1976-06-29

Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), I move:
That Bill C-242 which deals with smokers in transit be put forward as a government bill in order to facilitate its passage through the House prior to adjournment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Once again I express serious reservations about procedural matters being contained in motions moved under Standing Order 43. In any event, the motion cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity with regard to copies of certain internal documents of the international service of the CBC which have come into my possession and which indicate, among other things, an attempt by the Department of External Affairs to influence and censor CBC Russian language broadcasts critical of the Communist system on such matters as persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union; and a direct attempt by the Department of External Affairs to silence comments by CBC Russian language commentator Dr. F. Yaroshevsky of 30 Judith Drive, Toronto, as outlined in a series of questions on today's Order Paper. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That an immediate parliamentary inquiry be made of the programming of Radio Canada International to countries in eastern Europe, particularly the Soviet Union, for purposes of determining the degree of censorship exercised by the government, in particular by the Department of External Affairs and certain senior CBC personnel, in influencing program content away from criticism of the Communist system,
Soviet mistreatment of Jews, the subjects of politics, economics or religion; and finally, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs be required to apologize publicly on behalf of the government to CBC Russian language commentator Dr. F. Yaroshevsky of 30 Judith Drive, Toronto, for slanderous accusations made against him and subsequently proven false.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion about an urgent matter calling for immediate attention.
Since the information paper issued to members of parliament by CALPA insists that CALPA is not Anti-French but in favour of using a single language, and since CALPA maintains as well in that paper that the use of two languages may cause air accidents and jeopardize air safety, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House urge the government to respond to the very commendable concern of CALPA about safety by establishing French unilingualism in air communications in Canada so as to avoid the hazards which could result from the use of both languages in air communications.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a 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, such a motion cannot be put.

June 29, 1976
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD PROPOSED REVIEW BY BOARD OF HALL REPORT ON CONTRACT OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS GROUP-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that the Anti-Inflation Board has rejected the carefully reasoned judgment of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall on the wage recommendations concerning the Treasury Board and Aircraft Operations group contract and as the AIB has ignored the amended Section S-67 of the AIB regulations which allows increases over the $2,400 ceiling in special cases, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to instruct the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board to implement an immediate review of the Justice Hall report and provide a complete written statement to the Treasury Board and the striking aircraft safety inspection group on their findings.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the growing number of industrial disputes which have been witnessed in this country, particularly in the public sector, since the establishment of wage and price controls, will the Prime Minister advise whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation governing industrial relations following the summer recess?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to bring back before the House the matter of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, but I do not plan to go into any detail. This, as the House knows, is the kind of thing that is dealt with at the time of the Speech from the Throne.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Inasmuch as the CLC seems to have committed itself to a withdrawal from the existing consultative mechanism with regard to establishing government labour relations in this country, at least until the control period ends, what sort of consultative arrangements are being considered by the government during this period?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must disagree with the premise of the hon. member's question. The CLC has been meeting with the government. We had a meeting about ten days ago. We are planning one in about another ten days for a whole day and perhaps even two days. Therefore, there is certainly an indication by the CLC that they are interested in discussing with the government the future of this country.


ALLEGED DISCREPANCY BETWEEN MINISTER'S FIGURES AND OFFICIAL STATISTICS ON MAN-DAYS LOST AS RESULT OF STRIKES
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. As man-days lost as a result of strikes are up to two million in the first three months of 1976, representing an increase of 60 per cent over 1975, and as the Minister of Labour said in the House on June 17 that man-days lost are decreasing, can the Minister of Finance explain the discrepancy between the figures and opinions of the Minister of Labour and those of official government statistics?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring the hon. member's argument to the attention of my colleague.


William Gordon Ritchie: Has the minister any statistics to bear out the claim made by the Minister of Labour that the antiinflation program has substantially reduced the number of man-days lost in view of the figures for the first quarter which indicate that the opposite is the case?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me the hon. member is making the same argument over again.


MERCURY POISONING-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON MONITORING OF HEALTH OF NATIVES IN AREA AFFECTED
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and supplementaries for the ministers of manpower and environment. Bearing in mind the inadequacy of fast responses by the government to the dangers of mercury poisoning, and now that the presence of the dread Minamata disease has been confirmed in the Grassy Narrows Indian Reserve for the first time in Canada, I ask the minister whether the federal government is now prepared to conduct an intensive and ongoing monitoring of the health of the people in the area affected, including regular blood tests, so that individuals may be advised of the danger of mercury poisoning as it pertains to their own case histories?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member does not seem aware of all the measures which have been taken already during recent months in this field in the whole Grassy Narrows area. Those measures have already
June 29, 1976

been implemented for several months with teams of medical experts and the tests carried on those Indians will go on extensively. In fact, the cases identified up to this day were discovered following the policy which was recommended and implemented by the government.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Reginald Cyril Symes: The minister knows full well that those are only random samplings. I should like to direct a question, now, to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that the mercury-polluted English river/Wabigoon river system is an interprovincial waterway, will the minister now acknowledge federal responsibility and begin discussions with the Ontario and Manitoba governments preparatory to declaring the area a water quality controlled zone under the provision of the Canada Water Act, or, in the event of failure to get provincial co-operation, take unilateral action as the Act empowers him to do?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that we are constantly trying to eliminate mercury from the environment. We have established standards in this respect. We continue to do so and keep cooperating with the provinces to eliminate not only mercury but PCBs as well. If, in this specific instance, there is something which could be done, I shall be very happy to.


MANPOWER
Reginald Cyril Symes: I see the buck-passing still goes on. I will try once more. In view of the fact that the Indians living on the White Dog and Grassy Narrows . reserves depend on fishing and guiding for employment and that mercury pollution is destroying not only their health but also their livelihood, I would ask the Minister of Manpower what special plans he has to provide alternative employment for those residents who are desperately in need of assistance?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: We have had some discussion with the government of Ontario in connection with special employment programs for that whole area. The program would extend not only to those directly affected but to others in the area, and I expect to announce some specifics in the not too distant future.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister concerning the important meeting just held in Puerto Rico. I am happy that this time Canada was invited to this economic summit and, Mr. Speaker, this is to the credit of the Prime Minister and of the Canadian people.
My question is this: can the Prime Minister tell the House what will be the impact of those talks on the domestic administrative policies of the country and also whether he made any commitment on behalf of Canada towards the chiefs of state he met?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no decision which could affect the domestic administration of any country, including Canada, was taken. We exchanged views, statistics and data which enabled the countries represented to try developing a common knowledge of economic issues and freedom problems in general.


POSSIBILITY OF SENDING ADDITIONAL FOOD SUPPLIES TO THIRD WORLD
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether during those discussions someone raised the possibility of allocating new funds for additional food aid to be sent to countries in the Third World?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was a rather lengthy discussion on aid projects for the Third World. Each country participated in this discussion. The Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs also spoke at length as co-chairman of the conference on economic co-operation in Europe which is being held in Paris, but there were no precise commitments made by any leader of participating governments. Of course Canada has played a major role in encouraging member countries to help Third World nations.


INCOME TAX
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and is related to the alleged massive tax fraud involving 200 different companies and $400 million uncovered by a journalist for the Montreal Gazette and which was the subject of a radio interview on the CBC. Can the minister inform the House whether his department is investigating this

June 29, 1976
Oral Questions
allegation, whether charges are contemplated, and what generally is the department doing to plug this loophole?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the figures cited by the hon. member are impressive, but once again I must plead the confidentiality of any investigation that we may be conducting. It seems to me to be appropriate, if we are conducting an investigation, that if an individual is found to be innocent the matter should not be reported. If it turns out that the individual is guilty, then that should become public information and it seems to me that that is the time to make a public disclosure.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it is reported that most of these firms have been allowed to make voluntary disclosures of their attempted fraud, can the minister advise the House whether the investigation to which he makes reference was underway before the voluntary disclosures were accepted by the tax department, or was the investigation launched after the disclosures were made?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I did not say there was an investigation; the hon. member suggested that there was an investigation taking place. I should make it quite clear that no one is permitted to make a voluntary disclosure or to abide by our rules under that heading if it comes about as the result of an investigation that is being conducted. So, if we initiate an investigation, no one is afterwards permitted to make a voluntary disclosure. I might say that that is comparatively new. There was a court case in which the department was reprimanded for not taking this action and we do take that action nowadays. If it comes about as the result of our investigations, no voluntary disclosure is permitted.


Frank Oberle: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister please tell the House whether there is or is not an investigation into this alleged massive tax fraud, which is obviously a contravention of every rule of the tax department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is precisely the question that the minister answered in the first instance.


Frank Oberle: No, Mr. Speaker, he did not.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week I asked him a question about restrictions that had been imposed without notice either before or after passports has been issued to members of parliament, and possibly to others, in respect of certain countries. The minister said that he would look into the matter and give an explanation if possible.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the matter and it is true that the practice has been established of indicating in special and diplomatic passports that these passports are not valid for entry into four countries. These are countries which at the present time Canada does not recognize. It is not a new practice; it was applied, for example, in the case of East Germany which at that time Canada did not recognize.
I believe that the holders of both diplomatic passports and special passports usually hold these passports because they are on public business or because they hold a special position and expect, in accordance with international practice, to receive better than normal treatment at the hands of the host government. Since these passports constitute a signal to the host government which might be construed as a form of recognition, this particular insertion is placed in the passport. Obviously it is not my intention to restrict the travel of members to any country they may wish to visit, of course, with an ordinary passport. That is the explanation for the practice.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister why this is now done surreptitiously without notice either before the passports are called in, allegedly for endorsation that a member is part of an official delegation, or following, and why this endorsation is put in somewhere at some page without any indication given afterwards? The minister did not even know this when I asked him the question last week! In addition, would the minister give an explanation in regard to the case of Taiwan which, when this government cravenly and in a bootlicking way decided to kowtow to Mainland China, altered the status, and members on the government side and on the opposition side-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Members on the government side and on the opposition side have received no special consideration. This has been the case since the time the government decided to withdraw recognition of the very well established government in Taiwan. Why is this being done now and what is the rationale, or is this just some special kowtowing that is going on?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not special kowtowing; it is the result of the circumstances which I have already explained. This is a policy that applies to others, not only to Taiwan, a country we do not recognize. We do not have a two-China policy and that has been a well established element of Canadian foreign policy. We cannot attempt to provide recognition to Taiwan indirectly which we withdrew formally in extending recognition to China. That is the basis of the policy, and it applies as well to Rhodesia and Namibia. It is based upon a precedent that has already been established. I am sympathetic to any point of view the hon. member may wish to make in respect of members of parliament whose mobility and rights I have no intention of disrupting or impeding in any way, consistent-
An. hon. Member: You have.
June 29, 1976


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not at all. I do not intend that, consistent with the fact that Canada does not intend, through this form or method, to provide indirect recognition to any of these regimes.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in light of earlier statements by the Minister of Transport to the effect that there would be an announcement on June 1 indicating whether the airlines would be compelled to pay full security costs at MOT airports across Canada, I would ask the minister whether consultations with interested parties have come to a conclusion, and will a statement be forthcoming?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a conclusion was arrived at, and is subject to some further consultation, that reduces the figure significantly from the earlier one proposed; I believe to 20 cents from 65 cents.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the difficulty being experienced by war veterans allowance recipients in earning a little more income to provide for the necessities of life, will the Minister of Veterans Affairs advise the House whether any consideration is being given to increasing the casual earnings allowable by a single or married recipient of war veterans allowance?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member will recall that this was looked at approximately a year and a half ago as well as three years ago. It is now one of the things to be looked at again, and we are doing this at present in my department.
[DOT] (M30)


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would give in a little more detail the amount of the increase in the casual earnings he is considering, in view of inflation in the last few years.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the present amount is $1,000 of allowable earnings for a single person and $1,500 per married couple. I would prefer not to make figures known today until we have a little more study on them.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
I would like to ask the minister if he could give the House a progress report on the discussions and negotiations with Quebec authorities about the renewal of the agreement on the development of the lower St. Lawrence, of Gaspe and of the Magdalen Islands and if we can expect this agreement will be reached as soon as possible?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question of the hon. member by telling him first that we are not negotiating a renewal of the agreement itself. In fact, it is a new agreement under the general development agreement we signed with the province of Quebec more than two years ago.
As a matter of fact, we are negotiating this agreement. The civil servants at both levels of government met on several occasions. My counterpart and myself will soon have another meeting to evaluate the work accomplished, take some decisions and give a certain direction to our civil servants.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the government intends to proceed tomorrow with the deportation of a Chilean refugee identified as Sergio Peres who was active in Chile, both in the trade union movement and politically as a supporter of the murdered President Salvador Allende, and in view of the fact that such a respected international observer as George Cram, the overseas development project officer of the Anglican Church of Canada, has said that Peres "could certainly be detained, could well be tortured", and that he personally had interviewed many political prisoners in Chilean jails who had less political involvement than Mr. Peres, could the minister postpone any action in this matter until he can be thoroughly acquainted with the dangers faced by Mr. Peres should he be returned to Chile?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the case just came to my attention this morning. I have examined it to the extent that I note that the gentleman's application for refugee status was, of course reviewed by the interdepartmental committee and found not to be valid by that organization. It was then referred to the Immigration Appeal Board for second review and the refugee claim was not upheld. Having said that, and having just had the opportunity to alert myself to the situation, I will look at the case and as

June 29, 1976
Oral Questions
the hon. member suggests satisfy myself that it is the proper course of action.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In answering a question put by the hon. member for Richmond the Prime Minister indicated that the Puerto Rican meeting was an exchange of ideas and certain data. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate if he picked up any idea when he was in Puerto Rico as to why United States inflation rate is down to almost 6 per cent currently while ours is still almost 9 per cent with controls?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not have to go to Puerto Rico to know the proper answer to that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Every informed member of this House knows that the Canadian economy was out-performing the United States economy very substantially, including the year 1975, when there was a recession of some 6 per cent in the United States and in Canada there was a GNP growth of only minus one. So there is a different phasing between the two economies. We did indeed talk a great deal about that and the dangers to economies if they tried to recuperate and pull each other into an excessive stimulation which would lead to increased inflation. This whole problem was discussed and of course I informed them about the Canadian position.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RESULTS OF PUERTO RICAN CONFERENCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could indicate whether he intends to make a statement concerning the conference and if not why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I intend to table at the proper moment, when orders of the day are called, the communique in both languages which was issued at the end of the conference yesterday. On the question of why not make a statement, I am following my habit of not making any statement after my travels abroad because I find that generally they are counter productive.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance who also attended the Puerto Rican conference. I am wondering if he could indicate to what extent our lines of credit to England and Italy have been called upon and has there been any request for the lines to be increased?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there was no request for an increase in Canada's stand-by credit to the United Kingdom. There has been a drawing on this but I have been advised by the Governor of the Bank of Canada that it has been the general practice not to indicate the amounts drawn at any time specifically on this particular credit. There was no further discussion about extension of credit to the United Kingdom, although there was extensive discussion about the balance of payments problems that Italy faces at the present time and some consideration of the possible actions that might be taken in the international monetary fund to assist in this regard.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to know first, who made the order to deny to members the use of passports wherever they choose to go. Was it done by the cabinet or was it done by officials in his department, because it is a very serious interference with the principle of the charter of the United Nations that there shall be free egress and ingress. I should like to know on what this practice which is being carried out is based?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman will certainly be assured to know there is absolutely no effort to contravene the charter relating to entry or exit from any country. All that has happened has been that diplomatic passports, and passports of a special category, are not valid for entry to those countries under the present action that has been taken. Hon. members are free to travel, as are other citizens on ordinary passports which do not imply a possibility of recognition to regimes which Canada does not recognize.
The right hon. gentleman has asked under what authority. The special and diplomatic passports are issued under the authority of Order in Council 1956/1373 dated September 13, 1956 and regulations can be made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs under that particular Order in Council or administrative action can be taken by officials of the department under delegated authority. It is the latter category under which this action was taken. I am presently reviewing the action in light of the comments made by hon. members.
June 29, 1976


John George Diefenbaker: The other day the minister did not know of the existence of this at all. He looked very abashed and unusually suavely silent. If he is looking into it, he must be convinced there is something wrong. I would ask him whether he has been so convinced because this is a dastardly interference with Canadian rights.


REASON DEPARTMENT CENSORING RUSSIAN LANGUAGE BROADCASTS OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it is on the subject of CBC international programming to the Soviet Union. Will the minister tell the House why his department has been attempting to influence the nature of such programming, and particularly why his department played a part in censoring a broadcast by the CBC Russian language commentator Dr. F. Yaroshevsky of Toronto reporting on a demonstration in Toronto against the mistreatment of Jews in the Soviet Union?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my department is not responsible for the operations of the CBC. We have absolutely no authority nor control over the broadcasting policy of that corporation.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Thomas Charles Cossitt: The minister honestly misunderstood my question. I realize his department has no authority over the CBC, but it was his department that committed the act to which I have referred, and that is why I directed the question to him.
I will direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State responsible for the CBC. Is the minister prepared to explain to the House why CBC radio international personnel have been forbidden to give background information on the news or to comment on any political or economic matters, and especially why persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union has been specifically censored from certain broadcasts at the request of the Department of External Affairs?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any of that, but I will be pleased to look into it.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who was behind the curtains a while ago.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Ring the bell, he will return.


Donald W. Munro: Yes. Well, I am waiting for him.


An hon. Member:: He is coming.


Donald W. Munro: Well!


An hon. Member:: You could put the question to his parliamentary secretary.


Donald W. Munro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for telling him to come back.
He has already been asked several questions in the House-at least four if memory serves-concerning decisions taken about collective bargainings in the public sector, granting salary increases to several professional groups, such as biologists, sociologists, statisticians and agronomists. Some of those decisions were deferred and others referred to the Anti-Inflation Board. I would like to know whether the minister has inquired about the matter, because the employees involved have been waiting up to 12 months for the results of those decisions.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, according to the information which I have obtained, in the case of biologists-and that question was put to me yesterday by the member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta-their retroactive payment, in accordance with the agreement, was mailed to them and they all have now been paid. As for the others, I have no information about them.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the minister be prepared to make an investigation on the other questions and report to the House? Some of them have been waiting for 12 months.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, every time there has been an interim agreement, I asked my officials to expedite retroactive payments to civil servants. I have been told that, generally, this is done within 90 days, as required by law. I must admit that in the case of biologists, following the agreement with the union concerned and the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board, the delay did extend beyond 90 days and I asked my officials to make sure this does not happen again.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. In light of the minister's statement on June 15 in which he announced the imposition of a new blue tongue quarantine in British Columbia, what steps is the minister taking to ensure that the federal veterinarians responsible for the program will not go on strike?

June 29, 1976
Oral Questions


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, no agreement has yet been signed with the veterinarians but the minister will be making a statement soon on the subject.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Has the Minister of Agriculture passed along to the President of the Treasury Board his views concerning the importance of these veterinarians so that the latter might reassess his pathetic 8 per cent wage increase offer to these underpaid veterinarians?


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture always passes his comments on to the President of the Treasury Board.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: My question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware of the fact that the last published annual report of his department was for the years 1973-74? In the committee, on May 12, six weeks ago, I asked the deputy minister what the status of the 1974-75 annual report was and he replied it was due and was presently at the printers. I am sure the minister is aquainted with the situation. Could he confirm that the report is in fact at the printers and advise us as to when we might receive it?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the hon. member would consult the records of the House, he would discover that the Clerk of the House has received the 1974-75 report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On April 2, as recorded at page 12406 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with regard to the possibility of opening a trade mission in Taipei so that we could assist Canadian exporters to improve their trade opportunities in that area. The minister referred the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Republic of China's foreign trade during the first four months of this year totalled $4,500 million, when rated in U.S. dollars-an increase of $1,300 million, or almost 40 per cent more than during the same four months in 1975, has the minister met with members of his party concerning the possibility of securing some of this increased trade, as promised in his reply recorded at page 12407 of Hansard; if so, what are the results of this discussion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at present we have no intention of opening a trade mission in Taiwan, not only because of the general political situation but because of the announcement that was made by the Prime Minister to the effect that for the next period of time no new posts would be opened abroad.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. On June 22 I asked the Acting Prime Minister about what might be called the possible revival of the deal with Lockheed for the purchase of Orions, and he replied that the government had received an offer. In another place it was disclosed that Lockheed had said that the offer required to be made definite by the end of June. As the end of June is now very close, and I also hope that the end of the session is fairly close, will the minister tell the House what is the status of this offer and whether a statement with regard to the negotiations will be made in the House before it recesses?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the new proposal has been received from the Lockheed company. It is now being studied by cabinet. I do not expect that a decision will be announced before the House rises, but I cannot of course be certain of that because I do not know exactly when the House will rise.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I put this question by way of a suggestion to the minister? Even if the deal is not completed, in view of all the surrounding circumstances he should make a statement to the House about how the negotiations are progressing before the House recesses.


James Armstrong Richardson: I will be pleased to answer any questions, as always. I have already done that.


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF PROGRAM AIMED AT REDUCING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and it arises out of an answer he gave to a question I put to him yesterday concerning his plans for advertising of alcoholic beverages. In view of the fact that Canadian cigarette manufacturers initiated the practice of putting a health warning on packages of tobacco on April 1, 1972, and in view of the fact that the minister's own department made a press release on January 2, 1975 and again on January 7, 1976 containing figures that indicated the number of smokers has remained exactly the same

June 29, 1976

since the beginning of this warning program, would the minister care to revise his grossly arrogant and flippant answer of one day ago?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the answer is not at all, for the good reason that if the hon. member refers to the press release in question, he shall realize that if the trend which was apparent several years ago had been maintained, there would be in Canada 500,000 smokers more than there are now. Moreover he would realize that during the same period the number of smoking adult males decreased by 12 per cent. Therefore I would suggest that he look very carefully at the press releases issued on the subject.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would agree to look at his own figures. He would see that the trend has not changed since 1972.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the budget for Statistics Canada has increased substantially this year, and in view of the criticism by Canadians who either refused to answer the complicated questions on the 1976 census forms or are questioning the necessity of such an intricate and costly system of instructions, particularly relating to agriculture, can the minister unequivocally assure Canadians that there will be benefits in return for this inconvenience and added expenditure?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that there has to be very definite benefit from this kind of survey and this kind of census. The statistics are clearly necessary in the judgment not only of Statistics Canada but of this House and all the other bodies that have asked for and have from time to time endorsed this kind of census taking. I am not sure if I got the real point of what the hon. member was asking, however.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that census takers who worked in earlier years as well as in the current census say that in their opinion the previous method was much superior, will consideration be given to reverting to the interview system on a ten-year basis rather than the five-year, or to, having the census taken in conjunction with the provincial or municipal census to avoid duplication and thereby cut administrative costs?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the most I can do at the moment is to say that I will be glad to consider it. I think the fact that it is being done on a five-year basis, at least to
Oral Questions
some degree in order to supplement the ten-year census, is an indication that a great many people including literally thousands of representations from outside, argue that the ten-year time span was too broad. I will be glad to take it as a representation and give the hon. member an answer from the people at Statistics Canada.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in respect of the tardiness of cheques, both for old age benefits and supplementary benefits, which are now late. This is said to be as a result of a foul up in the computer. Have the brain surgeons in the computer field been able to put this thing back together and when can the beneficiaries expect to receive the cheques up to date and in proper amounts?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this case to my attention. If it is a situation that is particular to his region or riding, I will be glad to look at it specifically, but I was under the impression that the problems which cropped up a few months ago had been solved for some time. If there are specific cases the hon. member would like to bring to my attention I will be glad to examine them carefully and see that measures are taken to correct them.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE IN CASE OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS GROUP
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister contact the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board on behalf of the aircraft operations group, many of whom are still on strike, as the minister must be aware, because their contract was negotiated in good faith and by mutual agreement with the government? I wonder if the minister is also aware that in Toronto alone 600 aircraft are grounded because certificates cannot be issued?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, parliament has enacted the Anti-Inflation Act for the purpose of controlling prices and also incomes, in particular in the public sector. I would have to say that the view I have generally taken is that parties who feel aggrieved by the decision of the board should resort to the procedures that parliament has provided. I, as minister, should not deal with the various individual decisions affecting parties by directing the manner in which the Board should dispose of the matter.

June 29, 1976
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


REQUEST FOR MORE INSPECTORS AT TORONTO TO TAKE CARE OF BACKLOG OF WORK
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. I hope when the office is open again the minister will give consideration to having more inspectors in Toronto to look after the backlog of aircraft that are grounded. Perhaps they could be transferred temporarily from some of the more remote offices where they are not overworked.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to be able to do that but unfortunately backlogs exist almost everywhere. I hope when we get back to normal operation some provision may be made for some extra time and special efforts in order to catch up the backlog.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact that the Canadian government is said to have received a report from the United States government concerning the killing of Anna Mae Aquash in the United States, can the minister tell the House whether such a report has been received and if so, what information was contained in it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, from the State Department we received a report prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the circumstances surrounding the autopsy and identification of the person in question, as well as an explanation of the procedures that were employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. From memory I can recall that the Federal Bureau of Investigation said that it did use procedures in the identification which were clearly used in similar circumstances and of course at a time when it was impossible to know the identification and obviously the citizenship of the person in question. Subsequently, Anna Mae Aquash turned out to be Canadian. Nevertheless, at that time that fact was not known to the United States authorities. In addition I should comment that the United States authorities are continuing their investigation into the circumstances of what is now considered to be death by foul play.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question and may I first thank the minister for his answer. The Mountain States Regional Office of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, an agency which reports to the President and Congress on matters relating to human rights, recently stated in an internal memo that there is sufficient credibility in reports reaching that office to cast doubts on the propriety of actions of the FBI and to raise questions about the impartiality and focus of their concern. In view of this and the fact that the minister stated the United

States Attorney General has launched an investigation into this incident, can the minister inform the House whether he is aware of the status of the investigation at the present time and if the Canadian government has received assurance from the United States authorities that the findings will be made available to this government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to advise the hon. member on the state of the investigation but I shall follow up the second part of the question.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services? In view of the costly blunders made by his department in the LRPA program to date, can the minister tell the House what steps he has taken to reorganize his department? Specifically who is the department's representative on the LRPA management board, who is the replacement for Mr. Stopforth and at the same time, could he tell the House what Mr. Stopforth's new duties are?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot see the need to accept the suggestion of the hon. member. As for the representative of the department on the board of management, he was appointed by the deputy minister according to the normal procedure.



ROYAL ASSENT

['Mr. Speaker, I am sure all my colleagues on both sides of the House will want to join me to welcome and acknowledge the presence in our gallery of an official delegation from Togo, the Hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ayi Hunlede; the Minister of Economy and Finance, Mr. Kodjo and the Minister of the Plan, Commerce, Industry and Transport, Mr. Dogo.\nPensions']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
June 29, 1976
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 29th day of June, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.

Order, please. With respect to the order of the day, hon. members will notice that by special order of the House a copy of a special addendum to today's order paper has just been distributed. It is a collection of report stage amend-
June 29, 1976

ments on Bill C-84. This one copy has been available even though by special order the deadline for filing such amendments or motions was noon today. One copy of it has been made available to each party and as other copies are made available they, too, will be distributed. We hope to publish an order paper in proper form, despite its volume and the shortness of notice, as quickly as possible. I hope hon. members will bear in mind the shortness of time and importance of the subject and will join me in recognizing that the staff, who worked most diligently to produce this document in a short space of time, deserve our congratulations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I always hesitate to rise on a point of order to question Your Honour's ruling, and I do so reluctantly today. My point of order relates to the question I asked the Minister of National Revenue in which I referred to serious allegations regarding a massive tax fraud. If the allegations are correct, it would be cheaper for Canadian taxpayers today to defraud the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member's point of order relates to his inability to be recognized for a third question, he has lots of company in that regard today. If his point of order is to that effect, I will be glad to hear it. But if it is simply a disagreement with the answer given by the minister, it does not constitute a point of order.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, perhaps a question of privilege might better identify my concern. I asked the minister whether an investigation into this serious matter is under way, and the minister, in answering my question, did not say whether such investigation was under way. Surely to God it is the right and privilege of members of this House and the Canadian public to know whether such an investigation is under way. I see the minister has left the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The substance of the ruling was that the hon. member had asked the question and received a response from the minister. If the hon. member is not satisfied with the answer to the question, that is a matter of disagreement.



Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all my colleagues on both sides of the House will want to join me to welcome and acknowledge the presence in our gallery of an official delegation from Togo, the Hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ayi Hunlede; the Minister of Economy and Finance, Mr. Kodjo and the Minister of the Plan, Commerce, Industry and Transport, Mr. Dogo.
Pensions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table a copy of the joint declaration issued yesterday at the conclusion of the summit meeting held in Puerto Rico on June 27 and 28.


PENSIONS
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table two copies, in both official languages, of the report on private disability retirement and survivor programs, submitted by the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee in May 1976.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, in his question, managed to make two statements which, if left on the record, would not be according to fact. I point out, first, that we do not have in Canada a demonstrated case of Minamata disease; there is a suspected case which is not yet confirmed. The Indian concerned is being examined today in Winnipeg and we will have a report on that subject later.
Second, the survey made in Indian reserves is not a random survey. The two reserves concerned have a population of 954. In early May we had already examined over 800 people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Frequently I recognize opposition members to give a minister the opportunity to correct an impression which may be left on the record. The first part of the minister's point of order surely may have something to do with that, that is to say, whether or not there has been an established case of the particular disease mentioned. The second part was simply an amplification of his answer and ought not to be permitted at this time.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on the same point of order, I do not know in what kind of hair-splitting the minister is indulging since my question was strictly limited; I was asking whether the ministry is taking blood samples on an ongoing, continuing basis. According to my information, this is not taking place with respect to every individual on the reserves, and I was asking about that.


HALIFAX RELIEF COMMISSION
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies, in both official languages,

June 29, 1976
Business of the House
of what may ultimately be the final report of the Halifax Relief Commission.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest a change in the notice of motion appearing on today's order paper at page VII in my name. There seems to be a typographical error in it which changes the meaning of the proposed motion. That it is an error is confirmed by a reading of the French version which appears on the opposite side of the page, where "et" appears.
The motion as it is now on the order paper reads, in part:
That any recorded division requested during the consideration of the report stage of the third reading stage of Bill C-84-
Obviously, one should read "or" instead of "of". If that is acceptable, I should like to see if there is unanimous consent to proceed with this motion as it would be amended today. When I put it down on the order paper yesterday, I did not know that we would reach the report stage of Bill C-84 today. That was a subsequent decision of the House. I think it would be desirable, if the House is ready to proceed today, to accept this order so that there is some certainty about the taking of votes both at the report stage and at third reading.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Léonel Beaudoin: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question, therefore, is: Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Allmand, moves:
That any recorded division requested during the consideration of the report stage and the third reading stage-


Some hon. Members:: "Or."


Mr. Speaker:: The text I have here reads "and" However, it is agreed that it should be "or". Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Allmand, moves:
That any recorded division requested during the consideration of the report stage or the third reading stage of Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and other serious offences, shall be held at a time to be fixed by the House leaders, provided that that time shall be not more than one week after the request for the division.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Reynolds:: Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be clear with regard to amendments at the report stage. Is the minister talking about five days for amendments, or will these be voted upon as they come up for approval?


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has been introduced for debate. The hon. member has raised a question. I would assume, by way of answer, that the deferred divisions will likely be dealt with in the usual course with respect to the report stage motions.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up too much time of the House, but it seems that this strips away the whole facade of a free vote on the capital punishment matter. Here we have a motion introduced by the House leader on behalf of the government-


Mitchell William Sharp: On behalf of all parties.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -in respect of a matter that is supposed to be a free vote according to the free will and conscience of individual members. In other words, there is not supposed to be any party discipline. There are not to be any whips on, or any such matter in relation to this bill. I can certainly see an informal arrangement being worked out for the better dealing of the matter in respect of a formal vote on third reading. However, I must request a far more detailed reason in respect of the amendments which may or may not be found in order with regard to the report stage of the matter.
I feel that on a matter that is supposed to be absolutely free of party discipline, and free of party whips, this is a wrong move. The onus should be on the government House leader to indicate in a far more complete way than he usually reports to the House on a procedure such as this. For example, all these matters have to be voted on in respect of the report stage before we can get into third reading.


Mr. Blais:: Of course.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: All right. However, that may unduly delay the rising of the House for the summer recess. Hon. members should think about that. I can see an informal arrangement being worked out for the third reading vote. However, it is a backward step, on an issue as touchy as this, to begin having the party whips or party leaders, no matter what their party, invoking a little bit of discipline in respect of the votes at report stage. Quite frankly, I would like a full explanation before we vote on this motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it was not my understanding that this was a government motion. I thought it came out of discussions that had taken place among the House leaders and that its purpose was simply to make the necessary provision so that neither side would be caught with a snap vote.
Whatever our views may be on Bill C-84, I think we all agree that what we did on second reading was a good idea, namely, that we designate when the vote will take place so that both sides can make sure their supporters are here. The only difference between the proposal in this motion and the proposal we had previously is that the previous one related to only one vote, namely, second reading, but this relates to the votes at the report stage and at third reading.
In response to the point raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, may I point out that under Standing Order 75(11) it is already in the power of the Speaker to defer any or all recorded votes on report stage amendments. I realize there are now 46 amendments. If they are all allowed, that will accumulate a rather massive number of votes. However, I suspect there will not be 46 recorded votes. Let us say there will be three, four, five, or
June 29, 1976

whatever the number may be. The Speaker already has authority to defer the taking of those votes until the debate at report stage is over.
As I understand it, this motion says-and this is what we were talking about as House leaders-that when that point is reached, when the debate at the report stage is over, the House leaders will meet and suggest a day, not more than a week later, when those votes should be taken. After the report stage comes third reading and we go through the same process again. Quite frankly, I do not see anything sinister or out of the way about it. When the four House leaders meet, we represent both views of the question of capital punishment. This motion represents what both sides would like, namely, a clear understanding as to when the votes will be taken. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept this motion.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was quite right when he indicated that this was a completely free vote situation. I have said before that as far as this party is concerned, that is so, making no comment about any other party in the House of Commons.
As opposition House leader, I have felt a certain duty to the members of my caucus. That duty, in terms of a free vote situation, is to ensure, to the greatest possible degree that I can, that members who have business elsewhere, regardless of what their position might be with respect to legislation before the House, will know when they are to vote. This is a way of bringing certainty to the vote, not to end or foreshorten discussions, as you will notice from reading the motion, as to the time of the vote. The purpose is to benefit all members of the House, particularly my colleagues.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on this because it marks a very important milestone with regard to what is becoming an established precedent in the House of Commons, namely, the forecasting of when votes will occur. It makes it easier for each one of us to represent our constituents. We can play golf. We can be away. We know when the vote is coming. I read from time to time in the press that parliament has lost its aura, that it no longer really matters, that is has become humdrum, that no one attends, that no one is interested. The purpose of the bells ringing is to summon members to vote. Members are supposed to be within the call of the bell. That is the principle. It is your job, Mr. Speaker, to ring the bells until all members who can possibly be summoned have been summoned, and a vote is then taken. We shall abide by whatever the House decides on this issue, but I believe I would be remiss in my duty if I allowed this matter to pass as an accepted principle.
That great expert on the rules who has spoken-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -believes he is a protector of parliament. How many times have parliamentarians given him that credit? I hope the good Lord strikes me dead if I ever do. He believes he is a protector of parliament, yet in his
Business of the House
endorsement of this motion he is in some small way contributing to the erosion of the importance of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have watched this practice grow in the last three or four years, this postponing of votes to deal with amendments. It is one which, for example, links my amendment with five or six others, something which detracts from its importance; it becomes one of a hodgepodge of amendments on which votes are taken. If parliament is to regain any importance in the minds of those who sit here, and in the minds of the people, votes must be recorded with respect to these amendments. It is an important part of a member's duty. If this process of erosion continues, before too long there will be proxy voting in the House of Commons. It would be easier that way. Members would not need to bother to go to Ottawa at all; they could just send in a signed statement.
As I say, I will abide by the wish of the House on this issue, as will all members, but I cannot allow this point of order to pass without putting on record my view that it is a contribution to the erosion of the importance of parliament and of our parliamentary system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I, too, would like to take exception to this proposed motion. In addition to the arguments which have been advanced by several of my hon. friends in the opposition, I would point out that it would be most unfortunate if you, Mr. Speaker, were to follow this procedure during report stage, because many of the amendments which will be before us are interrelated and it might well happen that if a particular amendment were carried, further amendments would not need to be debated. In the long run, an arrangement of this type might even delay the proceedings, rather than expedite them. This is a dangerous precedent and I do not think it is called for in the circumstances. Surely members who are interested in this debate should be in their place ready for a vote, whenever that vote might come up.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, to explain my approval of the special order put forward by the government leader, I have to say that my understanding is that there will be a vote at report stage and another no more than five days after the conclusion of the debate on third reading of Bill C-84. I am not speaking on behalf of my colleagues since this will be a free vote, but I should like to say that it would be better if we knew when the vote on third reading and the vote at report stage will be held.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta has already spoken in the debate, although it was a very short speech. He might have been under the impression he was raising a point of order rather than making a speech on a debatable motion. In any event, if he is to speak now, unanimous consent will be necessary. Is there such consent?

June 29, 1976
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
And more than five members having risen:


John Douglas Reynolds: I merely wish to support the position taken by the hon. member for Crowfoot. Members from British Columbia will be here next week and they will be listening every day to speeches made on the report stage and third reading of this important bill. They will not be in their ridings; they will be attending and voting on this bill. I see one difficulty here. When we reach report stage it will be necessary to give members notice to enable them to get here. What shall we do between-times before we reach the debate on third reading? Maybe the bill will be defeated at the report stage. I shall vote against this proposition.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, this is partly for clarification somewhat along the lines mentioned by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham relating to the various amendments which might be brought forward either at report stage, which we now have, or at third reading. Does this involve deferred votes for individual amendments during the report stage, or just on third reading?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, allow me to make one or two very simple points. First of all, in support of the House leaders of the other parties in their statements that this was a proposal put forward as a result of discussion among the House leaders, it was not specifically a government proposal but it was one put forward on behalf of all the House leaders who felt, as I did, that it would be undesirable to have snap votes without notice on a measure which is not a government bill in the ordinary sense because no question of confidence is involved.
The views of members are being sought as individuals, not as members of parliament, and that is why this sort of provision is being made, just as it was on second reading. It would, of course, be possible that any of the amendments at the report stage could change the whole nature of the proposal which is being debated in the House, so the voting at the report stage is almost as crucial as the vote on third reading. That is why we have had to include report stage amendments as well as the vote on third reading. We considered this matter at some length, and the conclusion we reached is one which is, in my view, irrefutable.
May I say, in response to the hon. member for Crowfoot, that as far as I know I have not been party to a proposal of this kind in relation to an ordinary government bill. This is a special procedure which relates to a measure which is of a different character, one in which each member has an equal interest. It is not a question of partisan support or party loyalty, but a matter of individual conscience, and for this reason I hope the House will support the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is upon the motion of Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Allmand, who has moved that any recorded division requested during the consideration of the report stage or the third reading stage of Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and other serious offences, shall be held at a time to be fixed by the House leaders, provided that that time shall be not more than one week after the request for the division.
In line with the proceedings adopted at second reading, which seemed to meet with the approval of members on all sides of the House because of the special nature of the vote, the vote was taken in a special manner at second reading, it would seem that we should take our votes at this stage in the same manner. I would therefore ask all those in the first row to my right to please rise.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the result of the change in the time of voting, there seems to be some confusion. I should like to indicate to the House that we will be voting this evening, at 8 p.m., on Bill C-68.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: Here's Mitch.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to welcome the government House leader back to the fold. It is obvious, from the vote, that he would have been the only one to have voted against the motion, and therefore, because of the freedom that was so obvious on the other side, he was left outside, behind the curtains. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be a disposition in the House to consider taking now the vote which would be postponed until eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The status of the vote at eight o'clock this evening is enshrined in a House order which was made last night. I wish to make it clear that really there is no procedure even for seeking the unanimous consent for any departure from this order. I think it would be contrary to our procedures to even ask for this at this moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the order for the vote to take place this evening was made after much consultation and after certain hon. members had made plans.. We do not wish to see it changed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the House that we are still in routine proceedings; we are still on the taking of motions. We have yet to take questions on the order paper to finalize routine proceedings, following which we will proceed to orders of the day, which will bring about the calling of the report stage of Bill C-84.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we proceed much further, I wonder if the government House leader, or you, Mr. Speaker, could explain the motion on which we just voted. Exactly what will take place, and how?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As I understand it, all amendments accepted by the House will be dealt with at the report stage. Then, before a vote is held on them, they will be set aside and we will debate third reading of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think we should get into a discussion on how the proceedings will take place at the report stage of Bill C-84. We will be in the report stage on Bill C-84 in a few minutes. When we come to that point, there can be some clarification, but first of all there will be a point of order on a number of the motions appearing in the order paper. Surely the intended arrangement is to follow the practice in the past of deferring divisions. The difference here is to have them come forward at some agreed time. That will be clarified as we get into the report stage of the bill.


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. 5,110, 5,213, 5,240, 5,241, 5,242, 5,246, 5,399, 5,453, 5,488, 5,502, 5,505, 5,551, 5,554, 5,638, 5,685, 5,689 and 5,695.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Forrestall: What are the major military bases and installations in Atlantic Canada and how many (a) civilian employees (b) regular force members were employed at each in (i) 1967 <ii) 1969 (iii) 1972 (iv) 1975?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) and (b). The major military bases and installations and the number of civilian and military employees at each as of December 31, 1967, 1969, 1972, and 1975 are tabulated by provinces in the following Annexes: Statement A-Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. Statement B-Nova Scotia. Statement C-New Brunswick.

June 29, 1976
Order Paper Questions
1967*
Statement A
1972
Location	Military	Military	Civilian	Military	Civilian	Military	Civilian
Newfoundland							
Argentia	-	-	-	21	-	33	-Cornerbrook	-	-	-	-	1	2	1Gander	163	194	76	347	138	318	112Goose Bay	63	60	7	245	107	214	84Grand Falls	-	-	-	-	-	1	-St. John's	221	197	28	181	56	208	39Prince Edward Island	Charlottetown	12	13	-	31	7	37	8Summerside	1,306	1,028	275	1,038	357	992	307Statement B	1967*	1969	1972	1975	Location	Military	Military	Civilian	Military	Civilian	Military	CivilianNova Scotia	Amherst	2	4	-	5	4	4Antigonish	11	7	-	4	-	2	-Barrington	129	129	57	144	84	131	66Cornwallis	1,081	1,200	371	1,106	623	1,068	483Shearwater/Dartmouth	2,275	2,245	470	1,917	700	1,550	630Debert	104	93	19	97	102	132	92Greenwood	1,981	1,765	376	1,757	555	1,533	431Halifax	4,272	3,327	4,845	3,035	5,188	2,870	4,715Kentville	-	-	-	-	10	6	7Mill Cove	19	144	9	155	33	148	43New Glasgow	14	-	-	-	8	6	2Newport Corners	19	30	-	38	15	33	9Shelburne	161	170	-	58	53	126	49Sydney	171	151	90	176	136	164	103Wolfville	11	6	-	22	-	6	-Ships	4,284	5,075	-	4,212	-	3,427	-Statement C	1967*	1969	1972	1975	Location	Military	Military	Civilian	Military	Civilian	Military	CivilianNew Brunswick	Bathurst	29	5	20	1	21	1Chatham	1,167	1,042	390	1,163	400	988	358Edmunston	-	-	-	-	1	1	1Fredericton	149	64	-	21	38	19	28Gagetown/Oromocto	3,751	3,336	630	3,199	920	2,720	783Moncton	272	283	399	127	484	142	394Renous	-	1	-	4	194	4	123Sackville	14	-	-	4	2	2	1Saint John	79	29	-	51	30	56	23St. Margarets	115	145	2	159	50	173	44
*Note: Civilian Figures are not available for 1967.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Since 1970, did the Department of National Defence hire Canadians to teach overseas and, if so, (a) how many (b) in what countries (c) at what salary range?
2.	Do they have to sign a contract and, if so, for what period?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Yes. (a) and (c).
Year	Numbers of Teachers	Salary Range	1970	102	From $5,985	To $15,7801971	144	6,225	16,1601972	105	6,663	17,2501973	154	7,341	19,3001974	110	7,867	18,8101975	96	8,325	24,6101976	101	Figures not yet	available

June 29, 1976

(b) nine schools in Germany; one school in Belgium; one school in Holland.
2. Yes, two years.


Mr. Forrestall: What companies in Canada does the Department of National Defence consider capable of doing the design work for the ships in the fleet replacement programme now underway?


James Armstrong Richardson: See reply to Question No. 5,241 answered today. The consideration of companies for design work will not be undertaken until the studies of the fleet replacement needs are completed.


Mr. Forrestall: Will the Department of National Defence invite tenders for the ship design work for the fleet replacement programme from Canadian situated firms and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what date are they likely to be sent to such firms?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not known. Studies of the replacement needs of the fleet are still in progress.


Mr. Forrestall: Is the Department of National Defence under any specific instructions to have the design work for the fleet replacement programme done outside Canada and (a) if so, who issued such instructions (b) if not, is DND under any instructions which would deny its ability to invite tenders on design work from Canadian firms?


James Armstrong Richardson: No. (a) Not applicable; (b) No.


Mr. Marshall: What are the provinces and the cost-sharing arrangements under the Department of Transport and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion with regard to highway strengthening programmes or for assistance in reconstruction of the Trans-Canada Highway?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: Nil. DREE has no Highway Strengthening Programme as such, nor does it provide assistance in reconstruction of the Trans-Canada Highway. The Department does assist some provinces in respect to specific highway projects necessary to regional economic development. In so far as Transport Canada is concerned: A Pri-
Order Paper Questions
mary Highway Strengthening Programme is in effect in three provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There is no cost-sharing under this programme as such but an agreement under which the three provinces have increased load limits on the primary highway network to 110,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight, to correspond with prevailing limits in British Columbia and Ontario. In return, the federal government is providing base payments for the three provinces of $78.5 million, spread over five (5) years commencing in fiscal year 1974/75. An additional indexed payment is also made to offset the rising cost of asphalt paving material and placement. A second phase to the programme, if warranted, is expected to be negotiated prior to the end of the first phase. Transport Canada has no assistance programme for the reconstruction of the Trans-Canada Highway.


Mr. Beatty: In 1975, which were the ten countries whose diplomats most often invoked diplomatic immunity to avoid being prosecuted for violations of Canadian law and in how many instances was diplomatic immunity invoked by each of the ten?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The following is the list of the ten Commonwealth and foreign posts in Ottawa whose officers and staff were accused most often in 1975 of violating Canadian law, and the number of instances attributed to each embassy or high commission: Uganda, 611; Nigeria, 328; USSR, 256; Ivory Coast, 226; Arab Republic of Egypt, 212; Gabon, 198; Tunisia, 197; Zaire, 185; Italy, 182; France, 151.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Were three carloads of eggs, imported by CEMA in the week of April 25 to 30, 1976, sent directly to the distributors to whom they were ultimately destined and, if not (a) was the Porter Produce Company paid a handling fee (b) for what reason were they not sent directly, thus avoiding handling fees?
2.	In the past year, has the Porter Produce Company been used as a first receiver for western eggs shipped into Ontario and, if so, how often and how many eggs were involved in each case?
3.	Has the Porter Produce Company received handling fees for eggs imported into Ontario from Western Canada and, if so, what was the amount in each case?
4.	In the past two years, what other companies have been used as first receivers for western eggs shipped into Ontario and, in each case (a) on what date (b) how many eggs were involved (c) what handling fees were paid (d) what (i) was the transportation cost (ii) was the name of the transportation company who shipped the eggs (e) by whom were the transportation costs paid?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. CEMA did not import three carloads of eggs in the week of April 25 to 30, 1976, but the Porter Produce Company imported eggs on behalf of CEMA. (a) Yes; (b) Upon entry to Canada, Revenue Canada allows movement in bond to importer for inspection by Agriculture Canada inspectors prior to official entry into Canada. Eggs are off loaded for inspection and then reloaded for delivery to customers whether in truck load or less-than-truck-load quantities.
14946
June 29, 1976

Order Paper Questions
2.	Yes (a) Respecting Toronto area, Porter has been used most frequently because of his facilities and the service provided. Another dealer has been used when volume moved requires additional capacity for segregation into requirements of final receivers (by grade and by volume). Respecting other areas different first receivers are used; (b) Shipments are by truck load of 1,500 boxes of 15 dozen each.
3.	Yes, 3 cents per dozen for handling case space and re-sorting truckloads into requirements of buyers-the same fee for all first receivers.
4.	Since the appointment of the current General Manager of C.E.M.A., this national agency has had the responsibility of coordinating the sale of Canadian eggs surplus to Canadian table egg requirements in the area of surplus. Since January, 1976, four Ontario firms, in addition to Porter Produce Co., have been used as first receivers. These are Loughcrest, Hallview; McCartney, Ottawa; Bradford Cold Storage, Forrest; Winchester Storage, Winchester. They respectively handled 5, 2, 4 and 4 loads of 22,500 dozen each. A uniform handling fee of 3 cents per dozen was paid to each firm. In each case, the transportation cost of 3'/2-4 cents per dozen was paid by C.E.M.A. The transportation companies used were: Atomic, Mid-West, Quinn, Millar & Brown, and C.P.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Prime Minister aware of the eight column headline which appeared on the front page of The Ottawa Citizen of May 12, 1976 and which reads "Trudeau's Popularity Hits Record Low" and, if so, is it his intention to make a statement concerning it?
2.	Is the Prime Minister or his office (a) in the possession of information indicating the state of the Prime Minister's popularity (b) conducting an investigation into the matter of Prime Ministerial popularity and, if so (i) what has the investigation shown (ii) will all information resulting from such investigations be made public?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. It has always been government policy to comply with the rules and practices of Parliament. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms has for many years been considered to be an authoritative guide in these matters. Citation 171 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne clearly indicates that "in making a question, observations which might lead to debate cannot be regarded as coming within the proper limits of a question".
2. See answer to part 1 above.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many gantry cranes are to be provided at the Jacques Cartier Terminal and at what cost?
2.	(a) Will contracts be placed without first obtaining a long term commitment to use the facility from terminal operators or shipping lines and, if so, will this terminal be the only container terminal in Canada where container cranes are now owned by, or on long term lease to, the user/operator (b) what other examples of similar situations exist in Canada (c) if there is no precedent, what is the justification for the situation at the Jacques Cartier Terminal?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Two container cranes are proposed for the Jacques Cartier Terminal at an approximate total cost of $4,500,000.
2. (a) The Terminal is intended to be operated by the National Harbours Board as a public terminal. The ownership and operation of the cranes are presently under consideration; (b) Other examples of similar situations existing in Canada are as follows: Vancouver, B.C., (Vanterm) Two cranes owned and operated by N.H.B. Vancouver, B.C., (Centennial Pier) One crane owned and operated by N.H.B. Halifax, N.S., One out of three cranes owned by N.H.B. and on long term lease to operators; (c) Not applicable.


Mr. Forrestall: Are any members of the Montreal Port Authority engaged actively in labour management relations at the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth and, if. so, who and for what reason?


Ralph Goodale: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: Yes, Arnold E. Masters discharging his responsibilities as President of the Maritime Employers Association which represents management at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Halifax and Saint John.


Mr. Horner: In regard to the programme announced by the Secretary of State on September 9, 1970, to provide three hundred million dollars to the provinces for bilingualism education in the schools by 1973, how many students in each province took (a) English (b) French courses and, in each case, what was the cost involved?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: (a) English courses
Province
Quebec
(b) French courses
Number of students 1970-71	1971-72	1972-73846,666	854,730	855,900Federal contribution 1970-71	1971-72	1972-73$5,697,495	$6,516,569	$6,016,159

June 29, 1976

Order Paper Questions
Provinces
Number of students
Federal contribution
	1970-71	1971-72
Newfoundland	59,730	62,445Prince Edward Island	14,355	13,122Nova Scotia	72,597	77,812New Brunswick	80,013	76,407Ontario	779,034	809,290Manitoba	101,044	93,803Saskatchewan	84,878	76,401Alberta	138,842	136,579British Columbia	145,851	155,0631972-73	1970-71	1971-72	1972-7367,592	$ 114,841	$ 168,406	$ 185,14613,596	43,641	49,938	46,81474,589	300,782	360,125	340,50172,429	221,680	318,576	294,827814,916	2,797,812	4,388,251	3,876,27292,833	373,805	474,933	415,63768,148	447,797	324,580	350,997130,572	571,137	693,883	582,196135,527	830,545	958,770	769,026


Mr. Bawden: Since 1970, has the Canadian International Development Agency spent or committed funds to support copper production or other copper research in Peru and, if so, in each year, what was the amount of such expenditure?


Monique Bégin: The Canadian International Development Agency has not spent or committed funds to support copper production or other copper research in Peru. However, in 1975, CIDA signed two loan agreements with Peru as follows: (a) a loan of three million dollars to finance a program of pre-investment studies in which Peru is attaching a priority in the polymetallic sector; (b) a loan of five million dollars to be used exclusively for the purchase of Canadian equipment and material. Peru has indicated that it intends purchasing mining equipment in Canada.


Mr. Horner: 1.	How much government money has CUSO received over the past five years?
2.	How many Canadian government employees are in Vientiane, Laos, at the present time?
3.	Is Mr. Peter Royle still employed by CUSO?


Monique Bégin: 1. CIDA grants to CUSO/SUCO over the past five years amount to $37,395,400. Volunteers, $31,205,000; Project Fund, $3,106,000; Education, $226,900; Contracts, $2,857,500.
2.	There are no Canadian Government employees in Vientiane at this time.
3.	Mr. Peter Royle is a volunteer with CUSO working at the Ecole Normale de Vientiane. It is expected that he will be returning to Canada this summer following completion of his work.


Mr. Forrestall: 1 What tonnage by commodity was shipped over Berths 53 and 54 in the Beauport Flats area of the Port of Quebec since 1970?
2. (a) From what source was landfill obtained to create the back-up area for the berths (b) how many cubic yards was required (c) how much per cubic yard did the National Harbours Board pay?


Ralph Goodale: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Dry Bulk, 911,479 tons; Liquid Bulk, 2,163,827 tons; Containers, 129,712 tons; General Cargo, 103,985 tons. Total: 3,309,00.
2. (a) Material dredged in constructing berths and other free sources; (b) 5.8 million yards were used; (c) No amounts were paid to third parties for the purchase of fill as the dredged material was utilized instead of transporting it to a dumping area.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has the CBC applied for extended television coverage under CRTC's accelerated coverage plan in the constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and (a) if so, for which communities (b) if not, on what date do they intend to do so?
2.	Presuming such application will be approved, what necessary work has to be carried out and what equipment is required?
3.	What is the expected date of TV coverage coming on stream for those communities for which application has been made?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The Accelerated Coverage Plan was devised by the CBC and approved by the government. The role of the CRTC in the Plan is to take action on applications submitted by the Corporation. 1. No. (a) Not applicable; (b) During the latter part of 1976 the CBC expects to submit applications for English language television transmitters designed to provide service to the areas around Cow Head, Port Saunders/Hawkes Bay, Portland Creek and Trout River.
2.	Acquisition of land-including surveys; improvements to properties-site clearing, road development, power line construction, etc.; erection of buildings; installation of mechanical equipment; installation of electrical equipment; installation of technical equipment; erection of towers; erection of antennae; erection of transmission lines; transmitter equipment; test and ancillary equipment.
3.	Once the applications have been submitted to the CRTC, the CBC has no jurisdiction in regard to when the applications will be scheduled for a public hearing. Regulations require that a transmitter be put into operation within one year following approval by the CRTC. The Corporation endeavours to meet this time frame or improve upon it.
95 570-45(4

June 29, 1976
Capital Punishment


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Did the Honourable Edgar Benson, P.C., President of Canadian Transport Commission receive a letter from the honourable Member for Kootenay West on April 9, 1976 and a further letter on May 5?
2.	Has the CTC acknowledged or replied to the letters and, if not, can the Commission give an indication as to how long it routinely takes to respond to correspondence from Members of Parliament?


Ralph Goodale: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Yes.
2. The letters were replied to June 4, 1976. It is not possible to estimate how long it may take to respond to correspondence on a subject (as in the case in point) which bears on questions of jurisdiction and constitutionality.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-94, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1977.
And also, a message informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-93, an act granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1977.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out to the House that in the short time that was available, one motion, motion No. 1, was placed on the special order paper in error. It stands in the name of the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). It was never his intention to move an amendment to delete clause 1 of the bill; therefore, the motion has no status whatsoever and ought simply to be deleted from the order paper. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Rather than renumber all the motions on the order paper, I wonder if we might simply agree that motion No. 1 has been withdrawn and that we will therefore proceed to take the rest of the motions as they are presently numbered, without changing any of the numbers?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The obvious point, before proceeding with all the report stage motions, is that a glance will indicate that a number of them would propose to reinstate or return to the Criminal Code some form of death penalty under different curcumstances or to make amendments which would in some way relate to the death penalty. Before getting into report stage, setting up the amendment for discussion and ordering any discussion and vote, surely the first point the House ought to address itself to, and certainly that the Chair would want to hear argument upon, is whether any amendment-this being a bill which has the effect of eliminating capital punishment from the Criminal Code-which would in fact re-establish capital punishment, in any sense contravenes the principle of the bill. That is the point at issue.
If the Chair were to find an amendment in this way contravene the principle of the bill, obviously the order of arguing and dealing with amendments would be drastically affected. There are so many of them that I would feel it quite proper to call upon any member interested in developing arguments in that respect to do so now. Then perhaps I will have an opportunity to carefully consider such arguments and reserve decision while the House goes on with some other amendment, and I shall deliver the decision as soon as possible.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments, which now amount to 45, one having been deleted, concern the question of the penalty for various kinds of murder-whether the sentence or punishment should be a life sentence or in some cases, in reference to the amendments, the death penalty. I should like, first of all, to develop the argument of whether the amendments are against the principle of the bill. In developing the first argument, may I refer to the title of the bill which is as follows: "Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences". I should like to draw attention to the fact that this bill, like many other bills in reference to part retention and part abolition and abolition or retention, is an amendment to the Criminal Code. The big point in reference to the principle of the bill is in relation to the punishment for murder.
My first point is whether the punishment for certain kinds of murder-whether it be first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or whether it is categorized as capital murder or non-capital murder-should be life imprisonment or the penalty of death. I say that the title of the bill itself, which says "punishment for murder and certain other serious offences" shows that punishment for murder could be life imprisonment, could be a term certain, or could be death, and therefore I say at the outset that it does not change the principle of the bill.
June 29, 1976

I want to refer, first of all, to May's Parliamentary Practice, the eighteenth edition which was issued in 1971, at page 494, the section under the title "Functions of a committee on a bill". Of course, the same rules would apply in reference to amendments in the House. Before I commence on that argument, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the same point was raised by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs who ruled against the amendment saying it was against the principle of the bill. I submit that the first course of the committee or the House is to go through the bill clause by clause, but that only applies in committee itself. The question at report stage-and I am going to ask that question again-is whether substituting the death penalty for life imprisonment is against the principle of the bill. I submit that by having regard to the title of the bill, which is "an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences", moving an amendment in reference to changing the punishment does not change the nature of the bill.
The second argument I should like to bring to Your Honour's attention is that Bill C-84 is not totally an abolition bill. I believe this argument was presented to the committee by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). Under the National Defence Act we still have the death penalty for certain offences, whether Bill C-84 passes or not, so it is not totally an abolitionist bill; it is still partly retentionist.
It is interesting to note, and this will please my good friend, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), that Senator Argue's Bill S-23 presented in the other place, a bill entitled-and it is in order-"an act to amend the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code (total abolition of capital punishment), confirms this position. In other words, Mr. Speaker, my point is that this is not totally an abolitionist bill; it is part retentionist because there are still certain offences under the National Defence Act where the death penalty applies. That was pointed out by Senator Argue in the other place, and that is why he presented Bill S-23. The title of his bill is "an act to amend the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code", which confirm this position. This proves that Bill C-84 is partly a retentionist bill, and therefore amendments are admissible. That is my second argument.
I come to my third argument. I refer the House to Volume V of the Debates of the House of Commons, of 1967. On November 23, 1967, the House was considering Bill C-168, which was partly a retentionist and partly an abolitionist bill. I was a member of the House at that time, and I remember that we treated the bill then under consideration in much the same way as we had treated the previous bill on the subject. We acted according to law, and that law still stands.
The Speaker at that time, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton, who subsequently became a senator, permitted amendments, as becomes obvious if one reads page 4629 of Hansard. For example, he allowed an amendment providing that if a victim who was being raped was murdered, the death penalty should apply. I moved that amendment. It was seconded by Gordon Churchill, who was then a member of the Privy Council and a member of this House.
Capital Punishment
Mr. Speaker allowed the moving of another amendment saying that anyone convicted of murdering a police officer was subject to the death penalty. The reason for that amendment was this: as Your Honour knows, if a police officer or a group of police officers asks a citizen for help and assistance, the citizen must help. Failure to provide help and assistance is an indictable offence.
We moved an amendment to cover a person in that position, because the death penalty applied to the convicted murderer of a policeman or prison warden. I maintained at that time that if a person is acting as a police officer or warden, the same penalty should apply to his murderer. Those amendments were allowed to be put by Mr. Speaker Alan Macnaughton. If the Speaker allowed those amendments to that bill which was partly retentionist, partly abolitionist, I say that Your Honour ought to allow amendments to this bill which is also partly abolitionist, partly retentionist. That is my third argument.
I come to my fourth argument, which I borrowed from the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). He drew attention to a similar bill being dealt with by the British House on December 25, 1965. It is interesting to note, from what happened in committee and in the House, that the sorts of amendments we are proposing at the report stage were permitted and declared admissible by the Speaker of the British House. For example, the following was proposed:
That the death penalty should be retained for a person who committed murder a second time ...
That the death penalty should be retained for the murder of a police officer acting in the execution of his duty .. .
That the death penalty should be retained for a convicted murderer who in the course of life imprisonment murdered again-
I will not read the entire list of amendments; it is enough to say that they were allowed. That bill was practically on all fours with Bill C-84 presently before the House, with one exception: the British parliament retained the death penalty for high treason and other offences of treason, and those penalties are still retained.
I might mention that the chairman of our committee, in making his decision, admitted that he was intrigued by the argument presented, and particularly intrigued by facts we had mentioned concerning the other bill considered in the Senate. But he said, with the greatest respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that he was faced with your ruling on the former bill given when you were the distinguished chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. As you will recall, the abolitionists had moved an amendment which was to do away with the death penalty for all offences, but you ruled that it was against the principle of the bill. I realize that since you made that decision you have distinguished yourself even more. I am sure that since you are now the Speaker, and since you have had the experience of being chairman of the justice and legal affairs committee, you have grown wiser and will be able to reverse your previous decision.
I think the chairman of the standing committee handled himself with distinction. This is not an easy subject, being charged with emotion as it is. There were, on the committee, abolitionists and retentionists. I felt he was most fair in his decision, and if one can disregard that one decision which Your Honour made when you were chairman of the

June 29, 1976
Capital Punishment
committee, he was pretty sympathetic to the arguments we presented. But, faced with your previous decision made when you were chairman of the committee, he felt that Your Honour had set a new precedent and that he could not follow the authorities I had mentioned.
I ask Your Honour in all seriousness to consider the precedent I mentioned, to consider arguments relating to the title of the bill which mentions the punishment for murder, and to consider arguments relating to what May says about the principle of the bill. Although one cannot move amendments which change the principle of a bill, surely the title has something to do with the principle. I pointed out that in 1967 Mr. Speaker Macnaughton allowed amendments and told Your Honour what the British did with regard to a similar bill. In light of those authorities, I ask Your Honour to give serious consideration to all amendments calling for the substitution of the death penalty for life imprisonment. I ask Your Honour to permit such amendments to be debated in this Chamber and to be brought to a vote so that decisions on them can be made.
This bill is very wide, Mr. Speaker. It abolishes the death penalty for treason. I think we are one of the few countries to go this far. Also, it abolishes the death penalty for all who murder a second time. In this regard I will not quote any pertinent statistics in my possession. This bill provides for those guilty of planned and premeditated capital murder to be sentenced for 25 years, a provision which will cause grave anxiety to those whose responsibility and duty it is to guard those unfortunate enough to be sentenced to 25 years of incarceration. I ask, in light of the facts just mentioned and in light of the seriousness of the bill, that Your Honour reverse himself and permit these amendments to be debated and voted on at the report stage. I thank Your Honour for hearing me, and I thank all hon. members for paying such close attention.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to traverse the ground covered by my colleague from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). Bill C-84 amends certain sections of the Criminal Code. If an amendment to modify a clause of Bill C-84 were to carry, since Bill C-84 is to modify the Criminal Code the amendment as proposed would, of course, be in order; because a section of the Criminal Code is the basis of the amendment and anything which serves to amend the pertinent section of the Criminal Code in any way whatsoever must be acceptable. There is that basis for the change; and if the House is prepared to accept that change, that modification is made.
If, on the other hand, an amendment as proposed, if carried, merely negatives a clause of Bill C-84 but leaves the section of the Criminal Code unchanged, then I say that is merely an expanded negative. It should not be accepted, because the same result is achieved by voting and defeating the clause in the bill. As my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out, there is no other principle to Bill C-84 than to amend the Criminal Code with respect to certain offences. The fact that they are related in some ways to capital punishment cannot hold. There is, for example, the introduction of the penalty for high treason. It does not exist in the present Criminal Code. Therefore, there is no other principle to Bill C-84 because there is treason in the Criminal Code.
Let us look at those clauses which deal with high treason. They are entirely new. There are other features in Bill C-84 which introduce new considerations into the Criminal Code. I therefore state, with the greatest respect, that it is wrong to say that the principle of Bill C-84 is the abolition of capital punishment. Nothing is further from the truth. It is a bill to amend the Criminal Code in certain features.
In some instances the bill changes the nature of the penalty from a capital sentence to varying categories of terms of imprisonment, but only in certain respects. As my colleague said, and I will repeat some of his argument, capital punishment will not be abolished in this country until it is done under the National Defence Act as well. Bill C-84 does not touch that. Therefore, one has to be very careful about these amendments and simply say that if the same result can be achieved by voting and defeating the clause in Bill C-84, all well and good. That does not, then, amend the Criminal Code. However, if the purposes of the amendments now before the House for consideration are, if carried, in any way to serve to modify even a colon, to introduce even a semi-colon, or introduce a preposition into the Criminal Code, the amendments must be attacked. I put it to Your Honour that such should be the case.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I am sure the thought that is going through Your Honour's mind, even questioning some of these amendments-as I certainly believe that proposition will be made from the government's side-is that the main principle of the bill is the abolition of capital punishment and, therefore, any amendment which has the effect of retaining or reinstituting capital punishment is out of order because the main principle of the bill was discussed and voted on in this House on second reading. My submission is that the abolition of capital punishment is not the main principle of this bill. The main concept and the main thrust of this bill is simply the reorganization, in a far more logical way, of the homicide sections of the Criminal Code.
I merely point out that where before there was a blanket provision for activities relating to treason, there is now a differentiation between high treason as a crime and treason as a crime. We never had that differentiation before. To my knowledge, this is the first time we have had that concept in the Criminal Code, certainly in recent years. It is a logical and sensible differentiation.
With regard to murder, for the first time we have a differentiation between first-degree and second-degree murder. My submission is, quite simply, that the main principle behind the bill is a complete reorganization of the classifications of homicides in the Criminal Code, and in the Criminal Code exclusively. If that is so, the penalties for those reclassifications of various types of homicide is ancillary to the main principle. If that is the case, they are debatable and amendable at the report stage. It is as simple as that.
Let me put the hypothetical position to Your Honour. Even though one or two members of the House earlier publicly indicated they were going to amend certain other

June 29, 1976

penalty clauses, a brief look through the motions before Your Honour indicate there are no amendments along those lines. However, let me just put the hypothetical proposition. In two of the cases, for example, in first-degree murder and second-degree murder, there are penalties that mention a 25-year period of imprisonment and a 15-year period of imprisonment. If there were an amendment before Your Honour to change the 25-year period to 30, 20, 40, or 15 years, would that be out of order?
I cannot believe that would be out of order. I believe the Chair would rule that the penalty clause was ancillary to the main principle and, therefore, amendable and debatable at the report stage. Similarly, the question of life imprisonment and the death sentence for certain of the reclassifications of homicides is a referral to the penalty clause only. If it is a referral to the penalty clause only, that is ancillary to the main principle of the bill and, therefore, it should be debatable and amendable at report stage.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, following the question raised by the Chair as regards the acceptability of amendments dealing with capital punishment and its enforcement, in putting the problem as if Bill C-84 in its principle dealt only with capital punishment, I think I should join the previous speakers in contending that the principle of Bill C-84 as such has nothing to do with the abolition or retention of the death penalty. In Bill C-84, the government seems to be dropping capital punishment as a means of fighting crime. As was said earlier, through Bill C-84 the government tries to amend the present outdated and obsolete Criminal Code, to reclassify the order of crimes and to provide for a new class of crimes; therefore- and this is only the result of such reclassification-unmistakably the government also provides for a degree of sentence in relation to the crime. In Bill C-84, one can find sentences such as commutation, detention for a specified period and even some provisions for parole after a given number of years in prison.
Mr. Speaker, as the title of the bill indicates, the bill before us is designed to amend the Criminal Code. This is the principle of the bill. I wish to make a comparison in support of my argument by referring first to the Fourth edition of Beauchesne, citation 246, paragraph 3.
It deals with a precedent relating to "money" bills, bills which aim either at spending some money, or at reducing or increasing expenditures. As the House and the Chair surely know, a member of Parliament cannot introduce a bill aimed at opposing the government's view, or involving public expenditures; but this would not prevent any member of Parliament from introducing an amendment providing for a different distribution of taxes that would be raised through the government bill.
In other words, a member of Parliament cannot reduce a tax on his own initiative through an amendment, but he can amend the legislation so that the distribution will be different from the one proposed in the bill. I will not read paragraph 3 of citation 246 of Beauchesne, but this is precisely the principle it puts forward. This is where I relate it to Bill C-84. I have in my name in the order paper a number of amendments that are being considered by the Chair and I suggest that those amendments, particularly
Capital Punishment
No. 37, are simply designed to classify in a different way from that provided by the minister-the Solicitor General, who sponsored this bill-the penalties which will be involved in relation to a first or second degree murder.
I shall also refer to citation 276 of the same edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, paragraph 1, which reads:
In early editions of this book (Sir T. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice), it was stated that "the Crown has no concern in the distribution of taxes." Hence amendments were at first pemitted which proposed the substitution of a different tax for a tax proposed by the Government...
I shall refrain from reading the whole paragraph, but I wish to show once more that a member of Parliament has some power. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if your decision were that any amendment aimed at changing the way the sentence is to be carried out, the sentence being either life imprisonment, or life imprisonment with possible commutation, or death with possible commutation, or again imprisonment with possible parole, one readily sees that that enumeration deals with the consequence of an act that was committed.
What the government is interested in is fighting crime. That is the principle in the bill which indicates the government has decided to revamp the Criminal Code as a whole. I for one say that the means proposed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in his bill, not the itself, are inadequate, and I suggest that one of the means to achieve the objective of the government happens to be the death penalty. What inspired me when I drafted motion No. 39-which I will simply recall without quoting-it to say that in the amendment I want to extend imprisonment in certain cases, rule out parole in others or simply deal with the sentencing to life imprisonment in yet other cases.
Well, Mr. Speaker, and that boils down to the opinion expressed by the hon. member who spoke before me, if that kind of amendment is out of order it means the bill itself is strictly a bill to abolish capital punishment, regardless of the crime rate in Canada, regardless of the categories of murders, regardless of the categories of crimes and regardless of the means used. That is why I say that the House of Commons should not become entangled in this kind of procedural snare because hon. members would have no other choice but to vote on a principle that would be either abolition or rentention of capital punishment. I say for my part that as a Parliament we have the power to go further in the same way we do with bills dealing with public outlays in the sense that we have the power to suggest to the government amendments to distribute its taxes in a different way, and then there is a vote. I say that the purpose of Bill C-84 which is to revise the Criminal Code is commendable, that the purpose of fighting crime is also commendable but that the means proposed by the Solicitor General are inadequate. That is my opinion. That is why I am taking positive action in not touching the bill, nor its title nor its basic principle but rather the means the government intends to give itself to fight crime, to control crime or to penalize a criminal convicted of first or second degree murder.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that the principle of Bill C-84 is not to establish the mode of punishment but to catalog a number of crimes, establish categories and therefrom establish penalties. The

June 29, 1976
Capital Punishment
principle of the bill, as I said, is not to establish a mode of punishment, but rather to catalog and specify a type of crime and give the government tools to fight that crime. That is why I am moving this kind of amendment to give the government an additional tool, a serious tool-the death penalty.
[DOT]	(1640)


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In speaking on the admissibility of the amendments which are before you, I would draw Your Honour's attention to two facts. One of them has already been referred to by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). First, the impression hon. members may have that this is an abolitionist bill, in the true sense, is not a sound one. This is a bill to amend two existing statutes, the Criminal Code and the Fugitive Offenders Act. I refer to the schedule on page 16. Though it amends those two acts, it specifically does not amend the National Defence Act, and the National Defence Act does contain extensive provisions covering situations where the death penalty applies in the event a person is convicted of certain stated offences-and I am referring to literally dozens of cases under the National Defence Act where the death penalty can apply.
It is, therefore, my submission that this bill is simply a modification of existing law with respect to the death penalty; it merely suggests that the death penalty with respect to certain offences be removed. On the other hand, the offences referred to in the National Defence Act are not covered. In short, it is simply a question of degree. In these circumstances I maintain that the argument put forward by various hon. members that the principle of the bill being abolition, the Chair cannot accept any amendment which goes against that principle, falls to the ground. To strengthen this contention I would draw attention to a bill presently before parliament, Bill S-23, introduced for first reading on March 13, 1975. That bill, I suggest, is a true abolitionist bill. It is entitled "an act to amend the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code (total abolition of capital punishment)". We are in an odd position in that we do have a truly abolitionist bill before parliament at the same time as a limited retentionist bill or a limited abolitionist bill. Any amendment to the limited abolitionist bill, C-84, should be found by Your Honour to be in order.
[DOT]	(1650)
I will go further and refer Your Honour to a ruling of your predecessor that appears in the House of Commons Journals for February 13, 1969. That is a ruling which turned on an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). In those proceedings he proposed that a private bill, known as S-6, which was then before the House be amended by deleting clause 1. The odd fact was that that was the only clause in the bill.
There was a lengthy debate on the issue, to which I hope Your Honour will refer, as reported in the Debates for February 13, setting out the arguments pro and con as to whether it was in fact in order to delete a clause which, in effect, negatived the whole bill. During the argument, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is still with us, very effectively argued that it was 
quite in order that this deletion be proceeded with, and he won his case. If I may, I should like to refer to certain observations made by the Speaker in his ruling. I point out that this ruling was given shortly after the rules that now exist were agreed upon. The paragraph in the existing Standing Orders which was referred to was Standing Order 75(5).


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is now, it seems to me, on a point which will be more relevant to the next argument that we are going to face since we have a number of amendments deleting clauses in the bill which have the effect of reestablishing clauses that now exist in the Criminal Code, obviously without the effect of the amending statute. The problem that now arises is one that the Chair is very much aware of, and it was referred to by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), if I recall his words, as being an expanded negative.
As I say, that point is one that we will face in the motions to delete clauses. I understand that the hon. member is drawing a parallel to the effect that if you can do it that way, you ought to be able to do it in the way that is now before the House. I appreciate the point, but in terms of a full development of the point I would ask for further argument since there is a series of amendments before us which proposes to do precisely what the hon. member is referring to.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I may, Mr. Speaker, the main thrust of my argument is that I hope that the ruling by your preder cessor to which I have referred will be considered a precedent to follow in regard to motions 7, 11, 13, 36, and possibly others. In addition to that, if we read the full wording of the Speaker at that time, I think that what is before us today in regard to all these amendments is equally true, and that that precedent can be used not only to indicate that motions Nos. 7, 11, 13 and 36, which delete clauses, are in order but to justify Your Honour's finding all of the amendments before you in fact in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I agree with Your Honour that the question of how the Chair should rule on report stage amendments that seek to delete certain clauses of the bill is a separate issue from the one before us at the present time. The issue that has been raised at this time is a fundamental one, namely, whether it is in order to move amendments that seek to set aside a decision which is the main thrust of the bill.
I recognize that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in particular have argued that what we have before us is not an abolition bill but a bill to amend the Criminal Code. I should like to remind them and Your Honour of the title of the bill, which reads, "an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences".
I submit to Your Honour that Bill C-84 is not just a bill containing routine amendments to the Criminal Code. That argument might have been made about Bill C-83, but it certainly does not apply to Bill C-84. Bill C-84 is directed
June 29, 1976

specifically to the question of what the punishment should be for murder and certain other serious offences.
At the present time, the Criminal Code provides that the punishment in some of those instances is death. Bill C-84 changes all that and provides that the punishment for these offences cannot be death but can be, at the most, life imprisonment. I submit that is a very precise proposition and that the vote of the House on second reading for the principle of this bill was a vote in favour of abolishing death as the punishment for crimes set out in the Criminal Code. It was a vote in favour of other degrees of punishment. I submit, therefore, that an amendment that seeks to bring back what the House voted against on second reading should be declared out of order.
I was interested in the fact that my hon. friend from Calgary North read a bit from page 494 of Erskine May's eighteenth edition. I wish he had gone on to read one or two more paragraphs. In the middle of the page I find this paragraph:
(1) A committee-
I realize that this is the British practice in committee, but I think it can be applied to the report stage.
-is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle.
I do not see how we can get away from the fact that the principle on which we voted on second reading was on the question whether to retain capital punishment for murder and certain other offences, or whether to change to life imprisonment or certain terms of imprisonment. That decision having been made, it seems to me that amendments which seek to reverse that decision are not in order. I am not suggesting that it is not open to the House to change its position by defeating the bill at the report stage or at third reading. It can go back on that decision. But the principle having been approved on second reading, I submit that all the arguments on page 494 of May's eighteenth edition are against amendments that seek to bring back the death penalty.
I would also point out, just to read a Canadian work, that at page 170 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition is a very well-known citation, citation 202(12), which reads:
An amendment proposing a direct negative, though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order.
Surely, an amendment that seeks to negative directly a decision made by the House on second reading is a direct negative or an expanded negative and therefore should be ruled out of order.
In his remarks, the hon. member for Calgary North referred to amendments that were allowed by the Speaker of the day to one of the previous bills; I think he was referring to the legislation of 1967. In any case, he pointed out that amendments to extend the death penalty to some other crimes not already in the bill were allowed. I would point out, with great respect, sir, that the bill of 1967- indeed, all the bills we have had in this sphere up until now-was a bill that only partially abolished capital punishment. The death penalty still existed, and I think the Speaker's rulings on those occasions were that since the death penalty still existed it was in order for members to move an amendment applying it to some other crimes than
Capital Punishment
those set out in the bill. This is a vastly different bill which we now have. Those previous bills were bills that did include the death penalty and, indeed, were also bills covering only temporary five-year periods. We now have a bill which is for total abolition of the death penalty on a permanent basis and approved by the House on second reading.
Some hon. members have tried to say, and I think the hon. member for Calgary North used these words-I hope I am not twisting them at all-that this is not a total abolitionist bill but it is a partial retentionist bill. I do not think the member should be allowed to get away with that. It may be that with the National Defence Act being unchanged, our total law is not totally abolitionist. There may be provision for my friend, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) across the way, to conduct a firing squad, or what have you. However, he comes from Winnipeg and would not do that. Even though there might be the provision for a form of capital punishment in another act, namely, the National Defence Act, as far as the Criminal Code is concerned, as far as civil law in this country is concerned, this bill before us is totally abolitionist. There is no provision in this bill, anywhere, for the penalty of death to be applied in respect of any crime set out in the Criminal Code.
Like my friends who have taken part in this debate by referring only to procedural matters, I shall try to stay away from the substance of the bill. It does seem to me that this is a pretty important issue in procedural terms. The principal point is that it is a bill to make a change in punishment for murder in so far as the Criminal Code is concerned. The House has made a decision on that point, and I confess to a little bit of surprise that some of my friends who voted against the bill because it was for total and permanent abolition should now say it is not a total and permanent abolition bill because of certain provisions in the National Defence Act. Perhaps this is a bit of an aside rather than an addition to the argument.
I think I have made the case as I see it, Mr. Speaker. What is before us is not just a set of routine amendments to the Criminal Code. It is clearly defined in the title as a bill to amend the Criminal Code in relation to publishment for murder. The present law says that the punishment for murder in certain cases is death. This bill abolishes death as an instrument of punishment for crimes under the Criminal Code and, the House having made its decision, I do not think it is open to members to move amendments that would either reverse or alter the result of that decision already taken.
It is open to hon. members to argue for their amendments. It is open to members to try to defeat some of the clauses, and it is open to members to try to defeat the bill on third reading. In other words, the second reading vote does not stand for all time. Some of us are very conscious of that, and will be until the issue is over. But an attempt to amend the bill and by that method to bring back the death penalty which was voted against on second reading is something that I submit would be out of order at this stage.
14954

June 29, 1976
Capital Punishment


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to all the persuasive arguments made this afternoon, but I was most impressed with those made by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I will deal with them in a moment, if I may. First of all, I should like to address myself to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I find myself in agreement with many of the things he said.
Those amendments which purport to substitute for that which the government has clearly put forward in this House, that is, that capital punishment shall hereafter and always be abolished, would be clearly out of order. To substitute the death penalty in certain circumstances for that which the government has suggested would clearly be against the principle of the bill. That is the matter to which I would address myself and that is the subject matter of many of these motions. May I indicate the motions that would attempt to amend and substitute death for what the government of Canada, and this House on second reading, have determined should not hereafter exist. They are motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 35, 37, 38 and 40.
It is clear to most people on this side and, indeed, on the other side of the House, that those who argued against the bill with great conviction because they were for the retention of capital punishment in this land were arguing against the principle of total abolition of capital punishment as a sanction in respect of murder and other serious crimes as they exist in the Criminal Code. That is the principle against which they argued so vehemently for 17 days of debate in this House, in 119 speeches. Had they not believed that was the principle, I think they would have voted for the bill on second reading, particularly if it was only a bill to determine what ought to be done with persons who had committed the most heinous crime, namely, murder. They did not do that. They addressed themselves, in each and every speech from this side and the other side in respect of abolition and in respect of retention, to the issue of capital punishment.
In my humble submission, the matter which Your Honour ought to address and concern himself with in determining whether these amendments are or are not in order is whether the principle of the bill is total abolition of capital punishment as a sanction for murder and other serious crimes as found in the Criminal Code.
As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) indicated both in the committee and here, we are addressing ourselves to an issue of parliamentary procedure and how it affects the issue to which we are addressing ourselves-and that is the bill now before this House. It is a bill to amend the Criminal Code, not a bill to amend the National Defence Act or any other act. It is my submission that within the four corners of the bill it is clear, not only in the words of the bill but in the reactions of the people of this country and members on all sides of this House, that the one and only fundamental issue is whether this House and this country will abolish capital punishment at this time.
Therefore, I say to you, sir, that any amendments, and specifically those which I have enumerated, are out of order because they go beyond the principle of the bill. In support of that I should like to refer to some precedents,

some quoted by the hon. member for Calgary North and included in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for June 20, 1973. At that time we had a most distinguished chairman who said, among other things, when he was discussing the rules that the chairman of a committee ought to consider:
The third rule is that they must be within the scope of the bill or they must come specifically within the four corners of the statute that we are dealing with. This is particularly so-and this is perhaps a refinement of that rule-when you are dealing, as we are now, with an amending statute which seeks to amend the Criminal Code because it is clear that amendments to such a bill must not go beyond the amending statute and try to amend the Code, which we are doing, but must strictly deal with amendments to Bill C-2 itself.
There are restrictions on how far amendments can go; they cannot delete clauses in a bill. That obviously must be done by negativing the clause when it comes to a vote, and if it is negatived, by replacing it with another clause.
Further, that most learned chairman said, as recorded at page 20.5:
In other words, depending on your view, as it has been said many times in the argument, one of the principles of the bill is that there shall be a partial retention or a partial abolition of capital punishment in Canada. I think it is valid to say that if the view of the government which put forward Bill C-2 was different than that so that it favoured a total abolition of capital punishment, that was the principle which should have been put in the original bill.
Mr. Speaker, may I humbly say that that ruling and the subsequent reasoning from it was sustained in this House by your most distinguished predecessor in the chair who found that indeed the ruling of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs was proper and right in the circumstances. In the Debates of the House of Commons of July 20, 1973, as recorded at page 5841-I am sure Your Honour is well aware of this, so I shall not go into it-Mr. Speaker sustained the ruling by the chairman of the committee on justice and legal affairs.
Subsequently, when Bill C-2 went from this House to the other place, the chairman of the committee on the judiciary of that House, whose name has been referred to here as having been a Speaker of this House in 1969, I believe, when a similar question was before the House, sustained the decision made by the very learned and distinguished chairman of the committee on justice and legal affairs of this House and the Speaker of this House with regard to the decision he made on the amendments proposed in respect of Bill C-2. I am not unduly flattering you, Mr. Speaker, but I am referring to these very recent precedents to indicate that they are far more powerful than anything that may be quoted from other jurisdictions or from this parliament in earlier times.
Without going into detail in respect of what was said at those times, with which I am sure you are most familiar, the fundamental principle and rule is that there is no amendment acceptable in this House, in committee or at the report stage, which would violate the fundamental principle as defined at the time of passage of second reading. All those motions I enumerated violate that fundamental principle, as argued on both sides of this House with great sincerity but nonetheless passed, which is that capital punishment at this time as a sanction for capital murder and other serious crimes as defined in the Criminal
June 29, 1976

Code, not in other statutes or other bills but within the four corners of that statute, shall now be abolished at this time in Canada. In that respect I submit, very respectfully, that all these amendments are out of order.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Environmental Affairs-Request that English and Wabigoon Rivers be declared water quality controlled zones; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation- Extension of coverage to isolated areas-Reason for delay; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway)-Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation-Alleged Failure to comply with provisions of act-Government action.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I am not one of the legal minds in this House, so I have not been up on one of these things before. However, I have some deep concerns about the possible ruling you may make on this decision, because I know we have some members here who might switch their vote and I would hope they would have an opportunity to debate what they think are legitimate motions in respect of this bill.
I have done some research and have dug up some arguments relative to this bill which I think show that members have a right, on a bill of this type, to get their arguments before the House and have a vote. I did not hear the whole of the speech of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), but I believe he brought up the point I raised in the committee yesterday, that in the United Kingdom in 1955-56, amendments were put at the committee and report stage which were very similar to the types of amendment put forward today. The Speaker did not make a ruling at that time because there was no
Capital Punishment
argument. It was, therefore, impossible to come up with anything from that ruling, so I went to the library and, with some assistance from the kind people there, I dug up some decisions, some of which were made by yourself, sir, which I think are relevant to this bill. I should like to quote one by you, Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-58:
My view is that the bill is a bill to amend the Income Tax Act. Pursuant to the Income Tax Act as it now stands, without passage of Bill C-58, it is possible for taxpayers to advertise in foreign broadcasting undertakings and deduct those expenses from their income. The purport of Bill C-58 would be to change that and take away from those advertisers the opportunity to make those deductions from income. Whether it be that clause 3 contains an actual provision or not, the fact of the matter is the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) would in fact propose what seems to me to be middle ground-
Mr. Speaker, my argument is that on that bill you took the middle ground. I would say, in respect of this bill, that the abolition of capital punishment is one ground on which part of the House is voting, that the retention of capital punishment is the other ground, and yet the amendments which relate to this bill-some of them, certainly-are the middle ground. I know that some people who have voted for abolition may change their vote if they cannot get one or two of those amendments on middle ground. I should like to complete the statement you made in this ruling:
-that is, advertisers who advertise in foreign broadcasting undertakings would be permitted to deduct from income the expenses paid for those advertisements, provided certain conditions are met. The conditions are complex and will need some explanation, but that bears on substance and their acceptability to the House by way of a vote. It does not bear, in any way that I can see, on procedural regularity.
It seems to me that the hon. member ought to be able to put that kind of motion by way of amendment to this particular clause. It would be my view that motions ought to be debated and voted upon.
Mr. Speaker, one of my arguments would be, in that situation, that you allowed a vote on middle ground and I would state that some, not all, of the amendments in this area which purport to retain capital punishment for certain offences are in the middle ground of that bill and I would hope you would allow them. There is another quotation here from November 28, 1974, on a bill regarding the B.C. Telephone Company. On that issue it was the Deputy Speaker who made the ruling which I should like to quote:
The hon. member said to the House he has in his hand a letter from the company stating that it would be happy to have its name made bilingual. Of course, the normal channel to have that change made would be for the company to have a new private bill introduced to amend its name.
Having said that, although hon. members do not doubt the word of their colleague, neither the Chair nor any member of this House have a copy of that letter, and the rules of this House do not provide for the tabling of such documents. I think everyone will agree to take the word of the hon. member. I must also refer him to different citations from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms respecting amendments, particularly citation 202 on page 169 and citation 203 on page 171 which state explicitly, and I quote:
203. (1) It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be
relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
The hon. member knows that the bill before us is a bill on the financing of the company, which has never been presented to the House to amend the name of the company or some other aspects of its administration.
If the hon. member keeps on reading citation 203, he will come to paragraph (3), and I quote:
95510-46Vi

June 29, 1976
Capital Punishment
(3) An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a
matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main
motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
This being said, and considering that hon. members seem to be in a good mood and considering also the limited effect of the amendment the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) is proposing at the report stage, which nonetheless raised an important point as the hon. member said, the Chair would be willing to consider the motion and let the House decide. But that could be done only by unanimous consent.
I do not know whether all members followed my remarks, but the Chair feels that this kind of amendment should not be accepted in our general procedure. Noting that the intent of the bill is not to amend in any way the name of the company, or anything other than the financial structure, and noting the co-operation that seems to exist following the remarks of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), if there is unanimous consent the Chair would be ready to accept the amendment for debate. Is that agreed?
It was agreed. Mr. Speaker, I would say, in that sense, that this House, in general agreement, thought that although there was an amendment that was out of order, it should accept it, and the Deputy Speaker at that time allowed that amendment to be put. He said: " .. . let the House decide". I suggest that the rejection of some of the amendments that are being put forward will have an effect on the bill, and I would not want to see that happen. I think that a member should be able to vote on it in accordance with his conscience, and I would not want to see members change their minds one way or the other because an amendment which they wanted to see brought before the House and voted upon was rejected. I suggest there are a number of people who will change their votes if they cannot debate some of these issues.
The last precedent appeared in Hansard of November 28, 1974. There were two in one day. This one had to do with Bill C-14, put forward by the hon. member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). Mr. Deputy Speaker said on that day:
I make this point now in order to clarify that in accepting the present amendment proposed by the hon. member I do not in any way intend to go contrary to the previous position taken by Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker said he had some reservations about the amendment on two grounds. He suggested first that it was contrary to the basic principle of the bill, and that the interpretation clause should not be used to enlarge on the scope of the bill in the way attempted by this amendment. He added that this was not the basic nature of a definition section, and that this would go far beyond the scope of an interpretation clause, usually being a simple definition clause as opposed to a substantive clause.
On the other hand, having listened to the remarks and the points made by hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), Mr. Speaker indicated his desire to take into account those representations, and indicated that he did not want to deprive any member of the opportunity of discussing the important point in this proposed amendment, which was defective mainly because it was attached to the interpretation clause.
I feel it would be very difficult for me to question the amendment put before the House at this time by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton with the knowledge that Mr. Speaker, in his conclusion, said that if the House would give consent to the tabling of an amendment at eight o'clock he felt that might take the House out of the then rather awkward procedural position. Although I do not wish really to invite a debate on the procedural acceptability of the amendment, some hon. members might wish to suggest there is a substantive factor in it. However, on account of everything that was said by Mr. Speaker, I feel I should give consent to the hon. member to present his motion. Therefore I would be willing at this time to put the amendment unless there are strong objections.

I use these three precedents from this session of parliament because they relate to the same type of bill, and I hope they will have some effect on your decision, Mr. Speaker, so that we can get down to debating the clauses of the bill and doing what the majority of members of the House want, that is, to debate some of the issues, vote on them and finalize this issue of capital punishment once and for all. If we do not get an opportunity to debate some of these issues, we will see this bill back before the House in five or six years' time, but if we can debate the issues and clear the air now, we might solve the matter once and for all.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since the beginning and I want to say that I do not belong to the group of lawyers who took part in the discussion this afternoon and I am quite glad of it. I think we are witnessing a legal contest among lawyers and it always happens when such bills are considered to decide what is the principle of the bill. I think the first mistake is found in all bills and that is they are not clear enough. Instead of "An Act to amend the Criminal Code" if it had been merely referred to as "Bill against the death penalty" it would be clear, everyone would understand and such a debate would not have been held this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
I recall that a few years ago a member of our party had asked that the texts of the bills be made clearer so anyone would understand. But then a lawyer had risen to say: "Mr. Speaker, if this is going to happen, what will lawyers do, how will they earn their living?"
I think we have another proof today of a protracted legal debate between lawyers. First of all, the principle of the bill is discussed; then, the amendments moved must not go beyond this principle. Well, I also have something to say about these amendments. We move amendments and the Chair rules them as contrary to the principle of the bill. Can you imagine that! Capital punishment is to be abolished and we are forbidden to talk about it! It is prohibited because abolition is sought, because a minister, the Solicitor General, wants to completely abolish the capital penalty.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said a few moments ago that he does not want to allow any longer this kind of slaughter. I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre what he thinks about the slaughter of all the innocent victims of these hired assassins? What does he think of those slaughters? But I want to remark that you allowed him to say that. Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot leave those words unanswered. I am talking against the decision made today that if we do not object 75 per cent of our amendments will be ruled out simply because we are not of the same opinion as the government. I say this is ridiculous and that once more we are witnessing party dictatorship and a minority trying to impose its will upon us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to point out to the hon. member that we are simply discussing the question of order and procedure with respect to the amendments, namely whether the amendments are against the principle of the bill.
June 29, 1976


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: I want to show that they are not against the principle of the bill, that it is the principle of the bill that is false.
I do not know if they will understand, but I would be very glad if hon. members were to quit calling me to order. It is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to call me to order and not up to hon. members. I want to say quite simply that these amendments are not contrary to the principle of the bill, as we understand it. Quite simply, the principle of the bill has to be changed, and then it will be possible to discuss on another level. As long as the principle of the bill remains what it is, we suggest that our amendments are in order.


Mr. Francis Fox (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I know that we have already debated this question of procedure in great detail this afternoon, and it is always interesting to take part in a discussion on a question of procedure because, of course, it is almost impossible to become inflamed when we simply deal with the Standing Orders of the House. It goes without saying that the decision you will make in due course, a decision on procedure and on the receivability of arguments, is one which will be yours and which the House will have to obey.
I think that during the debates this afternoon, we heard from various quarters, particularly on the part of the spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), arguments which admitted things which went so far that it was not even necessary to quote authorities or to talk about principles because, in all his arguments, the hon. member clearly admitted that if his amendments were against the principle adopted on the second reading, then his amendments should be rejected outright. He clearly admitted the principle, which is indeed well supported by authorities, yourself, your predecessors in this Parliament, as well as by the Parliament in London.
He also endeavoured to prove that the principle of the bill is not the abolition of the death penalty. And one of his colleagues, during the debate, referred to the fact that under the National Defence Act, the death penalty is maintained in specific circumstances. In short, what he forgot, Mr. Speaker, is that the House is now studying a bill that deals with a specific act of Parliament, a very specific statute, namely the Criminal Code. The fact is that this bill is intended to remove, everywhere in the Criminal Code, any and all mention of the death penalty and substitute other penalties for it.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, what we are now discussing in this House is the abolition of the death penalty in the Criminal Code and I do not think we have to concern ourselves with all the other acts passed by the Parliament of Canada at some time or other.
Mr. Speaker, as I have no intention of referring to specific authorities, my hon. colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Poulin) having already done so, I merely wish to add that I consider that argument as basic.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I feel we must look into the arguments dealing with procedure, taking into account the consequences and effects, and that, with what I would call common sense. In short, if procedural
Capital Punishment
arguments and legalistic considerations lead to an absurd situation, I feel we should come back to basic principles and interpret them, if possible, in such a way as to take common sense into consideration.
Mr. Speaker, to get their argument through, they have to say that this bill has really nothing to do with the principle of abolition or retention of the death penalty.
When I look back at what happened in Parliament during the 119 speeches which have been made, when I think of what happened since the introduction on first reading of Bill C-83 and Bill C-84, I realize, Mr. Speaker, when appealing to the common sense, that if some members opposite did not view the debate as one dealing with the death penalty and common sense, I wonder then what they understand and what they did talk about in their speeches.
Members on both sides of the House always considered that it was indeed a debate on the death penalty, on abolition or retention of the death penalty. All hon. members of the House were even called retentionists or abolitionists. Certainly information media viewed the debate in that perspective and so did the public itself.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to accept the interpretation of our opponents, we must then conclude that no one in this country understood the debate which has been taking place in the House for two months. Therefore I would be deeply concerned about the parliamentary institutions of our country.
This debate is directed to the public. Our constituents talked a great deal about it. What we are told today is that there is only a handful of lawyers in the House, particularly on the other side of the House, who seemed to have understood the debate as one whose goal was really to make a distinction between high treason and treason.
Their impression was that the debate did not have anything to do with capital punishment, that it was really incidental, not within the scope or principle of second reading. The actual purpose here would be to define first and second degree murders. Of course it is pure fantasy and it does not stand common sense scrutiny.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I think our conclusion must be totally opposite. Some have read the English version of the title of the bill but we could refer also to the French which reads "Loi modifiant le Code criminel (meurtre et certai-nes autres infractions graves)"-not a literal translation but both versions are official. Then, when we look at the bill, we see that there was a decision on principle, a position taken by those who introduced the bill which deals with abolition of capital punishment and according to what has been said, it is piece of legislation which considers abolition of the death penalty and proposes alternatives in the case of murder.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I support of course the argument put forward by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Poulin). I do not intend to draw again to your attention the authorities of which you are already perfectly aware. Besides, I contend that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), who was the official spokesman for his party, said there

June 29, 1976
Capital Punishment
was no dispute, no disagreement whatsoever as regards principles, but that the only matter of dissatisfaction was that in the 119 speeches that were delivered, here, hon. members have not really dealt with the abolition of capital punishment, but rather with a variety of other issues; in other words, the Canadian public as a whole were deceived about the nature of this debate, and himself and the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) as well as, perhaps, the members for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) are the only ones who really understood this debate.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is their interpretation, in light of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General and others in this House, that their arguments should be rejected and most of the amendments which attempted to reintroduce the death penalty in the Criminal Code should be ruled out.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by a comment on amendments which attempt to remove a subclause of Bill C-84, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that usually one cannot do indirectly what cannot be done directly. Should you rule that amendments which reintroduce the word death in the Criminal Code cannot been retained, then the amendments which attempt to remove a whole subclause and which would result in reintroducing the death penalty in the Criminal Code should be rejected as well under the principle, Mr. Speaker, that one should not do indirectly what cannot be done directly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The last point raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fox) is an interesting one. I am sure we are going to meet it later because there are a number of motions for deletion, but those motions really come under a special classification at the report stage, specifically under the terms of Standing Order 75(5), and are provided for at report stage as motions to delete. Therefore despite their effect, the analogous arguments that may follow from their effect, and although they appear to enjoy the same special status of protection which therefore makes it difficult to argue analogy, the point is by no means missed.
I notice that two other hon. members want to contribute to the discussion which has been rather full. However, if there is a necessity to add to the arguments that have already been made, which I think are rather complete, I do not want to shut any member out of the discussion. It is a very important one and, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) said, it can affect the opportunity of members to express themselves on specific points and bring the House to a vote. It is therefore a procedural question which has rather substantive overtones to it. I shall hear further argument, but I hope that hon. members who now participate will add to what has been said rather than repeat it.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be long. Basically I shall deal with the last point that you brought to the attention of the House and that was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fox).
(Mr. Fox.)
When we look at the total number of motions presented we see that to all but eight of the clauses-and there are 30 clauses-there are substantive motions for deletion. When we look at the clauses that are left out of the motions for deletion we see that they are basically procedural clauses.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I have a mistaken impression of the remarks of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais), but we are now dealing only with those amendments other than motions to delete. After coming to a disposition of that series of motions it will leave a number of others that are clearly in order, plus a number of motions to delete. I think we ought to deal with the argument on all motions to delete at the same time after we have disposed of the argument before us now. That is only a narrow argument on whether or not amendments which propose to return the death penalty to the Criminal Code are out of order because of their contravention of the principle of the bill.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the only aspect of the motion to delete that I want to draw to your attention at this time is the argument that I think could be made more fully later on. I support the members of the government who have spoken relative to the principle of the bill.
The total effect is an attempt to defeat the principle of the bill. In totality the motions presented, particularly motions relating to the principle, attempt to re-establish the death penalty. In other words their total effect is the attempted defeat of the bill. I am referring to motions containing substantive provisions which would change the principle and re-establish the death penalty, to motions dealing with deletion, and to other motions still to be debated. The point is that the total effect of all those motions is completely to obviate any necessity for third reading. Therefore they offend against the rules in much the same way as those motions dealt with in committee offended against the principle of the bill. They are disorderly, since the House is called on to deal seriatim with a series of motions the votes on which would duplicate any vote which may be required at third reading.
I shall return to this argument when we deal with the deletion motions. I wanted to give Your Honour notice of my intention to debate that particular point.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak very briefly. I am surprised to realize that so far in this debate no one referred to the provisions of Bill C-84 as a whole in order to answer the very simple question: What principle is Bill C-84 based on? I suggest to you that each of the 30 clauses of this bill has a direct impact on the abolition of capital punishment. I think that it is by examining this very specific question of fact that you can come to a decision and to the application of the principle that you cannot bring an amendment that would change the principle of a bill which passed second reading.
Then, it is a simple matter of fact, and when you study Bill C-84 and consider, for instance, clause 1, that is the short title, no complication there, but clauses 2, 3 and 4 define treason, piracy and murder, that is offences which
June 29, 1976

were punishable by death under the Criminal Code. Those three changes have a direct influence on the abolition of capital punishment. Clause 5 amends section 218, which included a provision describing an offence explicitely punishable by death. Clause 6 amends section 511 which dealt with capital punishment. Clause 7 amends section 534 dealing with capital punishment. Clause 8 amends section 535 of the Criminal Code concerning capital punishment. Clause 9 amends section 538 of the Criminal Code dealing with capital punishment. Clause 10 amends section 562 of the Criminal Code which deals with capital punishment. Clause 11 amends section 589 of the Criminal Code dealing with capital punishment. Clause 12 repeals section 597 dealing with capital punishment. Clause 13 simply amends the sentence in accordance with the new definition of second degree murder, an amendment which results from the abolition of capital punishment. Clause 14 repeals section 604 dealing with capital punishment. Clause 15 deals with the sentence for first degree murder, resulting from the abolition of capital punishment. Finally, clause 16 amends section 607 of the Criminal Code dealing with capital punishment. Clause 17 amends section 609 dealing with capital punishment. Clause 18 amends section 618 dealing with capital punishment. Clause 19 repeals section 619 dealing with capital punishment. Clause 20 amends section 662.1 dealing with capital punishment. Clause 21 amends sections 669 to 681 all dealing with capital punishment. Clause 22 amends section 682 dealing with capital punishment. Clause 23 repeals section 684 dealing with capital punishment. Finally, clauses 25 to 28 inclusive are transition; the principle of Bill C-84 does not lie there. Clause 29 deals with consequential amendments. The principle of the bill does not lie there. And the last one, clause 30, deals with the commencement of the act. The principle of the bill does not lie there either.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, my contention is that there is nothing like reading a bill to discover its principle. It is erratic from the start to rely on its title, as some hon. members did, or to take some clauses out of the bill, to read them out of context to interpret them subjectively and to claim before the House that the principle of Bill C-84 is to redefine treason under two categories, high treason or plain treason, or to redefine piracy or first and second degree murder. I have just ascertained, simply on reading Bill C-84, that each and all of the clauses of Bill C-84 have a direct impact on the abolition of the death penalty and I think there is nothing more obvious than facts which speak for themselves and make it possible to come to a reliable decision, namely to invalidate amendments to alter the principle of a bill which appears plainly following the reading of each clause in Bill C-84.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention a word of fundamental importance. We are told in the notice of motion presented to hon. members by the Clerks of this assembly pursuant to Standing Order 75(5) that we are to consider the report stage of Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences. I bring to Your Honour's attention the word punishment. Certainly, unless the House of Commons is not prepared to mete out certain forms of punish-
Royal Assent
ment, we should recognize that the key word in the title is punishment, I think this was brought to Your Honour's attention earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) who said we are seeking the middle of the road approach.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I say, while we await the messenger from the other place, that arguments put forward on this point have been most interesting and helpful. In every case the arguments were well put up and touch on the important decision which must be made with respect to further debate on amendments at this stage.
I shall reserve on this matter. I may be able to bring down a decision after the eight o'clock vote and will try to do so if I can.
I see the messenger from the other place is here. I repeat that I will take arguments presented under consideration during the supper hour and endeavour to bring down a decision after eight o'clock this evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bon appetit!
[DOT]	(1750)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:	-
Mr. Speaker the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(1800)
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills.
Bill C-93, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1977-Chapter No. 102.
Bill C-94, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1977-Chapter No. 103.
Bill S-32, An Act to implement conventions for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and France, Canada and Belgium and Canada and Israel-Chapter No. 104.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6.05 the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Medical Care Act

[Stage Direction]
June 29, 1976
\English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the order made last night, the House will now divide on Bill C-68. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion cai		
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time a:


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: The question now is the determination pursuant to Standing Order 75 of the procedural acceptability of motions introduced at the report stage of Bill C-84.
This afternoon I indicated some difficulty with the long accepted axiom of the House which was referred to so frequently and clearly in arguments put forward this afternoon. I will point out for the sake of clarity that it is stated on page 509 of May's Eighteenth Edition that:
An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or which would reverse the principle of the bill as agreed to on second reading, is not admissible.
We have before us a number of amendments at the report stage of Bill C-84 and the Chair indicated this afternoon some difficulty with those amendments which would reintroduce into the Criminal Code some form of the death penalty. Because of the proposition that had been put forward in the committee and discussed quite generally that the principle of the bill was to abolish the death penalty, any amendment which would propose to reinstate the death penalty would contravene the axiom to which I just referred.
(Mr. Speaker.)
June 29, 1976

Many hon. members participated in the discussion this afternoon which lasted until almost six o'clock. There were interesting contributions from members on both sides of the question, although not so much on both sides of the House. Many argued that the principle of the bill was different from that which had been suggested by others, the principle being the abolition of the death penalty. The discussions were interesting and the contributions were well prepared and well thought out, but in the final analysis the question reduces itself to whether, when the House pronounced itself upon second reading of the bill, it pronounced itself on a question of principle and, if so, what that principle was.
With the greatest respect for all the arguments to the contrary, I have tried to conclude that the principle of the bill is other than the abolition of capital punishment for crime under the Criminal Code. However, I cannot come to that conclusion.
It seems to me, in respect of all the speeches and comments that have been made, that many members have addressed themselves, in the agony they feel in making this decision, to the fact that for the first time a bill has been put before the House which is different from those which have been put before the House in the past which have retained capital punishment for certain offences, and have been for a temporary period. The distinctive feature of this bill, which has caused so much concern and so much agony of decision, is that it proposes the total abolition of capital punishment for crimes described in the Criminal Code.
If the rule that amendments after second reading cannot contravene the principle adopted by the House on second reading has any meaning at all-and I know that in the past all the precedents, which strongly and clearly set out that axiom give absolutely no assistance in attempting to define what is the principle of a bill-maybe it is wise and intelligent, and certainly I accept the admonition, and will in no way attempt to generalize on that proposition. In other words, I have to decide whether this bill has a central principle and, if so, what it is.
Having regard to all the debates and comments, and all the circumstances of this bill at second reading, I can come to no other conclusion than that this bill has a central principle, it being the abolition of the death penalty for crimes described in the Criminal Code. Therefore I must conclude that any amendments at this stage which seek to reintroduce the death penalty under any circumstances contravene the principle and are out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: For the benefit of hon. members I will list the motions ruled out of order. They are Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8. Motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) introduces a rather novel proposition to the capital punishment argument in that it leaves the option to choose the death penalty to the convicted person. That is not, in the true sense of the word, imposition of the death penalty by mistake, but really leaves the option to the accused person to choose the death penalty or imprisonment for life. It has interesting implications, but in procedural terms-which is all with which the Chair is dealing at this point-I have some difficulty in classifying this
Capital Punishment
amendment as proposing the reintroduction of the death penalty which would offend the principle of the bill. I will only say that I will not put this amendment and others related to it in the same category as others which I rule out of order. It may be that further arguments will convince the Chair that that amendment and others related to it put forward by the same hon. member giving the same option are in fact out of order. All I am saying is that, because it gives the option to the convicted person, it separates itself from all those amendments which seek to reintroduce the death penalty imposed by the state. Therefore I separate that motion from others.
Motion No. 5 is out of order. So are motions Nos. 6, and 8. Motion No. 9 is related to motion No. 4 and therefore is reserved for further discussion. Motions Nos. 14 and 15 are out of order.
Motion No. 16 in the name of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) would not, on the face of it, be out of order but seems to be consequential on the passage of an amendment which is out of order. However, on the face of it, it is not out of order and perhaps the hon. member should be left to proceed with it or withdraw it. Motion No. 17 is out of order.
Motion No. 18 is related to motions Nos. 4 and 5 in the name of the hon. member for Oxford in that it also gives the option to the imprisoned person.
Motion No. 19 is out of order.
Motion No. 20 appears to be in order but appears to be consequential. Again, on the face of it, it is not out of order and I will leave it to the hon. member to give the House some indication as to whether or not to proceed with it.
Motion No. 35 would be out of order. Motion No. 37 appears to be consequential again, and therefore it would be left to the hon. member to indicate whether it will proceed or not.
Motion No. 38, put forward by the hon. member for Oxford, relates to the method in which the death penalty will be carried out in the event that the accused person takes advantage of the option. Therefore I should not say that that motion is yet out of order; it will have to be deferred until further consideration.
Motion No. 40 appears to be consequential and it will be left to the hon. member to indicate whether it will proceed or not.
Motion No. 45 deserves some special comment, I think, because this motion in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) provides for certain circumstances under which the House might address itself in a special way to the reintroduction of a resolution which would-it mentions the death penalty but in fact it again is a rather exceptional procedure which I do not include in those amendments which would seek to reintroduce the total bill directly. While it might be subject to further discussion as to its procedural regularity, it is not struck down again by the recent ruling I have made with regard to those amendments which would directly seek to reintroduce capital punishment.
Therefore remaining in those classifications of motions is the very large group which seeks to delete clauses. Some

June 29, 1976
Capital Punishment
discussion was initiated this afternoon by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), or at least I think it was first mentioned by him, that in fact clauses to delete in those circumstances may be no more than an expanded negative. Reference was also made by many others who participated in the discussion this afternoon. Although almost precisely opposed to the view that I began with this afternoon, it is true that in many cases a motion to delete at this stage is in fact nothing more than a procedure requiring that a vote be made on an individual clause. It is in fact a negative, and the precedents clearly indicate if such a motion were to be put forward in the standing committee to delete a clause, the motion would be struck out on procedural grounds because it would be the reverse proposition of the carriage of the clause.
In standing committee, however, the clauses have to be voted one at a time. At report stage the clauses are not voted one at a time and Standing Order 75, particularly in subsection (5) says that means motions to amend or delete-the language is there. The whole of Standing Order 75 describes the report stage process, and therefore while motions to delete at this stage may in fact be simply a negative of the clause in question, and in fact by defeating or proposing the defeat of the amendment to a clause would have the effect of returning to the original clause in the Criminal Code which has in its provisions the imposition of the death penalty, therefore would accomplish what has already been struck down in the ruling I have just made. Be that as it may, the fact is that Standing Order 75(5) says that motions to delete are in order at this stage, and therefore while they may offend some other precedents they are in line with the Standing Order in that paragraph.
I would have the greatest difficulty in attempting to rule aside motions to delete, particularly in face of the precedent cited by the hon. member for York-Simcoe this afternoon which seems to me to be the extreme of this case, that is, at report stage a one clause bill was met with a motion to delete the one clause.
The motion to delete is envisaged clearly in the Standing Order. It may be that if the rule were abused the procedural committee might want to recommend an amendment to the Standing Orders or the deletion of Standing Order 75(5) so that it could not be used in an abusive way.
My duty is to apply the Standing Orders as they appear. Therefore, notwithstanding a number of inconsistencies with the precedents I have just cited in the ruling I have just made, motions to delete pursuant to Standing Order 75 appear to me to be in order.
I have some considerable sympathy with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond Delta (Mr. Reynolds), which was that it would be a pity to strike out the amendments-which I have just done- because it would deprive hon. members of addressing themselves to the motion on an individual basis. The fact is, whether it was intended to be so or not, that the effect of motions to delete at this stage is to do that very thing. I therefore would be inclined again to sympathize with the right of hon. members to take advantage of Standing Order 75(5) to put down motions to delete to force the House to go to a vote at report stage. Again I say if it is the wish of the House that the procedure be changed-then change it.

The duty of the Chair is to enforce it as it exists, subject to argument which I will now invite. That is my initial indication.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with you on that interpretation of Standing Order 75 (5) if the word "delete" were not accompanied by the words "amend" and "insert or restore". Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that any motion to amend at report stage that would seek to amend by introducing a principle which is foreign to the bill, would not be held by Your Honour to be in order. Your Honour has just ruled a number of amendments to be out of order because it was your finding that those amendments sought to reintroduce in the bill something which was repugnant to the principle of the bill at second reading.
If that is the case with reference to amendments, surely that should be the case with reference to deletion as well. When we are speaking of deletion, if the effect of that deletion is to bring back into the bill something which is repugnant to the bill at second reading, surely that deletion ought not to be allowed in the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: If there were an attempt to restore an amendment that had been defeated in committee or that had been overruled in committee on the basis that it was unacceptable as being repugnant to the principle of the bill, surely that restoration or attempted restoration could be ruled upon on the basis of its acceptability.
My argument therefore is that Your Honour ought not to be bound simply by the wording of subsection (5) of Standing Order 75. Your Honour ought not to be prevented from making a ruling on the acceptability simply because of the use of the word "delete". "Delete" itself has no absolute magic. It must be construed as a procedural word in the same way as "amend" and in the same way as "restore".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Therefore in itself it cannot have this concept of orderliness. To my mind that is self-evident. I know Your Honour is not served by a number of precedents in this matter, but I suggest that the report stage provisions in the Standing Orders are extremely difficult. That is my first argument. I point out that if my argument is accepted, clauses 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23 all dealing with the principle of the death penalty in the original statute which the present bill seeks to repeal seek to make amendments in principle by way of deletion and therefore ought not to be allowed on the ground that they are out of order.
My second point may be unnecessary, since I am persuaded of the validity of my first point. I argue, Mr. Speaker, that wide discretion is given Your Honour under Standing Order 75 relating to the report stage. There is wide discretion with respect to the moving of motions, vote to be held, and so on. That discretion ought also to be exercised in cases of evident abuse of our procedures. It has been recognized in all parliamentary proceedings that,
June 29, 1976

basically, every bill is read the first, second, and third time. In this House there is provision for reference to a committee; that provision has been included in the Standing Orders since 1969. Mr. Speaker, the report stage was not intended to duplicate the committee stage. It was introduced to prevent abuse.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You were not here when that rule was made.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I was not born when the hon. gentleman was galloping over fences, either. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the report stage was introduced to permit this House to deal with specific amendments with which members of the committee ought to have dealt, but did not. It was not instituted in order to bring a fourth reading stage into the parliamentary process.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.


Jean-Jacques Blais: There are before the House motions to delete every clause of substance; they go to the principle of the bill. If Your Honour finds that that is an acceptable procedure, you will invite members of this House every time a bill is brought forward at the report stage to move motions for deleting each and every clause of a bill. In effect that procedure would reinstate the committee of the whole in this House even though the bill has already been dealt with in standing committee. That would mean that we have passed a redundant measure. Surely it cannot be said that so poor is our judgment that we have increased the redundant processes of this House, because that, I suggest, would be the effect of accepting these amendments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that it is not my decision whether Standing Order 75(5) can be taken advantage of in a certain way. The Standing Orders of the House are there. It would be equally applicable to suggest that Standing Order 43, providing for the introduction of certain matters into our proceedings upon unanimous consent, was originally included in the Standing Orders so that the government might intervene in regular proceedings, with unanimous consent, if there were an emergency and, therefore, that that rule ought now to be reserved for that purpose and not used by opposition members; yet that Standing Order is used almost exclusively by opposition members. It is not for me to interpret what the intention was, only what the letter of the law is at the present moment. Therefore if a certain advantage lies with members in proposing amendments pursuant to Standing Order 75(5) I say again, if that is to be changed, it will have to be changed by the procedure committee and not by the Chair. Does the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) wish to intervene on a procedural point?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on proposed amendments you said you would reserve judgment on the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and hear argument on the point. I respect the good will of the hon. member for Oxford in putting forward these amendments but feel that I should make the following comments-
Capital Punishment


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to interrupt the Solicitor General but wonder if we might not deal with the amendments of the hon. member for Oxford, in order, when they arise.
My only concern at the moment is whether the Chair ought to entertain that series of motions which seek to delete clauses, and no other question-should the Chair decide whether they should be ruled out of order at this time-I would leave any other amendments or any procedural argument on them to the moment when those individual motions are called.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have refrained from participating in the earlier procedural arguments because they were arguments which were placed before me last night and on which I ruled as chairman of the committee. But since this argument is raised for the first time in this House, and since the situation in the House is different from that pertaining to the committee, I think it might be appropriate for me to make some brief comments.
One could dispute the interpretation that Standing Order 75(5) makes a deletion in order. But I am prepared to accept that position this evening for the purposes of argument, to underline an argument which my hon. friend has already made. No matter whether deletions themselves are in order or out of order, and that is not the question on which Your Honour must rule this evening, surely any deletion which would contravene the principle of the bill falls under the ruling which Your Honour has just given. That ruling relating to the principle of the bill surely must govern all clauses of the bill, whether the proceedings be by way of deletion or otherwise. I therefore suggest that the previous ruling covers the situation with which we are dealing and that there is no necessity to rule at all on the question of deletions.


Francis Fox: To sum up,
my intervention closely follows the one just made by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). Standing Order 75(5) reads as follows:
(5) If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete ...
First, I consider the wording:
... of any motion to amend,...
On the words motion "to amend" you just ruled that not all motions "to amend" are in order but only those motions "to amend" which do not go against the principle that what has been accepted by Parliament on second reading cannot be contradicted at this stage.
Well, if that principle applies to the words "to amend" it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it must apply all the more to the word immediately following, namely the word "delete". It is obvious that certain motions "to amend" can be rejected as you just did for motions aimed at bringing back the death penalty into the bill.
It then seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the same rule of interpretation must be followed for the word "delete" which comes immediately after the words "to amend", and then only motions "to delete" which do not go against the

June 29, 1976
Capital Punishment
principle of bill itself are in order. If the principle of interpretation that you applied to the words "to amend" applies to the words "to amend" it must all the more apply to the words "to delete" because if the other interpretation were accepted that would mean that all motions "to amend" a bill would be in order in the same way as all motions "to delete" a clause.
But, once again, if you say that certain motions to amend are not in order because they go against the principle accepted on second reading, the same ruling must apply to the words "to delete" which immediately after the words "to amend" and only the motions "to delete" clauses of the bill, that is motions which do not go against the principle adopted on second reading, must be accepted.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I listed the clauses of the bill one by one to show that each clause had a direct relation with the abolition of the death penalty and with the principle of the bill.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, you could use this same argument this evening for not having made a ruling allowing to do indirectly what you have forbidden to do directly. By your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled out amending the bill in such a way that the principle would be affected. Whether the principle is affected by amendment or simply by the deletion of a clause, the result is the same. The proof of this, Mr. Speaker, is that the amendments, the provisions, the clauses that would be deleted from the bill are clauses 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 24. I do not want to repeat everything I said this afternoon, but what I say holds for every one of the clauses that would be deleted. If you accept the deletion of clause 8, for instance, you allow section 535 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the death penalty, to remain. This creates an absurd situation.
I therefore agree completely with the two previous speakers to interpret Standing Order 75 (5) in the following way. If it has been decided that during the report stage of the bill, the bill cannot be amended in such a way as to change its principle, I do not see why the deletion of a clause from the same bill should be allowed if the results are the same.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, what is important here, the principle that we want to protect is the following: It is essential not to change the principle of the bill. You have just made a ruling on this matter. We must determine by what means it cannot be changed, and I believe that it cannot be changed either by amendment, or indirectly by the delection of clauses of the bill which would keep in the Criminal Code sections which would still provide for the death penalty in certain cases.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, as I am convinced that you do not want to allow to be done indirectly what you have just ordered not to be done directly, and that you do not want to create an absurd situation, I believe that the logical and reasonable way to interpret Standing Order 75 (5) is the following: To proceed so as to insure that this rule is applied without changing the principle of the bill by amending or deleting clauses.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have made reference to the precedent cited this afternoon by the hon. member for York-Simcoe in which a one clause bill was met with a motion to delete. I listened carefully to the arguments by the Parliament Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) and the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) who, incidentally, made a very effective and direct presentation in contribution to the debate on the point this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would be prepared to accede to those arguments against motions to delete were it not for the fact that Standing Order 75(5) appears to give them a sanctity that does not extend to other motions.
It may be that that provision was inserted originally because the changes in the procedures adopted along with that provision had the effect of taking the committee of the whole stage of the bill out of the House and sending it to a standing committee. Therefore the House never really pronounced itself on clause by clause votes. That provision may very well have been inserted in the Standing Orders because of the power to introduce amendments at the committee stage. That power required a counterbalancing power of the House, really for the government I suppose, to introduce motions which would delete amendments which had been added to the bill in the committee stage. That is idle speculation at this point.
What I have to determine is whether Standing Order 75(5) and the precedents, particularly the precedent cited this afternoon by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, extend to hon. members who seek the opportunity to put motions to delete at the report stage.
If I were to rule out motions to delete at this stage on arguments that have been presented, namely, that they have the effect of contravening the principle of the bill, I would face a situation here where, for example, one member has put down only one motion to delete. Other members have put down several motions to delete. If I were to take those collectively and say that their effect is to change the principle of the bill, one member who put down a motion to delete would lose that right. It seems to be going far too extensively beyond the Standing Orders to suggest that, because the effect may be in sum or in their collectivity to change the principle of the bill, every member who wants to put down a motion to delete at this stage ought to be deprived of that right. I cannot accept that.
I must say again that there is an area here of some uncertainty as to what the rights are at this stage. In my opinion that uncertainty ought to be cleared up by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. In the meantime the benefit of the doubt will be given to the member who wishes to put down a motion at the report stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It would be my proposal to find procedurally acceptable all of those motions pursuant to Standing
June 29, 1976

Order 75(5) which now seek to delete clauses. I think we ought to move on to the consideration of the report stage of the bill.
One area remains. That is the precise compilation of those motions which were ruled out of order as the result of my initial ruling this evening. Motion No. 39 would clearly be ruled out of order on that basis. What I might do while the House is in discussion on the first of the motions to delete that has been accepted is perhaps examine those for a moment to see where that takes us. I might ask that a precise compilation of all those amendments which have been ruled out of order be made so that I can give it to the House before we proceed with the debate. Motion No. 1 has already been set aside. Motion No. 2 is out of order. Motion No. 3 is out of order. That brings us to Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). That again opens up a procedural argument to which the Solicitor General has indicated he wants to address himself. First, I will hear the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) on a point of order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to withdraw two amendments standing in my name which for purposes of brevity I will refer to as motion No. 16 and motion No. 20. They are both dependent, I believe, on other motions that Your Honour has ruled out of order.
Will you please note, Sir, that I am not withdrawing Motion No. 40, which you indicated perhaps I would, because if the deletion clauses in relation to the treason and piracy sections remain, there is certainly room for an amendment in respect of the commutation of the life sentence.
I would similarly point out that Your Honour ruled out of order my motion No. 35, relating to the method of carrying out the death penalty. There again, if both the piracy and treason sections remain as a result of the deletion motions before you, I respectfully suggest that motion ought to stay in at least until that point in time.


Mr. Speaker:: The last point of order raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is well taken. To put it more clearly, while the motion of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) remains in question, and I have not made any determination procedurally, motion No. 35, which would seek to redefine the method by which people would be put to death, ought to remain. I am sure the House will accede to the suggestion of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham that motions Nos. 16 and 20 now be withdrawn. Motions Nos. 35 and 40 will remain for further discussion, as the case may be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if Your Honour could indicate at what point you may be exercising your right under Standing Order 75(10) which gives you the authority to combine certain motions, some for purposes of debate, some for purposes of voting. It seems that in view of Your Honour's ruling, which I have to think was procedurally correct, that the motions to delete are in order, maybe some consideration might be given to the possibility that in a number of cases they are related and might be combined for purposes of debate and
Capital Punishment
for purposes of voting. I just wonder whether Your Honour is yet ready to do that or whether you may be in a position to do that tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am faced with a procedural argument in respect to the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Oxford. I propose to deal with that and see where that leaves us. After that, possibly we could get into some discussion with regard to the grouping of those motions which remain.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the motions proposed by the hon. member for Oxford. I respect the spirit in which he has put them forward. These are motions 4, 9, and 38. In Motion No. 4 he says a person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life or, if the convicted person so chooses, shall be sentenced to death. Then in Motion No. 38 he says:
The sentence to be pronounced against a person who is sentenced to death shall not be that he shall be hanged by the neck until dead but shall be in conformity with any humane method of execution as the Governor in Council may establish by regulation.
In accordance with this amendment responsibility for the execution still rests with the state. The state would have to carry out the execution of the convicted person should he wish to be executed. In other words, the hon. member is not suggesting that the convicted person be allowed to commit suicide-I shall not comment on that aspect-but he is suggesting the state should execute that person should he wish to be executed.
I submit that such an amendment contradicts the principle of the bill, which is the abolition of the death penalty by the state. Were it adopted, the state would still have to maintain the whole apparatus for public execution whether the method were by injection or the administering of a pill, or by any other means. The state would have to maintain an executioner and draw up rules and regulations to cover public executions. I submit that this amendment, which places a burden on the state to carry out an execution, should a convicted person demand that he be executed, is in contradiction to the principle of the bill which is that we abolish the death penalty in Canada for all crimes.


Mr. Halliday:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I first thank you for recognizing that these three amendments and the consequential amendment involve a different approach to this question and that they deserve consideration. Your Honour has ruled that the primary principle of this bill is the abolition of capital punishment, but inherent in that philosophy is the idea that the state imposes the decision. The Solicitor General takes offence because the state is called upon to carry out a decision made by the convicted person. In my view, as an abolitionist, the heinous part of putting a person to death is not the actual carrying out of the death sentence but making the decision that he should be put to death. I would hate to do that. It is probable that only a very few cases which will come before the courts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is naturally tempted to speak in support of his own motion. My concern is whether or not the motion is procedurally acceptable. If there are others who wish to address themselves to the

June 29, 1976
Capital Punishment
procedural point I will hear them. Otherwise I will conclude that the basic principle the Chair ought to follow is that the right of members to put motions before the House ought to be interpreted in favour of those who want to put such motions forward.
I have already ruled a number of amendments to be out of order because there is a clear precedent that motions which offend the principle of a bill after the House has pronounced itself on that principle on second reading are out of order. I have said that the principle of the bill is the abolition of capital punishment. Do the motions put forward by the hon. member for Oxford impose capital punishment when the House has decided in principle against it? I would have to say, no.
There may be many arguments on the merits, but that is another question. I have to decide whether the motions offend the principle of the bill, and because they vest in the convicted person the option to ask the state that he or she be put to death it seems to me that the principle that the state does not impose capital punishment of its own will is not offended, and therefore I have to conclude that the amendments in the name of the hon. member for Oxford are procedurally regular.
These are motions Nos. 4, 9 and 38, I believe-I want to be sure that those are the only three motions to which he has addressed himself. I believe that motion No. 38 is consequential.


An hon. Member:: Motion No. 18.


Mr. Speaker:: So there are four in all. It is certain we have now brought ourselves to the threshold of motion No. 4, which obviously must be grouped with motions Nos. 9, 18 and 38. All those motions should be grouped and voted on together. If the House is prepared to turn to the discussion of motions Nos. 4, 9, 18 and 38, they could be considered. That would give the Chair the opportunity to give some thought to the grouping of the remaining amendments.


Mr. Benjamin:: On a point of order, I appreciate Your Honour's ruling but on looking over motion No. 4 and the subsequent motions proposed by the hon. member for Oxford I have difficulty in understanding how that motion does not contravene the principle of the bill since in the last line it contains the words "shall be sentenced to death". Even if a person chooses-


Mr. Speaker:: Those may be arguments upon the merits. The fact is that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Oxford contains the words "if the person so chooses" and this appears to avoid a course contrary to the principle of the bill. It seems to me that the principle of the bill is not offended when the thrust of the amendment is that the person himself should have the option. I have so ruled, and the discussion on that matter is concluded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When Your Honour grouped motions 4, 9, 18 and 38 did you group them both for debate and voting purposes?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. All are founded on the same basic principle and they should therefore be grouped together for discussion and dealt with in one vote. The hon. member for Oxford.
|Mr. Speaker.]


Bruce Halliday: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I again commend you on your decision. I wish to preface my remarks by saying that for a long time I have been an abolitionist and that I still am. I do not want to be misunderstood. In the second place I want to acknowledge the fact that parliament has a responsibility to protect the citizens of this country. Because of this, I feel this motion must be introduced this evening. The third-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I should take this opportunity, while the hon. member is referring to the introduction of his motion to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the motions of the hon. member have not been really been put. Perhaps I should put them at this time and then let the hon. member complete his speech.
The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) moves:
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 37 to 45 at page 2 and lines 1 to 17 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life or, if the convicted person so chooses, shall be sentenced to death.".
Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 23 to 24 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"able offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life, or if the convicted person so chooses, shall be sentenced to death.".
Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 34 to 38 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"guilty of an indictable offence and shall,
(a)	for a first offence, be sentenced to imprisonment for life, and
(b)	for a second offence, be sentenced to imprisonment for life or, if
the convicted person so chooses, be sentenced to death.".
Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended in Clause 21 by adding, immediately after line 43 at page 8 the following new subsection:
"(2) The sentence to be pronounced against a person who is sentenced to death shall not be that he be hanged by the neck until dead but shall be in conformity with any humane method of execution as the Governor in Council may establish by regulation."


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, you have now put us on the right legal track so that the rest of the discussion will be in order. I was referring to the fact that my theory behind these four amendments is based on the recognition of several basic premises. The first is that I am an abolitionist; I favour the abolition of capital punishment. Secondly, parliament has a responsibility to protect Canadian citizens, and I feel that this bill fails to do this in certain respects.
The third point I want to make is that it is claimed by many people that absolute life imprisonment, that is, imprisonment for the remaining days of one's life, is indeed worse than death. I am not here to judge whether or not that is so, but I am prepared to accept that that might
June 29, 1976

be true. If it is true I feel that most citizens in this country, and certainly I, would like to see the most humane punishment possible instituted, and some provision should be made for a person to choose a death sentence if that is his wish.
There is a fourth point which also involves a basic premise that I feel needs to be considered by members of the House. The laws of this country should reflect the same degree of compassion and consideration for the families of the victims of murders as for the criminals themselves. There is a feeling in this country today that we in parliament appear to have more concern for the welfare of criminals than for the welfare of their victims or their victims' families. On that basis I feel the amendments serve the purpose of recognizing these four tenets or premises.
I should say at the outset that as Canadians we have always felt that to be humane was one of our cardinal rules for life in society in Canada. Neither do we want to submit prisoners to any unnecessary cruelties. We in Canada also want to protect the public against any unneccessary hazard or risk that could fall their way.
I submit that Bill C-84 fails in several respects to meet these basic needs of the Canadian people. I sense this from talking to many constituents in my riding. During the last few weeks many have spoken to me and are very disappointed at the stand I took on capital punishment. I have stood very firm, explaining to them that I have a strong and intense inner feeling that it is wrong for the state to order the taking of a person's life. Many of my constituents respect my view even though they do not agree with it. But those same constituents are very quick to point out that we in parliament do not seem to be giving enough attention to the protection of society; hence one reason for these amendments. If I can elaborate on this point, Mr. Speaker, amendments Nos. 4, 9, 18 and 38 do exactly that.
What I am trying to do by way of these four amendments is to put some teeth into Bill C-84 in order to protect society against a few criminals. I would be the first to admit that everybody in society can make a mistake once, and I would be the first to give that recognition even to a person who commits first or second degree murder. I feel that such a person may be able to mend his ways with appropriate help, and that this is a sound approach to take.
On the other hand I have an entirely different feeling toward those people who have been given a second chance yet commit the same or a similar offence a second time, whether it be first degree or second degree murder. I have then very little sympathy for them. More than that, Mr. Speaker, I feel that such people have proven not only to themselves but to the citizens of this country, and to us as parliamentarians, that they are unable to learn a lesson. I think that society deserves to be protected against the sort of person in society who cannot learn a lesson. There is no provision in Bill C-84 as presently worded to correct this situation. I submit that by providing that such people spend the rest of their days in prison, this is the best way to protect society against a repeat performance on the part of someone who has already shown he will not learn a lesson. That is one of the main reasons that I feel motion No. 18 is essential.
Capital Punishment
In addition to that, I abhor the idea of the state taking the decision to invoke capital punishment. I feel that such action is inhumane. It is not the actual carrying out of the death penalty because there are other ways that are not inhumane at all. But the decision on the part of the state to take somebody's life is, in my view, unacceptable.
On the other hand I have practised medicine long enough to see plenty of cases of people who cannot tolerate any prolongation of their lives, and one cannot help but have sympathy for them when they are successful in taking their own lives in one way or another. We as physicians, all have inbred and inculcated into us the desire always to save lives, and that is what we do. There is an inner feeling that I certainly have as a physician, that when a person has tried several times, yet because of the failure or the inability of medical science to help them, the kindest thing is to have sympathy for that person when he is eventually successful. It is because of this that I feel some of these criminals are virtually in that state of mind and personally want to commit suicide. They are deranged people or they probably would not be attempting suicide. Out of kindness, compassion and humaneness we should at least provide them with the option if they wish no longer to continue living that kind of life in prison for the rest of their days.
Many people have said it is worse to be in prison for the rest of one's life than it is to be dead. I am not in a position to argue that one way or the other. I do not know the answer, but I am prepared to accept the fact that for some people it may well be true.
I should like to see this bill make provision that if an individual wishes to be relieved of his suffering in this world he can indeed be relieved of that suffering in a humane way. Of course that is the purpose of my final motion, No. 38, which is consequential on the other three. I have suggested that these three amendments are quite similar. I want to go on in a bit of detail about the fact that we have to consider a repeat murderer in order to protect society against further repetition.
Let me refer briefly to the other two amendments which deal with acts of piracy and high treason. Perhaps others would like to add to that list such things as kidnapping with force and so on. I was interested last night in the committee hearing on this bill. When I put this same proposal to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) he made one point that I thought was very significant. It was a point I had not been aware of, and not being in possession of the minutes of that meeting I will essentially have to paraphrase what the minister said, and I certainly will accept correction if what I suggest is wrong.
The minister took as an example those people who commit the act of piracy and intimated that studies had shown that these people seem to have some derangement of mind making them unamenable to the point that they cannot accept any type of deterrent. I would be the first to agree with the Solicitor General that this is probably true. There are those few people who are deranged mentally in a way that we do not really understand fully in a medical-scientific way. They have the emotional drive to commit some act of piracy, or some similar act which is abhorrent to society. There is no effective type of deterrent, even

June 29, 1976
Capital Punishment
capital punishment, which will dissuade them from their goal.
This being the case, I suggest the Solicitor General has played along nicely with my argument. There is only one treatment for that kind of criminal, particularly if you hold the stance of an abolitionist, and that is that the person must be removed from society for the balance of his days. If there is no possible deterrent, then in no way should that man or woman ever be allowed out in society again, particularly if we cannot change the personality of that individual to preclude the possibility of the individual commiting the same act again.
I submit that the only thing we can do is amend this bill to provide that those very few individuals, who admittedly are deranged, and who admittedly we cannot help at this present stage of our knowledge, be put in some type of institution for the balance of their days, purely for the protection of society. This is one of the issues my constituents are very upset about, and I think many of them are more upset about it than about the fact that according to my principles I am an abolitionist.
If we are going to show the kind of humanity and compassion I think all Canadians want to show, we have to give that poor criminal, that man who cannot be helped, the alternative of being allowed out of his suffering, whether we look upon his suffering as being free in society with the temptation to commit these acts of piracy or high treason and so on, or the suffering he will have to endure for the balance of his days in prison. Whichever it is, in a sense of compassion and humanity we ought to make the provision that such an individual may decide, not the state, that the kindest thing for him is to be out of circulation as a living being on this earth. We as a parliament here should make that provision for those few people.
I made reference to the fact that this applies to those who are convicted of piracy. I would want to include in that, as one of my three amendments does, those who are convicted of high treason. I realize that high treason has never been the subject matter of a charge laid here in Canada for dear knows how many years. However, the mere fact that the government has seen fit to include this in Bill C-84 suggests that it should also be included in the amendment to make it fairly complete. I intimated a few minutes ago that undoubtedly hon. members could cite other examples which might well be added to the list. I would welcome those suggestions from other speakers.
Let me reply to the comments made by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). I appreciate the fact that he finds some difficulty in accepting the amendments as they are written. I confess that these were not written by myself. Not being a lawyer it was my feeling I could not do this well, and I had some help at the last minute this morning. As a matter of fact these were turned in to Mr. Speaker about four minutes to 12. I was not completely satisfied with them. I anticipated exactly the question the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre raised with Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member suggested that it looked almost as though the wording suggested we will sentence these poor criminals to death. Of course that is not the intent. The effect is that the individual would be allowed to make the choice, and this would negate the argument of the hon.

member for Regina-Lake Centre. Nonetheless, I would certainly welcome any amendment or changes to the wording of these three basic amendments which would clarify that point.
I am the last one to want any suggestion in my amendments that the state will in any way impose capital punishment on these poor criminals. I want to make it very clear that my intent is that we must leave it up to the criminal, and if he so chooses the state will oblige him. That is my intent. I hope the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre appreciates that. I have made the suggestion in all sincerity, and I am sure his questioning of the wording of my amendment was done in all sincerity. I do not want to leave the impression that the state will in any way whatsoever invoke capital punishment.
It remains for me to comment on my last amendment, No. 38, which in fact is really a reassertion of my feelings, and I think the feelings of almost all the members of this House and of many Canadians who are in favour of capital punishment. If we need capital punishment there are more humane ways of carrying this out than by hanging. I am sure all hon. members realize there are painless ways which involve no suffering whatsoever. Perhaps the most effective would be the intravenous injection of a prescribed drug. Some have mentioned gas, and so on. I am willing to accept any suggestion in this regard. As my amendment suggests, this would be left to the discretion of the governor in council by regulation. I am prepared to leave this to the wisdom of the government.
Before I close I want to allude briefly to something which is not in this bill, but something on which I would dearly love to comment. I dare say it cannot be included for some technical reason. In fact it is the point I made reference to at the beginning of my comments. We must have something in the laws of this land that will allow for better provision or compensation for the families of those who are the victims of murder. We raised this point again last night in the committee. The Solicitor General did not have figures at hand at the time but took upon himself- and I thank him for it-to provide us later in the day with the best figures he had available on short notice in respect of this particular matter.
The information is that there is in fact a cost-sharing agreement between the federal government and the provinces of Canada whereby a certain sum of money is provided as compensation for the families of victims. I think it is desirable that we have this type of compensation. However, may I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this House that if a citizen of Canada is working as a miner or as a logger and is somehow killed in the course of his work, society looks after his family much more effectively than it does now the family of a person who is unfortunate enough to be the victim of a murder. It seems to me that under the workmen's compensation provisions and so on, society adequately looks after the families of persons involved in that type of death, but for some strange reason which I cannot quite comprehend we seem to accept little if any responsibility for the families of victims of murder. This is incomprehensible to me.
June 29, 1976

I submit that it would be very difficult for me to vote for this particular bill if I do not see some real attempt on the part of the government to show that it does in fact care about the families of these victims. There is no such indication. I should like to quote the figures which the Solicitor General supplied. In the year 1974-75 I believe there were approximately 1,000 instances in which compensation was paid out in respect of some type of crime. The amount of the compensation paid by both levels of government amounted to approximately $2,300,000 in respect of approximately 1,000 cases. That represents about $2,300 per case. The Solicitor General was unable to provide us with more specific figures. Although I am subject to correction, I suspect that in fact we do not compensate the families of the victims of murder adequately. These figures seem to suggest that.
Surely the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) should be in a position, if he hopes to get some of the abolitionists in this House to support his bill, to give us some assurance that in actual fact the government does care about the families of the victims of murder. It would seem to me that the government has shown little concern for these families.
I shall summarize by saying that I am an abolitionist. I voted for this bill on second reading because as a new member of this House I was under the impression that second reading meant approval of the bill in principle. I am the first to agree that I do approve of this bill in principle. I approve of the abolition of capital punishment. I also approve, however, of the complete protection of society against repeaters of murder, people who would be intent on piracy and people who would be intent, if it should happen, on high treason. I submit that the government by way of Bill C-84 has made no effort to assure the people of Canada that it is concerned about this and does not want people to go on committing murder after murder after murder. I acknowledge that this does not happen often. I know there have been only two or three cases in a period of several years.
I refuse to accept the fact that a person who is unable to learn from having committed a heinous crime should be allowed, because of the very generous terms of the law, to be paroled after 15 years. If such a person is unwilling or unable to learn after committing a second crime, then there is a problem in respect of protecting society. I believe the government must give some assurance that it does care about the people in Canada who deserve protection against the worst offenders, those who go on committing murder after murder. As I say, I admit that there are only a few such cases. All of our constituents are upset about such cases. They keep bringing these cases to our attention and suggest that we are not concerned about protecting the average citizen of Canada when we let such people out again.
Although it might seem inappropriate, I should like to commend the government on the principle of the bill. However, I have grave doubt about the way I will vote on third reading because now we are in a different ball game. It is not a vote on principle. I am concerned about the provisions in this bill. I must reconsider my first vote because I do not believe the government is concerned about these two crucial matters; first, the protection of society against repeaters of murder and, second, the ques-
Capital Punishment
tion concerning when the government will tell the Canadian people that it does care about the families of those who have suffered because of unwarranted murder in this land.
I would close by saying I hope we can hear from either or both the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice. I notice both ministers are here tonight. I hope we can hear from one or both of them that they do care about Canadians, that they do care about these two issues, and are willing to close the loopholes which presently exist. I think this bill is a disgrace to this parliament if it should pass as it is. Thank you.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would accept a question?


Bruce Halliday: Yes, indeed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I appreciate having the opportunity to ask a question of the hon. member. I share many of the concerns he has expressed. I appreciate that this is a very difficult decision for him to make. One of the bases on which the hon. member defended his proposal tonight in respect of in essence giving convicted murderers an option to commit suicide or receive a death sentence was that this would act as a deterrent against a second offence. Could the hon. member tell the House how in his mind he feels this would provide an additional deterrent because a person who is convicted for the first time of a murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, and in fact preferred to be killed, could only get that option by committing a second offence?
The other question is in respect of the euthanasia aspect of what he proposes. I think it is correct to paraphrase what he meant by referring to it as mercy killing. Would the hon. member indicate whether he would also propose in the case of the chronically ill and people in great pain that this be extended to them as well?


Bruce Halliday: I appreciate these questions from the hon. member. I think perhaps he has misunderstood me a little, or perhaps I have misunderstood his question. Obviously my amendment in no way would preclude, or is unlikely to preclude, a person committing a second murder. Being an abolitionist I am prepared to go along with the government in respect of first degree murder or second degree murder, but what happens then if someone at some stage, whether on parole or after release, commits another murder? To me there is no protection for society. What we must do then is see that they are in jail for the remainder of their lives.
The hon. member asked about euthanasia. According to my understanding this is not euthanasia. What I am proposing could be referred to as legalized suicide, but it is not euthanasia. Euthanasia is where society decides that another person should be put to death, for whatever reason. In other words the primary move is by society. It may be by a physician, but the physician represents society.
In this instance this is not euthanasia, it is more like legalized suicide when the state countenances suicide. But normally the state does not countenance any kind of suicide. As I explained in my earlier remarks, there are indeed a few instances of people trying suicide on repeated occa-

June 29, 1976
Capital Punishment
sions, and it becomes obvious to thoose involved in their care that the kindest thing for those people would be if they could only be successful. So my answer in short is that I am not talking about any kind of euthanasia but rather about legalized suicide.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say a few brief words about these motions. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) proposes that for high treason, piracy, and for second murders there should be either a life sentence or an opportunity to be executed, which would be the choice of the person convicted of these three offences. In his amendment No. 38 he sets out the way in which the death sentence would be carried out.
He said he did not draft the amendments himself, and perhaps that is the reason for some of the loopholes in them. He says he put forward these amendments for humane reasons, because he feels that for certain offences a person should have the choice of either being put to death or being imprisoned for life. But what I think has been overlooked is that in the present bill a person, for the crime of treason, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life and would be eligible for parole in 25 years, and perhaps in 15 years if a jury agreed that his parole eligibility date should be shortened. So he would be sentenced to imprisonment for life subject to the minimum parole eligibility date.
With respect to piracy, when we discussed this in the committee last night the hon. member referred to the hijacking of aircraft. I made some comments with respect to people who are suicidal and had martyr complexes. A study was made with respect to aircraft hijackers in recent years-people who hijacked aircraft to Cuba, Algeria, and so on. The mistake he made was that his amendment was with respect to section 75 in the Criminal Code which deals with the piracy of ships. That section is a very old section in the Criminal Code and the death penalty still applied to piracy of ships. The sections relating to hijacking of aircraft provide a maximum life sentence, not a minimum life sentence. So in fact what he is doing is to say that for piracy we should have, instead of the death penalty, imprisonment for life, which, by the way, would be subject to parole in ten years, but the hon. member says that person should have the choice of being executed, if he wishes.
The third type of offence is a second murder. That is a difficult case. There are other amendments here also dealing with second murders. All I can say is that this is a very rare occurrence. In Canadian history we had only five examples of this. One of the five examples was of the second murder having being committed in the United States after the individual escaped from a Canadian prison.
The second one of these examples is of an inmate who killed another inmate who was his accomplice in the murder that brought them both to prison. In other words, these two individuals committed a murder and, when they were sentenced to prison for life, one of the individuals killed his accomplice.
The other three cases are of individuals who committed second murders, and in one of these cases an individual

was hanged in the early forties. So it is a rare occurrence. I am an abolitionist and I believe that the answer in case of second murders is a better security system in our prisons and a better parole system.
With respect to the principle in the hon. member's proposal, I do not question his sincerity but I feel that the very fact he says "execute these people" makes it a type of suicide. If you read his amendment No.38, it is the state that must do the execution once the convicted person decides he wishes to be executed rather than serve his sentence. This means that the state must provide all the apparatus for the execution-have an executioner available, and so on, and deliberately execute the individual even though he has agreed to it. It seems to me to be a cold blooded ritual and I would prefer that we do not accept that type of procedure.
The hon. member has made some other points with which I agree. He says that we should show concern for the victim. I have stated repeatedly that my first concern is for victims, or to ensure lack of victims. My first goal as Solicitor General is to do everything possible to prevent crime and to reduce the number of victims.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Of course our programs for crime prevention and crime reduction are not in Bill C-84; they are found in many other bills. For example, Bill C-83 is directed to crime prevention. Bill C-71, passed by the House in January, was directed to crime prevention. When we submitted our estimates to the House for this department we provided an increase in the estimates for the RCMP, which is law enforcement and crime prevention. We were dealing with the protection of the public. There are many programs geared to crime prevention and public protection, but they are not in Bill C-84.
With respect to the compensation of victims of crime, we have a program now covering this. That program is under the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). Under the program he cost shares with the provinces in their provincial programs in that area. I believe that he has agreements with all provinces in Canada. Terms of those programs differ from province to province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but it is close to ten o'clock.
I said earlier that I would give to the House a precise compilation of amendments considered up to now. Three motions have been withdrawn: Motions Nos. 1, 16 and 20. The following motions have been ruled out of order: Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 39. Therefore remaining for consideration are the four that have been grouped for debate standing in the name of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), namely, motions Nos. 4, 9, 18 and 38. In addition to those are motions Nos. 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21 to 37 inclusive, and 40 to 46 inclusive.
In respect of the grouping of these motions perhaps House leaders might agree that the Chair should attempt to put forward suggested groupings of amendments tomorrow morning, which would only form the basis of discussion. The Chair would try to get these suggestions into
June 29, 1976

writing and into the hands of House leaders and into caucus before noon tomorrow. By three o'clock tomorrow when the order is called there could be comment on these groupings, and then we would resume discussion on the four motions before the House at the present time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Reginald Cyril Symes: June 29, 1976
Adjournment Debate
I note that the government moved speedily to clean up environmental pollution at Port Hope resulting from radioactive waste.


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


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the particular chlor-alkali plant which was the major contributor to mercury contamination of the English-Wabagoon river system converted from mercury cells to membrane cells, terminating the use of mercury completely in October, 1975. Thus there will be no further mercury added to the system from that source.
In March, 1972, Environment Canada issued the chlor-alkali mercury effluent regulations under the Fisheries Act, limiting the quantity of mercury that could be discharged to receiving waters from these plants. Since then all the chlor-alkali plants have reported daily figures of their mercury discharges to liquid effluents as well as their purchases of mercury for any use. These records indicate that direct discharges of mercury to receiving waters, including the Dryden plant, have been reduced to a level of only about 1 per cent of that discharged prior to the discovery of the problem.
The whole process has now been changed in the Dryden plant. Unfortunately the vast amounts of mercury discharged to the environment in the past are now contained in bottom sediments from which they will continue to find their way into the food chain.
We have an estimate of approximately $350 million to dredge and dispose of the contaminated river sediments; however, physical removal of contaminated river and lake sediments may cause more release of mercury due to disturbance than would occur from the undisturbed sediments. On the basis of analyses over several years it now appears that the problem is decreasing year by year. However, estimates of time for complete self-recovery of the English-Wabagoon river system can be placed at 20 to 30 years.
We are actively continuing a policy of collaboration with provincial governments. As suggested by the hon. member, the Canada Water Act is one of the available strategies. However, that act is not normally used to deal with this type of problem and is not considered appropriate in this case.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-EXTENSION OF COVERAGE TO ISOLATED AREAS-REASON FOR DELAY
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, the question I directed to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), who is responsible for the CBC, concerns the inefficiency and not upholding a promise to extend television coverage to remote areas of Canada.
I have been raising this matter for eight years. All I have received are tales of woe and excuses. If a CBC producer would look into my files, he would find the greatest story that could be told. It would not cost a cent for this story that could run for 13 weeks on television. It concerns the

extension of television coverage to citizens in remote areas of Newfoundland. These people are Canadian citizens. They listened to promises when they came into Canada. They heard about the good things Canada offers all its citizens.
After reading the speech by the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), I was prompted to direct this question to the Secretary of State. It is hypocritical the way she agrees with everything I say. I am sure the parliamentary secretary will also agree because she lives in a rural area.
The minister indicated in her speech that the CBC signals can be made available to communities in the North Atlantic and that, as funds become available, and provided the people want it, there is no reason why any of these small remote communities should lack CBC radio and television. However, all I get from those concerned in the CBC are tales of woe.
In the 1974-75 annual report one of the excuses they give is a shortage in Canada of engineers and technicians specializing in broadcast transmission. If that is the case, why could a small satellite not be put up which would extend television coverage to northern Newfoundland? People in five small communities there have been waiting for years to get this public service which they deserve. They are denied this because of a lack of efficiency on the part of the CBC. I realize the problems they have, financial and otherwise. I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Baker) that the fishermen in northern Newfoundland know how to bring television coverage to that area, but no one will listen to them.
I repeat that I have been raising this matter for eight years. In have tried to be reasonable. I can only come to the conclusion that, as usual, we in Newfoundland are low on the priority scale. I hope the parliamentary secretary will have an answer.
I have one other grievance. I warned the minister about ten days ago that I would be asking him this question. However, the only answer I received the other day was that he would get a detailed reply for me. I hope the parliamentary secretary will have that answer and be able to give me a date, not in 1978, but within the next few months. I hope the CBC engineers will get off their fannies and realize that those in northern Newfoundland are also Canadians and are entitled to television coverage.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, priorities in the implementation of the accelerated coverage plan are based on criteria which take into account population, isolation, geographic equalization across the country, engineering considerations, cost and operating factors.
As will be appreciated, the 600 engineering projects in the plan must be carried out on a tight logistical schedule, with the above priorities set on a national basis, using a formula considered to be as equitable as the CBC can make it. The CBC understands the wish of individual communities to receive service as quickly as possible, but the sheer size of the total project, and its attendant requirements for staff and the manufacture of the necessary equipment, must dictate the speed at which the plan can proceed.
June 29, 1976

As of June 16, 1976, the CBC had applied to the CRTC for 156 radio and television projects across this country. Of these, 103 have been approved and 40 are now on air.
With respect to the hon. member's constituency I would refer him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the letters dated June 18 and March 29 which he presumably received from the Corporation and which indicated that the CBC expected to submit applications to the CRTC in late 1976 for those projects in his riding. It will be noted that this is a slight improvement over the time of application of early 1977 as was first indicated in a letter to the hon. member on November 20, 1975.
I should also like to say that I will bring the capabilities of the fishermen in the hon. member's constituency to the attention of the CBC. I am sure they will be interested.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION-ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF ACT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I regret two things. First, I regret I should find it necessary to be here tonight. This is the third time this session on which I have had occasion to speak of matters relating to inland fisheries and the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. I rggret, too, that this is the third occasion on which the Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) has not been present in the House to articulate his stand with reference to the matters I raised during the question period. I am making no reflection on the parliamentary secretary but he is no substitute for the minister, who ought to be a fully-fledged minister to begin with. But in whatever state we find the minister of fisheries, he ought to be here. I hope the parliamentary secretary will take my words tonight and underline them and convey them to his minister tomorrow, because the next time I do battle in this Chamber I expect to do battle with the minister, not with his lieutenant, good as that lieutenant may be.
My question to the minister was this:
Mr. Speaker, my question . . . has to do with the matter I have brought to his attention on several occasions in this House. It has to do with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, Part III, section 23(2). Could the minister now tell the House whether he has consulted the Solicitor General and whether the Solicitor General will proceed with charges because of the obvious violation of the law with reference to that section of the act?
This was the minister's non-answer:
Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the file to see what point this matter has reached.
After months and months of evasion he is finally going to look into the file. He did that. He did not offer a satisfactory explanation though, because again I had to raise the question. On June 14, as reported in Hansard, at page 14452, in answer to a similar question, the minister stated:
Mr. Speaker, I have consulted the legal advisors of the Fisheries and Marine Service, and their answer leads me to believe that the hon. member is either misinformed or is trying to distort the function of the corporation.
In all my dealings in this House I have never attributed to the minister anything but the most honourable inten-
Adjournment Debate
tion, yet here the Minister of State for Fisheries is accusing me of intending to distort the functions of the corporation.
I wish to state in this House that I have neither publicly nor in this Chamber ever intended to distort what are the functions of the corporation. I wish to point out to the parliamentary secretary, in the absence of the minister, that the original concept of the agreement that was signed on June 4, 1969, was that the purpose of the corporation was to establish a single desk marketing agency for the purpose of selling freshwater fish. That is all I have ever said was its function. Is that the distortion of the purposes of the corporation to which the minister refers?
I have on numerous occasions asked the minister to initiate a cost-price analysis by species per pound of the cost of processing by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. The parliamentary secretary has assured me privately that this will happen. There were to be great plans. He was going to call a special meeting of the fisheries committee of this House and direct the officials of the corporation to attend to answer any and all questions put to them by myself or the representatives of the Lake Winnipeg Fishermen's Association or any other association that wanted to be represented.
I got home that night elated, Mr. Speaker. I phoned the fishermen in Manitoba, and they said it was great news. It was great news because, let me emphasize, that the money of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is fishermen's money, not tax money. The corporation runs and functions as a co-operative. Any capital investment and interest on original capital investment are fishermen's money, not tax money, not government money. Surely the fishermen have a right to know what it costs to process fish. Is that the distortion to which the minister refers? I want the parliamentary secretary to stand in his place tonight and to tell me whether or not that promise of a special committee will be carried out, when, and what will be the terms of reference. I have not heard one peep from the minister yet in this regard.
Lastly, section 23(2) in Part III of the act passed by this House of Commons in 1969 clearly provides-and there is no difference of opinion among the legal advisers-that the price offered by the corporation to the fishermen must be decided on by the fishermen, in agreement with them. It is not to be decided dictatorially by the corporation; there has to be agreement with the fishermen as to price.
I ask this question of the minister: will he direct the corporation to follow the law? Is this what the minister means by saying I am distorting the purposes of the corporation or I am distorting the law? The law is clear. Will the minister or will he not direct the corporation to adhere to the laws of the land as passed by the House of Commons?
In conclusion, if I have inadvertently or otherwise attempted to distort either the function of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation or any of its activities, either collectively on the part of the corporation, or individually on the part of any officer thereof, I stand corrected and I apologize to all concerned, and I stand to learn. But if after close analysis it is found that I have not distorted the function, then I demand from the minister, or from his
June 29, 1976

Adjournment Debate
parliamentary secretary since the minister is not here tonight, that he answer the queries of the fishermen-


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


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the minister finds the hon. member's questions by their nature difficult to understand. The hon. member seems to suggest that he should instruct the corporation on the prices that should be established for fish and that these prices should not necessarily take into account the eventual sale price that may be available in the market place. The minister is sure that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act did not contemplate that the FFMC should purchase fish at a price unrelated to the eventual price it can obtain in the market. To do as the hon. member proposes would surely be irresponsible management on the part of the corporation, its board of directors, and the advisory committee to that board.
The minister is advised that the FFMC prices are established by management as they relate to the market but are approved initially by the board who have four fishermen
members out of ten, and they consult the advisory committee which has 13 fishermen on their committee out of 15 members. Everything possible is being done to ensure that the maximum return, consistent with the prices that can be obtained in the market place, is provided to fishermen.
I must repeat that these are guaranteed initial prices to fishermen before they commence fishing, unlike the system prior to the corporation when fishermen did not have any idea of the price they could expect for their fish. I might add that if returns are obtained in the market place higher than those originally set, the fisherman is also a direct beneficiary when final payments are made.
The minister has not consulted with the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) but he has consulted the legal advisers of the Fisheries and Marine Service and is convinced after reviewing this matter that the corporation is indeed operating within the spirit and conditions of the act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, June 30, 1976