strong one. Anyone who becomes involved with premeditated murder for gain or
Capital Punishment
profit or as a result of organized crime should be dealt with quickly. I am afraid the milk of human kindness in my body runs very low for those people who go out on contract to kill another individual. Again, regardless of who that individual is, whether he be a policeman, a prison guard or just an ordinary citizen, I feel that person should be dealt with most severely. Such individuals must know that if they become involved in that sort of situation, the results will be dramatic, sudden and positive.
As I said earlier, I cannot vote for this particular motion and I trust that my colleagues who are retentionists cannot vote for it because it is discriminatory. It is a motion that would make second-class citizens of a great part of our population. Surely, this parliament must take actions which are non-discriminatory and should not allow a phrase or a principle like "second-class citizen" to occur in legislation. We are all equal in Canada, and the law should apply to all Canadians equally. I do not think we have an elite in society, and for that reason I will vote against this motion.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment of my colleague, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), would strike clause 4 from the bill in that it would introduce into our Criminal Code and our criminal law what is known popularly on television and elsewhere as "murder one" and "murder two". I thought we had escaped that horrible classification. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) seems to take umbrage with the phrase "second-degree murder" in that it makes people second-class citizens. In any event, I could not catch the trend of his argument.
The result of my colleague's amendment would have the effect of maintaining in force section 214 of the Criminal Code. That was the section brought in at the time of the restricted interpretation of capital punishment, in 1967 I think it was. Prior to that, section 214, or its predecessor number, had regard to categories of capital murder and non-capital murder. There was a much wider application under section 214 because at that time it dealt with murder for gain, a killing committed as a result of another violent act such as armed robbery, rape, kidnapping and others, and in addition deliberate poisoning. Poisoning was capital murder for which the penalty was death. We are now back to define defining, again, categories of murder, but not capital murder. No, that would be treasonous, but treasonous in the linguistic sense.


An hon. Member:: Treason is out.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, the word "treason" is out because it has an entirely different meaning within the context of this bill. Apparently it would be quite wrong to use "capital" and "non-capital" murder. Heaven preserve us from falling that low! I have been looking with considerable care through the evidence at the committee hearings and, with the greatest respect, there is very little discussion on this subject. Most of it seems to have involved parole. Let us look at some of the problems the courts will have to wrestle with in the future. We must remember that it is not what is said in this chamber, at the committee or by the minister, that will determine for the judges what shall be the interpretation of the statute. Let

July 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
us read what it says in clause 4. The new section of the Criminal Code will read as follows:
214. (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.
The new subsection (2) will read:
Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.
I suggest to hon. members that the interpretation of the word "planned" will give the courts a good deal of exercise over the years. It is true that new subsection (3) gives one illustration of planned and deliberate murder, and that is the contract murder of one either in the underworld or by the hiring of a killer. That is the deliberate, planned killing of a person. But there still remain a great number of murders that are planned and deliberate. There is the individual who himself hunts and stalks another individual, regardless of the reason, and kills that person. The hunting is planned and the killing is deliberate whether it is accomplished with a gun, a knife, bare hands or a club. How long must the planning take place? I can plan something and do it deliberately within five minutes. That is not done on the spur of the moment; the spur of the moment is the instant reaction.
I recall a case in common law in Britain which caused trouble to the courts because of the definition that exists in respect of the charge of murder where there is no uncontrollable reaction in the individual. There is the example of the husband who discovered he was being cuckold and found another man in his wife's bed, and in a towering rage killed one or both of them. That has been classified as a legitimate defence to a charge of murder and the courts have so held up to the Court of Appeal. On the other hand we have the case of a husband who, being cuckold, lies in wait to spy on his wife and her paramour. They, having come to the home, he sits on a ladder up on the second storey window, looks in, sees the couple in bed, goes down the ladder, goes into the woodshed, gets an axe and then proceeds up the stairs to the room and kills one or both of the parties. This is an actual case, but I do not remember whether one or two persons were killed. That was deemed not to be justifiable homicide because it was not instantaneous. This man had planned to spy and in the event he discovered there was misconduct on the part of his wife and her paramour.


Donald W. Munro: What about the offence relating to a Peeping Tom?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It would hardly be in that category. The court held that was not a justifiable homicide. I suggest the courts would have just as difficult a time determining what is planned and deliberate. I expected the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to participate in this debate. I invite the Solicitor General, or the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Basford), to explain to the House what they mean by the words "planned and deliberate".
There is an example given in subsection 3 of section 214 of the contract murder. That is point number one. Now I shall look at first-degree murder, preserving, in effect, what now is contained in section 214 concerning a police officer, a police constable, and so on. I have always won-

dered about this, now that we are using private security firms for the maintenance of public peace.
I would want the Solicitor General to say that this includes personnel hired on a temporary basis by a security firm to keep the peace and public order, say at a football or hockey game or at a sale at a department store where security personnel are employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, and are killed. Is it first-degree murder if an employee of a firm hired by the government of Canada to act as a night watchman in a government building is killed in the course of his duty? Those are questions which the law officers of the Crown must explain. It is not satisfactory that they sit, as I would say in French, muets comme une carpe, and expect anyone in the House to approve this legislation without explanation. I ask for that explanation as a lawyer who may be asked to interpret this section for the benefit of the public.
What is the intention of the government in this legislation? Are we to be treated, as we often are treated in the House, with deathless silence? I assure hon. members that I intend to put all these sections through an examination in order to see just what they mean.
In line 6 on page 4, subparagraph (b), we find the second category of individuals the killing of whom is deemed to be first-degree murder. This deals primarily with officials or security officers in a prison or jail. Why is there the designation of "permanent employee"? The person involved might be a temporary employee. He might be a university student who, in a temporary or casual capacity, is carrying out the duties of a security officer in a jail or prison. Such person is not a permanent employee. Is the killing of such a person to fall under subparagraph (c) which refers to a person working in a prison with the permission of the prison authorities and acting in the course of his work therein, or is subparagraph (c) merely to cover social workers and other persons?
Take the case of the hostage incident in New Westminster, for instance, where social workers going into the prison were with the prisoners, were taken hostage and one of them was killed. I would say that such a person, if employed by someone outside such as, say, the correctional service of the government of Canada or of any province, would be covered under subparagraph (c), but I am wondering about the "temporary" employee. I am being careful with the language. I trust we will have the word of the Solicitor General that he will participate in the debate on this clause. I ask for an explanation.


An hon. Member:: He is not listening.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I know he is not listening. Next-and this was a point which was fully covered in debate yesterday-is the matter of piracy. The Solicitor General did not intervene in the debate to tell hon. members to refer to subclause 5(a) which reads:
Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person
(a) while committing or attempting to commit an offence under section 76.1 (hijacking aircraft)-
July 7, 1976

This is the answer to many of the questions that were put yesterday. It is first-degree murder if committed in the attempt of a hijacking and the killing does not have to be planned or deliberate, or in respect of a person when death is caused by that person-again, the consequential death of a plane hijacking or even kidnapping. Then we have first-degree murder, such as in the case in British Columbia where a man who was a convicted rapist has been charged with the murder of a young girl. I will go no further. He has not been tried and he has not admitted the offence. This is all I can say. But he would be charged with murder in the first degree. All murder that is not first-degree is second-degree. That, again, is what I would call legalistic jargon. We already have the provisions for hijacking of aircraft and the penalty therefor, kidnapping, rape, and so forth.
As I have said many times, I do not like section 214(1) as it stands in the Criminal Code. I much prefer the definition that existed prior to the 1967 amendments defining capital and non-capital murder. I do not like the amendment in clause 4 because it does away, by repealing section 214 of the Criminal Code, with the death penalty for murder, either first-degree or any other murder.
Therefore, I ask the House to accept the amendment of my colleague and to reject what I suggest is a very loosely-worded definition of murder in the first-degree when it is planned and deliberate, which is fraught with all sorts of danger in interpretation. I know that if it does become law it will cause difficulties in the courts.
I hold no brief for the particular advantage held by policemen, prison guards or security officers acting in the course of their duty. While their job is much harder, I do not think their lives are any more valuable than those of citizens walking on the streets. To that extent I am not in favour of the continuation of the principle of discrimination in favour of these individuals. In so saying, I do not want to detract in any way from the difficult job they are doing, the danger to which they are exposed and the far greater danger to which they will be exposed when, and if, Bill C-84 should come into force, because from then on it will cost a man nothing to slip a knife into the ribs of a security officer, to shoot a guard or to kill another prisoner, if he is in prison already.
You cannot get a life sentence on top of a life sentence. I suppose that if the individual was in prison for second-degree murder and was serving a short sentence, he could then be charged and convicted of first-degree murder. But then he could go merrily on his way. In my view, clause 4 of Bill C-84 compounds the difficulty. I do not like the present section, 214, but to me it would cause less difficulty than the proposed law. Therefore, I support the amendment of my colleague.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on these very important amendments. I had the opportunity like many others on second reading, to express the wish that Parliament defeat this piece of legislation and at the same time meet the wishes of a large number of Canadians. While respecting the opposing views expressed in this House, I urge all members to
Capital Punishment
consider the importance of our duty towards public opinion. I understand that many members listen to their own conscience, but I also wonder whether we should not take due consideration of the wishes of the majority of Canadians.
These amendments deal particularly with a second capital murder and ask that such a murder be considered as a first degree murder. This should not cause any problem to most members, and the amendment recommending that Parliament retain capital punishment for the murder of police officers and prison guards is a very serious and very important amendment. If we really want to protect society, we must consider this amendment very carefully, and I hope that some amendments for which I should like to commend the movers will be passed. It is unthinkable from the outset that all these amendments be rejected at one fell swoop.
The government introduced a piece of legislation; it has passed second reading and was finally reported from the committee. Some amendments are considered by the House, and their objective is to improve the legislation and to meet a need: public security. Given the circumstances, I dare believe that freedom of expression will make it possible to have some amendments passed.
As so many other hon. members, I should like very much to see the reaction of the government members to these amendments. To consolidate my argument on both amendments, I should like to quote from a letter. Perhaps it has been quoted in the House, but still I want to include it in my comments to remind the Solicitor General of the dangers inherent in going on supporting the bill he is advocating. The members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada sent us a letter. It was addressed to the Solicitor General, and at the same time to hon. members of the House, for their information, and I quote:
Before the final vote on Bill C-83, we want to ask you to consider, in your soul and conscience, the remarks made on June 15, 1976 by the Prime Minister of Canada in his speech in the House of Commons, as reported on page 14499 of Hansard: "I want to make it very clear that, if a majority of hon. members vote against abolition, some people are going to be hanged. Their death would be a direct consequence of the negative decision made by this House on this bill.
As for us, we appeal to your conscience and we take the opposite view of that expressed by Mr. Trudeau by saying that abolitionist would be responsible for all future murders of penitentiary employees and law enforcement officers, and we swear that each time one of these murders is committed, we shall impute them to all those who have supported the abolition of capital punishment.
Here are a few facts that you should consider in our opinion:
1-	The irresponsible attitude of penitentiary commissioners and directors before the pressure groups who visit the institutions;
2-	The lack of proper management by the authorities of most penal institutions in the country;
3-	The shocking convict classification system which endangers the life of penitentiary employees as well as the life of most convicts who only want to obey the rules they must follow during their prison term;
4-	The present lack of facilities likely to guarantee the protection and safety of the staff of the penal institutions and of the prisoners against these criminals who have nothing to lose because of the 25 years of imprisonment they would have to serve under Bill C-83.
For these reasons, the Hon. Warren Allmand, Solicitor General of Canada, who did not have the courage to reveal these facts to the members of the House of Commons, should, in all conscience, resign his ministerial responsibilities since he has lost the confidence of all penitentiary employees and all law enforcement officers in Canada.

July 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
It is still Mr. Caouette, the Secretary Treasurer of the Association who is speaking:
We urge you, in your heart of hearts, to consider the safety of your family and that of penitentiary employees and law enforcement officers while reflecting on these words: "We want everyone to clearly understand that if most members of Parliament vote against the retention of the death penalty, people will be murdered. The death of these people would then be a direct result of the negative decision made by the House of Commons on this bill."
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this letter is extremely important. That is an appeal made by those who are responsible for maintaining authority in our institutions. And I feel that those remarks should give us cause for serious reflection and prompt us into supporting the amendment we are advocating today.
I would believe that most members will understand the position in which those who are responsible for security in our institutions and in our country generally find themselves, and one only has to consider what has been going on those last few years to understand. As recently as a week ago, I think, a Montreal newspaper reported that a young Montreal police officer checking on an apartment in Montreal had been shot in the chest quite unhesitatingly. That is the kind of protection we get from this government.
They have introduced a piece of legislation which, far from giving us additional security, is of enormous concern to the population. Is there need to recall also, Mr. Speaker, that they do not dare hold a referendum to know what is the public opinion since they already know that Canadians would favour retention of capital punishment, bearing in mind the circumstances we are all aware of.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, I know that it is a question that has to be resolved deep in one's conscience and I respect everybody's position. I would like to be sure that the government members did not take that position merely to save the Solicitor General or the Prime Minister. I suggest that we have reasons to wonder, after all the comments and discussions we have had with various members of this House.
Once again, I am not assuming that anyone is dishonest. I believe the issue is important enough that no hon. member should take a decision concerning this legislation for the sole purpose of saving the Solicitor General's neck or defending government policy. I think I am right in asking that this issue be considered in the light of much more solid reasons than those I have just mentioned.
We are also often reminded of the following commandment: Thou shalt not kill. I have on hand some comments, some information given to me by a priest who is not reluctant to give his opinion and information to the members of this House, who were very happy to receive it. He says clearly:
While I am writing this, our members in the House of Commons are discussing the advisability of retaining or abolishing capital punishment ... What will be the situation when this article will be published?
I	would like to submit a few comments in favour of the retention of capital punishment.
I know different views were expressed from all sides. I think it is my responsibility to bring forward certain

arguments presented by someone who is, after all, a parish priest in Levis county. I quote:
(a) I point out that by "retention of capital punishment", I do not mean retention of hanging, but this: Anyone who criminally and voluntarily kills another person is liable to expiate his crime through the sacrifice of his own life if he is recognized as actually and legally responsible for this crime unless it has been committed by accident (manslaughter) or in case of self-defence.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that those remarks are perfectly related, at least to the group of people we wish to protect through the amendment before us. I continue:
(c) The retention of capital punishment is not a matter of revenge, but it is legal reparation of the most serious crime and is also aimed at protecting the life of the people in the interest of public weal and order.
Those are the reasons given by this parish priest for the retention of capital punishment:
1-	The inestimable price of life and its protection require the retention of capital punishment.
2-	The Holy Bible says in Genesis 9,6: "Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" and, in Exodus 21,23: "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life".
3-	The Christian theology always recognized to the state the right to inflict capital punishment for instance in case of murder and this because of the invaluable price of life and for its protection and the protection of the whole society, this fair reparation is in the spirit of God and the Holy Bible.
4-	The Council of Trent says that the legitimate authority that condemns a murderer to death not only is not guilty of murder, but eminently obeys the fifth commandment that forbids murder.
5-	The Old Testament says in Exodus 21, 12: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death".
I continue, Mr. Speaker, because I think that those comments should make us think. They might also relieve some consciences.
The Catholic Church always taught that the state has the right to apply capital punishment for a serious crime, like murder, and this to protect peace and security.
Christ himself said so to Pilate who told him: Do you not know that I have the authority to release you or crucify you? And Christ answered: You would have no authority over me if it was not given to you from above, that is to say by God. The state has the right to inflict capital punishment.
It was not a mere nobody who said this, Mr. Speaker.
6-	St. Tomas Aquinas teaches not only that is it permissible but that it is necessary to punish some criminals with death to protect society and for the good of all.
And the fear of a possible error concerning the real criminal is no reason to ignore thoses principles, no more so that an accidental error in an operation would justify the scrapping of that operation which might already have been very helpful... and would be later on.
In any event, one is condemned to death only when there are real proofs that he is in fact responsible for voluntary homocide.
I remember that the Solicitor General expressed his concern about the possibility of hanging an innocent, saying that the most destitute may not have the tools or the money required to defend themselves on an equal footing with the more wealthy. He recognized that often the poor do not have the same advantages or tools to defend themselves, and that the government had the responsibility of providing them with a perfect defence and all the tools required to face the better off. And I continue with the quotation:
How many times in the past have I heard someone say: "If it were not for the death penalty, I would do away with him".
Nowadays, we often hear: "I would not be afraid to kill because going to jail is not so bad, you get free food, free board; you only have to keep
July 7, 1976

quiet and eventually you are released, sometimes much sooner than expected-there is always the hope to get out... or to escape.
And if we look at what has happened over the last few years, we see that many indeed have managed to get out.
Therefore, a 25 years sentence or even life-imprisonment is not commensurate with the crime of murder.
I	am thinking of those old people cowardly murdered because of their alleged savings.
I am thinking of those children who were tortured and savagely killed by this second offender. The mother of one of those children is still in hospital and probably will be all her life, as she became mentally ill because of her insurmontable grief . . .
I have in mind the settling of scores between members of the underworld even they have a right to live.
Human lives are being taken away as easily as dog's . . . and then we feel pity for the criminal and we forget the innocent victim and the flight of his family as well as the protection of the public.
And I think it is a good thing to remind all those who point out regularly that we must respect life that we also have the basic duty of respecting the lives of innocent persons. I continue my quotation:
I now raise a specific point: what about the eternal destiny of the victim who, without expecting it, is thrown into eternity? .. . Was this person morally ready to appear before God? What will be the consequences?
In this view, the criminal condemned to death punishment will benefit, for he will at least have time to regret his sin and to get his soul ready for the judgment after paying with his life: this will be his last hope.
After all those considerations and being aware of how priceless life and its protection are . .. for the sake of peace and social security.. . knowing that murderers do commit second crimes. . . considering mainly the lack of proportion between the taking of a human life and the few years spent in prison in payment for such a crime, we can say that mercy and pardon are irrelevant and do not correspond to the importance of the situation.
And if we deny the courts any possibility of applying capital punishment when appropriate, we take a serious risk that people might do justice themselves. Consequences that might arise are already predictable.
Retaining capital punishment will not deter the state from trying to improve social conditions and our judicial system in order to prevent violent crime.
And there again, there is much to say and I think the state has a great deal to do in that direction.
. . . thus the state will consider this unexplainable tolerance which allows the mass media to spread violence, murders and immorality and condone crimes of passion where the killing of a man or a woman is seen an ordinary fact of life . . . Living conditions in prisons will also be changed to have prisoners work and improve on their behaviour instead of letting them get worse through idleness . . . and as society improves, murders will be prevented and capital punishment will no longer need to be applied while being maintained.
Canadians hope that their representatives will really take a position in terms of justice and of the well-being of the whole of our society.
I think it is most important that our courts should always be able to apply the death penalty when needed.
Besides, we should know that the individual that respects the lives of others will never have to fear or undergo capital punishment, even though it is maintained in the books.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make these few comments which, in my opinion, will make us ponder over that issue seriously, regardless of the opinions expressed so far by members of this House.
As a matter of fact, the amendment now under consideration is quite important and the law enforcement officers have already stated their views and their concern about it.
Capital Punishment
I hope that the members of this House will consider the amendment as absolutely essential, if we wish to attain the objective we call public security.
We do not hesitate to suggest to day that the bill now under consideration is inconsistent with the objective which the government is aiming at. The Solicitor General may say whatever he likes, his arguments have been knocked out by experts and people much more qualified than I am. I have personally observed certain facts in my own constituency.
They should shocked to learn that on second reading we endorsed that legislation by a small majority, hoping that the amendments would allow light to enter our conscience and we hope at least that the amendments will correct that legislation.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is particularly important. I hope that all members, no matter how they have approached this measure in the past, will give their support to the proposition before the House. We ask the law enforcement officers and the employees in our federal penitentiaries to accept a very special responsibility, one which weighs heavily upon them, and which should weigh heavily upon us as legislators because we know what they face in a society which has become increasingly violent. Somehow, we have to find a formula which will stamp out the escalation of violence which we see about us nationally and internationally.
I do not like quoting statistics to show what has happened to this country's murder rate, but undeniably it is going up. No one can convince me that the elimination of the death penalty will not result in the further increase of the number of people who in days ahead will die violently in this country.
When you stop to think of it, all members of this House, including the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the leader of my party (Mr. Clark), or anyone else believes in capital punishment. I say that for this reason: if any one of us faced the situation in which someone was either going to take our life or we had to kill to defend ourselves, there is no question in my mind what each and every one of us would decide. That being the case, each and every one of us believes in the ultimate punishment for an individual who has a determination to kill. Therefore, I cannot understand why some members would wish to oppose the strong demand of the public for parliament to mirror the public's feeling with regard to capital punishment.
The public has told us, in no uncertain terms, that it wants parliament to enact legislation which will make the death penalty the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime. The amendment we are discussing does not go that far. It suggests that we should impose the ultimate punishment only on those who commit the ultimate crime against those charged with the special responsibilities of policing our nation and protecting us from the inmates incarcerated in our penal institutions. It says that only if the life of one
15138

July 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
of these persons is taken shall the criminal pay the supreme penalty.
I suggest, sir, that the general public which thinks parliament should be a mirror of public opinion and that parliamentarians ought not always to vote according to their personal convictions want the death penalty to be mandatory for a greater number of crimes than contemplated by this amendment. I am sure the general public supports the amendment we are discussing. Therefore, I suggest that if we adopt the amendment we shall let criminals know they face the supreme penalty if they kill certain individuals in our society. There should be no alteration of the present law. When such crimes take place, the criminals should pay the supreme penalty.
One hears many arguments about why we have capital punishment and why we should or should not have it. I hold in my hand a copy of a letter, which I gather was sent to all members of parliament, from Pastor Ernest Kennedy of the Forward Baptist Church, Cambridge, Ontario. The original letter was addressed to the pastor's member of parliament, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). It outlines why, in the pastor's view, capital punishment should be retained. I shall put on record some of the views expressed in the letter by the pastor of the Forward Baptist Church, because I am impressed by the sincerity of the man and by his interpretation of what the Bible says on capital punishment. The pastor's letter reads in part:
In all my reading concerning capital punishment, I have yet to find what I believe to be the basic reason for capital punishment. In the Book of Genesis, long before Abraham, Moses or the nation of Israel was in existence, God laid down a simple covenant with man, in Genesis 8:22 to 9:16. This convenant was to last "while the earth remaineth, for perpetual generations, and everlasting covenant." This covenant included:
1	Gen. 9:2-3: Man's dominion over the animals. Man is to kill animals for food and protection. Man is unique and given dominion over the animals.
2	Gen. 9:4: A commandment against cannibalism. Man is allowed to eat all kinds of vegetables and meats, but not human flesh which contains the life and living soul.
3	Gen. 9:5-6: Murder of another human being is forbidden, and capital punishment is to be enacted.
I note that the pastor used the authority of the Old Testament. Most of us realize that Christ used the Old Testament to assist in guiding his disciples during his lifetime, just as he has guided Christians ever since his crucifixion. Pastor Kennedy went on to say:
It is interesting here to notice the one and only reason given for capital punishment. Genesis 9:6, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." The reasons for capital punishment is not vengeance, not to get even with the man, not an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, not as a deterrent to others, not for the well-being of man or the protection of society, although some of these things in themselves may be true and involved. The reason God demands capital punishment is just the opposite reason the behavioural scientists want it stopped. God says man is not an animal, but is a created being, made in the image of God and the man who is murdered bears in some way, the image of God, his creator. Murder at its roots is rebellion against God who created and gave dignity to the man murdered.
Consider the following ways that man is the recipient of God's divine image and is, therefore, more than an animal.
1 Mentally-man has an intelligence, capacity to reason, to evaluate and criticize himself.

2	Morally-man has a conscience, a capacity to recognize moral values and make moral choices.
3	Socially-man has a society, a capacity to love and to be in personal, social relationships.
4	Creatively-man has dominion, a capacity to exercise his lordship over creation, to subdue the earth and to be creative.
5	Spiritually-man has a soul, a capacity to worship, to pray and to live in communion with God.
The man who puts a gun in his pocket and deliberately drives to the bank and shoots the teller is playing God. He is deciding that another human being should die and has chosen to destroy the image of God as created in the dignity of that man.
When a man is solemnly put to death by the government for deliberately and premeditately taking another man's life, it is in serious recognition to the nation that murder is not just another crime, but is the taking into one's hands the life of a human being who is created in the image of God.
The pastor concludes by saying:
Mr. Saltsman, in the light of what I have written, I trust that you will give serious consideration for the sake of our country, the responsibility of our government to God, and the dignity of human life to reverse your vote when the bill comes to third and final reading.
I believe that Mr. Kennedy has touched on the most significant aspect of this whole debate. It is not only to deter others from committing murder that we want capital punishment. We believe that when an individual commits a premeditated murder he is, in effect, playing God: he takes things into his own hands and destroys that life. By doing that, that individual sacrifices any hope of mercy by his fellow men. When he destroyed that individual, he destroyed a part of God. God himself said when that was done that individual sacrificed any right to live. That is the way it should be.
There is a penitentiary in my constituency, at Dorchester. There are a great many employees in my area who live and work in that maximum security institution. I have conversation on an almost constant basis with those employees. The kind of experimentation that has been imposed upon employees of penal institutions makes one shudder. There is a degree of permissiveness in our penal system today that gives little protection to the employees. It is no wonder that soon after the vote on second reading, when the bill was given approval in principle, a great many penitentiary employees in the province of Quebec resigned from their employment. If this government has no respect for their lives, they do. They knew that to continue their employment in those penitentiaries, without capital punishment on the statute books, was inviting the possibility of dying in their employment.
There must be a degree of protection for society in general and employees of penal institutions in particular. They must have a fair assurance that if they continue in their employment they will return home in the evening to their wives and families. However, that kind of assurance does not exist today. Therefore, I believe that capital punishment should be retained on the statute books. In fact, I believe it should be enforced in cases where individuals have been found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death.
It is not a case of whether we are putting the noose around someone's neck, or someone else is: it is the law of the land. The courts of this land make a judgment with
July 7, 1976

regard to the penalty an individual should pay for a crime. Almost consistently since 1962 they have said that criminals who commit capital murder should die, especially in cases where the jury has not made a recommendation for mercy. However, that has not been the case.
At this time we have in our penitentiaries the most dangerous types of individuals, individuals who would not think twice of killing again. I think of Ambrose and Hutchison who were in Dorchester penitentiary. They showed no mercy. Indeed, they showed the most grotesque inhumanity in the murder of two police officers in Moncton. There is a great danger to every employee because of the inmates who are there. I think of the terrible penalty that inmates in penal institutions must pay so that the government can work out a public relations campaign to convince members of parliament to support abolition. The government says that inmates should remain in those institutions for a longer period of time. The government is trying to sell the public a hard line as far as individuals who have committed capital crimes are concerned.
I do not believe we are going down the right road as far as far as rehabilitation and reform of inmates in our penal institutions are concerned by taking a hard line and having longer sentences in order to eliminate the possibility of having to carry out the death penalty against a very small coterie of inmates who have committed capital murder-in other words, those who have killed a police officer or a penitentiary employee. I firmly believe that the citizens of this country would be quite willing to sacrifice the lives of the few who have been convicted and sentenced to death in order to develop a more realistic rehabilitation program within our penitentiary system.
I assume my time is running out. I will conclude by saying that I support this amendment, as I hope most hon. members will. If that is done, we will then be able to convince the Canadian public that we have acceptable protection for at least one segment of our society, those involved in law enforcement and the protection of society.


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) for his intervention. He spoke of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. It was said that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had claimed that those who were retentionists would be, in their soul and conscience, responsible for the death of the 11 criminals who are now waiting only for our decision to know whether they will live or hang.
I believe the individual who is about to commit a crime knows very well that, when he goes out to rob with a loaded firearm, if he shoots at a policeman he will obviously hit him and possibly kill him.
So all told there are now 11 criminals waiting to know if they will continue to live or not. Mr. Speaker, I try to be human with everybody; we know very well that the cabinet can commute these death penalties into life imprisonment penalties. On the other hand, if the House could retain capital punishment, particularly in the case of the murder of policemen and prison guards who are here to guarantee the security of society, then the would-be mur-
Capital Punishment
derers would know that if they commit crimes, there will be no mercy. Of course, we could argue that there are judicial errors, but today we know very well that people are not sentenced to death by hanging when there is the slightest doubt.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be allowed to speak not only about the retention of capital punishment in the case of policemen and prison guards but also to say-and I wanted to take the floor again because I maintain my position- that if we want to reduce all this, we will be able to do it but only in the long term. And I quote from a document from the Public Service Alliance of Canada which all hon. members received and which is dated June 30, 1976. In the last paragraph of this brief, they say this: We asked the Solicitor General that his bill be tabled as long as he will not have provided for the establishment of a special institution responsible for the security, namely the safety and the security of all the employees of the Canadian penitentiary service who work in the institutions. We humbly ask you to do this on behalf of all the employees of penitentiaries and their families and so on.
Mr. Speaker, to prove to the House to just what extent the government puts forward a bill designed to abolish capital punishment, what is offered in return to society, what is offered to Canadian people to protect them? Nothing. As evidence, last October I asked the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Allmand) whether there was in his department anything planned to provide some grants to associations across the country, which would be used to curb juvenile delinquency and help reduce the crime rate.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I want to explain to the House quite briefly, of course, why this bill is not justified, because they precisely forget to offer alternatives. The media can say that with or without capital punishment, nothing will change. Any one who wants to kill will kill anyway. I respect the opinion of my colleagues who feel that way. As far as I am concerned, I think that to provide the public with a minimum of protection, we must have maximum security in our penitentiary institutions, especially for those who guard the inmates. I am not saying you should give them all powers or extraordinary powers, no, but we must ensure the security of those convicts and maintain the death penalty for the murder of policemen who are there to protect us.
But can we afford, as legislators, to let this go, only to see people in our penal institutions strike or resign? A dozen or so have already done so. Can we afford it? In my view, no. Right now, I would like to go back to the prevention of juvenile delinquency and general crime, since, if we mean to prevent, we have to start somewhere. In my view we should start with youngsters aged 13 to 15. There was a patent discrepancy between the Solicitor General of Canada and his officials regarding programs to reduce the crime rate, starting from the basics.
Mr. Speaker, when some groups are interested in preventing crime in our society at the adult or youth level, I think the government ought to consider this solution while preserving the death penalty. And why maintain it? Simply because, as time marches on, within 5, 10 or 15 years, this prevention will be established and a new outlook will pervade our society. Instead of a violence prone society, we shall develop a new one which will encourage
95 570-57V1

July 7, 1976
Capital Punishment
people to produce for their country and to respect the rights of others.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in today's society, we may have lost the sense of values, and this is why a host of young people hang around on street corners, sniff glue or what have you. We ask the government: What are you going to do to protect society against this kind of thing? How are you going to deal with the situation? They say: It is only a few. Of course, it may be so. They want to protect a minority.


An hon. Member:: How true!


Jacques Lavoie: But what do we do as legislators as regards capital punishment? Actually, Mr. Speaker, in my heart of hearts, I am not the kind of man who would hang a criminal, but I believe that as a legislator, and after consulting my constituents, I must protect the majority of Canadians. This is my first concern.
Regardless of their views, be they abolitionists or reten-tionists, all members must act according to their own conscience. If abolitionists wish to vote according to their conscience, without consulting their constituents, they have the right to do so, and I respect it. I, for one, did the opposite and I will stick to my position in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, I said I would be brief. In conclusion, I wish to repeat what I said about prevention. Therefore, I will quote an extract of a booklet sent to us by the Solicitor General now and then and called "Liaison", a monthly publication on criminal justice, Volume I, issue 9, October 1975. The article is entitled "People and sentencing", and I quote.
I also have the feeling, like these school officials, that a wider use should be made of community services, open residential centres and other types of rehabilitation centres of a non-prison nature in which the young child, the juvenile delinquent and certainly the first-time offender would be looked after.
Mr. Speaker, all this comes down to say that today, when an individual is caught, even for the first time, he may have committed a crime using a gun or otherwise. Because even if he has committed a crime, this does not mean he is an habitual criminal. This one can be saved, I believe that, but when we make an habitual criminal of him, when we mix him with hardened criminals, at that point Parliament should have the opportunity to reexamine the whole penal system to ensure maximum security for prison guards and police officers and also to protect the population and some inmates who can be rehabilitated. We can give a chance to the criminals. That does not mean they should all be hanged.
Again last week, in Montreal, a man shot a policeman and fortunately the policeman was not killed. I am very glad for him but if the bullet had been deflected, maybe by a few inches, he would have been killed. Mr. Speaker, these people could not care less whether they kill a police officer or a prison guard. A man will be sent to prison for 25 or 35 years. What does he have to lose? He has nothing left to lose. For him, one crime more, one crime less, he is almost for life behind bars so he does not give a hoot, but we

should think of protecting those who try to protect society. That is why I support the motion. I agree, and I hope that the others, whatever their opinion, I respect it, may have the opportunity of reconsidering this motion and then, together, we can decide.
All I wish is that we finally provide this minimum of security to those whose duty is to protect us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) seems to be rising to speak. According to the notes I have here, he has already had the floor.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the floor yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Villeneuve.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the amendment we have before us is in my opinion, very important. When we are discussing the protection of innocent citizens, when we are dealing with the importance of preventing criminals from continuing to play havoc with society, we are in fact speaking about the means to prevent criminals from going on killing innocent victims. When a criminal is sent to prison, no matter for how long, he is put into the hands of guards whose duties is to keep criminals away from society. In our opinion, this is, Mr. Speaker, protecting society.
Prison guards and police agents risk their lives protecting citizens against criminals. So honest citizens will not have to face hardened criminals those prison guards must live every day with people for whom human life has no value. Because of the bill which was introduced in the House they feel that the very same human life has no value in the eyes of the Solicitor General of Canada. Those policemen and prison guards risk their lives every day. At any moment they can see hardened criminals attack them to defend themselves since capital punishment will no longer exist for them.
They also risk everything they have to lose, those few years behind bars, everything they have, to allow other citizens to be protected against the actions of criminals. How does this government thank those valiant prison guards who risk their lives? Well, the only thank the Solicitor General gives them is the abolition of capital punishment, so that murderers sentenced to life have nothing to lose in escaping.
Mr. Speaker, when somebody has already been sentenced to life imprisonment what does he have to lose? We feel that he has absolutely nothing to lose by trying to escape if the maximum sentence he can get is life imprisonment, and we feel that sentence now exists. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, prison guards are at the mercy of the first inmate who decides to escape. Even if he were to kill a prison guard or two what is that going to change in his case? He is already sentenced to life imprisonment. At worst, he may be recaptured and sentenced once again to life imprisonment. Mr. Speaker, it is a bit like someone who has the mumps or the measles. Once you have had them, you cannot get them again. So, Mr. Speaker, the obvious consequence is that prison guards are no longer protected at all.
July 7, 1976

With the bill proposed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), the lifer will be able to kill as many guards as he wishes as he will not get more than a life term. He has nothing to lose and everything to win by killing a guard in an escape attempt. If the Solicitor General himself was a prison guard and had to face those criminals every day, he would probably understand how important capital punishment is for those who must face criminals day in and day out.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, from his comfortable seat in the House of Commons it is easy for him to say that capital punishment is not useful and does not protect policemen and guards. If the Solicitor General had to cope with killers and criminals every day, as do policemen and guards, he would have a different view. He would not brag so much and would probably better understand the people responsible for maintaining peace and order who ask for the retention of capital punishment to have minimum protection against killers and criminals.
If the Solicitor General listens to policemen and prison guards, he will realize that they do not accept the attitude of the government and the personal attitude of the minister concerning that issue. I have here, Mr. Speaker, an article from the newspaper La Presse showing very clearly the intention of prison guards and policemen to join forces to fight the government bill. This is what the article says as it reflects the attitude of prison guards concerning the abolition of capital punishment.
Prison guards intend to join forces with policemen before going into action.
A new common front is about to appear. This time, it will be prison guards asking for the support of various Canadian police corps to give more weight to their demands.
That response came on the heels of the vote on second reading of the bill to abolish capital punishment. The security staff of the federal prisons in Quebec, gathered in a general meeting a few days ago, gave their union executives a mandate to rally all forces before using pressure tactics.
Many people in the audience were in favour of unlimited strike action. However, they accepted the idea of a common front so that the measures to be taken will have a real impact. Prison guards of several other Canadian cities also held meetings, a few days ago to protest against the government decision. Some prison guards said they would accept the abolition of capital punishment if super-maximum security jails are built, something that does not exist in Canada at this time.
"Criminals saved from the execution by the new legislation are a constant threat to our security" declared the guards at Saint-Vincent-de-Paul. "We cannot forget what happened to our colleague Paul Gosse-lin, killed last year by a prisoner".
Another guard who was held hostage a few weeks ago believes that he owes his life to the existence of the death penalty. "When I told my aggressor who was pointing a knife at me, if you kill me, you are liable to be hanged"...
And this guard sincerely believes that his aggressor thought twice and decided to leave him alive.
The executive of the prison guards union and top officials of the Public Service Alliance of Canada discussed a possible mutual agreement with policemen and obtained a clear mandate: we must strongly protest against abolition of the death penalty and negotiate once and for all for our security.
Capital Punishment
Mr. Speaker, I continue the quotation:
Mr. Jean-Guy Chalut, Vice-President of the Alliance for Quebec said he welcomes such a clear mandate and has assured guards that there would be new developments ...
-in the coming weeks.
According to Mr. Chalut, even the prisoners are against the abolition of the death penalty because they also fear for their life.
Mr. Speaker, when we read such comments, we wonder how a minister could come here to withdraw the only protection provided to those people, to assure some protection to every Canadian.
It is clear that prison guards fear for their life. Unlike the Solicitor General, they do not have the advantage of being constantly protected by the RCMP. They must live daily with people for whom human lives are worthless. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


An hon. Member:: It is not yet six o'clock, there three minutes left.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree with the hon. member that it is six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent, so the hon. member may go on with his remarks.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: We can go on until seven o'clock!


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the same thing goes as far as police officers are concerned. They also have to face criminals during bank hold-ups, takings of hostages and murders. When the criminal knows he is risking life imprisonment for his action-


An hon. Member:: You are repeating yourself!


Armand Caouette: I may repeat myself, but the hon. member certainly knows he does not have the courage to get up on his feet.


Mr. Guay (Saint-Boniface):: I said there was no courage in that!


Armand Caouette: The murderer has nothing to lose by killing one, two, or three police officers to avoid being arrested. If he is arrested, what is he going to get on top of that? Life imprisonment. If he kills a policeman to avoid being arrested, what sentence will he get?
How is it possible, Mr. Speaker, that gangsters hesitate before shooting policemen in such circumstances? It is worth stressing that no fewer than 51 police officers have been murdered since 1964. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that no fewer than 51 peace officers have been coldly murdered by hoodlums since capital punishment ceased to be implemented.
Mr. Speaker, it is six o'clock.

July 7, 1976
Capital Punishment


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unless the hon. member wishes to conclude his remarks, and providing the House grants him five more minutes by unanimous consent, he could then go on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Armand Caouette: It is six o'clock. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Liberal members who did not stop interjecting should get ready tomorrow and find the courage to get up on their feet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to order made on Monday, June 7, 1976, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, July 8, 1976