1976-05-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. During a time when the government is preaching restraint and austerity, it has come to my attention that the Department of Public Works proposes to spend $875,000 for new automatic elevators in the Confederation building on Parliament Hill.
In light of current economic conditions and the need to spend in more relevant areas, such as medical research, coupled with the fact that the fate of the elevator operators is uncertain, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House instructs the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Minister of Public Works and the President of the Treasury Board to put a halt to any installation of automatic elevators in the Confederation building until they prepare a report for this House determining the following, whether such an expenditure is necessary at this time, what savings will result, and what duties will be assigned to present elevator operators; furthermore, that no commitment be made to have operators on the automatic elevators.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. There is increasing scientific evidence and much recent disclosure of fear of another shortfall of wheat supplies developing in the year ahead, so that many who can hardly be called alarmists warn us that it is much later than we think and that we are operating on a knife edge on the world's food
frontier. Many are now convinced that the shortages which led to such devasting rises in food prices in the early 1970's were not the result of insufficient production capacity but came about because the leading export countries, the United States, Canada and Australia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires a brief description simply of the urgency of the matter. I wonder if the hon. member would stick to that.


Andrew Hogan: My point on the urgency of the matter is that the United States, Canada and Australia were leaning over backwards to avoid high levels of inventories, seeing the existence of surpluses as being an enemy to their own interests. Since there is a danger of repetition of this type of thinking and acting, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That Canada take an even more important role in the introduction of a food stabilization scheme administered by an international authority.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



INCOME TAX


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a question of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent eradication program in response to the presence of blue tongue, in view of the fact that compensation paid for the eradication of herds cannot, in many instances, be utilized within the year to re-establish a herd, therefore making the compensation subject to taxation, and in view of the statement of the Minister of Agriculture during miscellaneous estimates on March 24, 1974 that the principle involved in paying compensation is for the purpose of keeping a farmer in business, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco):
That the government take immediate action to correct this inequity.


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

May 14, 1976
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the decision by the Minister of Transport to launch a public investigation into the modality and the impact of implementing bilingualism in air-ground communications; considering also that the minister stated he does not intend to reconsider the extension of bilingualism, and that all necessary precautions in the field of safety and technology were taken, and that the selected referee, Mr. Keenan is the very person who has prompted the pilot union to adopt its strategy to fight bilingualism, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the Department of Transport cancel this investigation and order flying personnel associations involved to comply with the laws and regulations or face the alternative of dismissal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Privy Council both in that capacity and in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. I should like to ask him a question with respect to the announced intention of the government to establish a national lottery scheme. Could the minister confirm for me that it is in fact the intention of the government to seek parliamentary ratification for this major undertaking through nothing more than a routine supplementary estimate, an estimate which will not even be debated in this House and which, like all this government's spending, will

fall under the so-called guillotine for automatic approval before the end of June?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the House leaders and I had some discussion of this matter the other day. It will be recalled that when the President of the Privy Council announced the intention of the government, there was some discussion as to whether it would be possible to dispose of a bill within a reasonable time. It was quite clear from the comments which were made at the time that there was a difference of view amongst the parties as to the wisdom of proceeding in this way. The Leader of the Opposition supported the idea in principle; the NDP opposed it. Therefore, it seemed to me that it would be impossible to get agreement on the kind of procedures which would be necessary to get this bill through within two or three days, which was mentioned during that exchange of views.
I also sounded' out the parties on the possibility of getting an agreement amongst the parties on a time limitation under Standing Order 75A, which obviously was not agreed to. I therefore put before the House leaders the possibility of dealing with this matter through a supplementary estimate. Of course, this supplementary estimate would be referred to a standing committee where it could be discussed in detail. Members of the opposition could, if they wished, bring that supplementary estimate before the committee of the whole on an opposition day and cross examine the minister in whatever way they wanted. For example, we are prepared to have a day when the appropriation bill is before the House to have a full debate, so I do not think in any way the procedure which seems to be preferable would interfere with an adequate discussion in the House.


An hon. Member:: Malarkey.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. It is absolute malarkey and nonsense-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -to suggest that the only way government business will be done in this House is on opposition days. What I want to know from the minister, after cutting through all his verbiage, is whether it is then the position of this government that we in this parliament have no right to debate the proposals and details of this matter in the whole House, and that all that is required in the view of the government is an arbitrary, unilateral action by the government of the kind that most of us thought had gone out with old King John.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has no objection to as long a discussion as the opposition would like to have. There are, I think, ten opposition days of which the Official Opposition could use any number-


An hon. Member:: It is your privilege.


Mitchell William Sharp: -for the purpose of discussing the supplementary estimates that could be brought back into the House with the minister here in front of the whole House
May 14, 1976

to answer all the questions that are necessary. I do hope, however, that it is not the intention of the Leader of the Opposition to renege on his undertaking to support-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We will stack our record against yours any day.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if it is the position of the minister that we should take responsibility for introducing government legislation we are prepared to do that, and the people of Canada are prepared to have that done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I say to the government: why do you not have the courage to bring in a bill on this major matter? Putting aside for the moment the question of the legality or illegality of the procedural course that is being proposed by the government-the procedural course of denying the whole House the right to debate this matter-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would ask the minister whether he would assure us now that Loto-Canada will operate only until it has raised sufficient funds to meet the federal share of the Olympic deficit and that this government will not use the Olympics as an excuse for yet another unilateral raid on a revenue field which is the original priority and original property of the provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I comment first on the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that we are expecting the opposition to take the lead in introducing legislation. If he had listened to what the President of the Treasury Board said, and if he had listened to what I said, we are prepared to bring before this House the proposal, to have it debated in the House, to have a vote on it and I continue to expect that the Leader of the Opposition would support that measure.


An hon. Member:: Bring it in.


Mitchell William Sharp: As to the other question, the federal government does not have any share of the Olympics' deficit that we are prepared to pay. All that we are proposing is that there should be a continuation of the lottery so that during the three years that has been spoken about, the proceeds of that lottery should be distributed in the proportions put forward by the President of the Treasury Board. All this other talk seems to me to indicate that the Leader of the Opposition wants to have it both ways.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would gather from the Acting Prime Minister that now the government is prepared to bring in a bill, is that correct? Is that what he said? Is that so? We are prepared to welcome a bill. That is what should be done. What we want to know, and what he is trying to evade now, is what happens to Loto-Canada after the federal share of that deficit has been met and will there be a guarantee-


An hon. Member:: What are you talking about?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: -and will there be-all right. After the federal contribution for the retirement of that deficit has been made, will the Acting Prime Minister give us a guarantee now that Loto-Canada will, by legislation, be terminated as soon as the federal government has met a portion of that deficit and that it will not continue indefinitely as another raid upon the revenue sources which should properly belong to the provinces?


Some hon. Members:: That is the question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the proposition which the House will be asked to consider, as put forward by the government, will be the continuation of this lottery for a stated time. We are not asking for any further extension beyond that time. It may be that the Leader of the Opposition, if he is still here at that time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I will be over there, on your side.


Mr. Paproski:: And you, Mitch, will be in the court of St. James.


Mr. Fairweather:: Or ambassador to Luxemburg.


Mitchell William Sharp: When we come to the time after 1979, which is the termination of the proposal that we are putting forward, in case this House decides that it wants to have another kind of national lottery, I do not think we should do anything now which would prevent the House from taking that action. It is not our proposal. Our proposal is to extend this particular lottery mainly for the purpose of helping the province of Quebec meet part of the deficit. That is our whole proposition. I hope the hon. gentleman continues to support it.


POSSIBILITY PROVINCIAL APPROVAL NECESSARY FOR OPERATION OF LOTTERY IN EACH PROVINCE-PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister advise the House if Loto Canada is intended to be operated according to the same principles as the current Olympic lottery, namely, that each province must give its approval before the lottery can operate in that given province?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, no. The proposal which the President of the Treasury Board will put forward is for a national lottery which is, of course, provided for in the Criminal Code. We do not need any approval for that. That approval has been given by this House of Commons. All we are asking support for is the establishment of a Crown corporation which would run the lottery, and for start-up funds. That is the purpose, and it seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposition. There will be plenty of opportunities to debate it and reach a conclusion, and I am sure that it must be in the interest of everyone in this country to remove the uncertainty which now exists.
13516

May 14, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question. Since some provinces have already indicated they will not participate in Loto Canada, can the minister advise this House what consultations, if any, the President of the Treasury Board held with the provinces, and will he be prepared to table that information in the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; I was engaged in conversation. Could the question be repeated?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister was so engaged with his colleagues in trying to fabricate the answer to the next question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am asking the Acting Prime Minister this question: As some provinces have already indicated their intention to opt out of Loto Canada, in other words, not to participate in the program, can the minister advise the House what consultations if any took place with the provinces prior to the announcement of the President of the Treasury Board on Monday with regard to the establishment of Loto Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think there must be some misunderstanding. This will be a federal lottery.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What! Is there to be no consultation?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a proposal put forward by the federal government. The provinces do not have to take any decision about the matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: You do not consult the provinces and do not consult this parliament.


Mitchell William Sharp: They may or may not agree with the proposal, but it will be for a federal lottery.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Over the past several weeks a number of organizations and individuals have approached the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the death of a Canadian citizen, Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, and the subsequent mutilation of her body by U.S. federal authorities. It has been reported in the media that the minister made inquiries about this matter of officials in the United States. I wish to ask him what form these inquiries took and what reply, if any, he received?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with this particular case. Our consulate in Minneapolis has had a number of discussions with authorities in the area. I have instructed our embassy in Washington to ask the United

States authorities for an urgent investigation into the circumstances of this case which, as the hon. member is aware, raises many questions of very great concern.


Walter (Wally) Firth: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As this person is survived by two children in Nova Scotia, may I ask what efforts would be made to have those people compensated?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the case because the persons referred to are in my home constituency. I assure my hon. friend that everything possible will be done to assist.


AIR TRANSPORT
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the decision by the Minister of Transport to order a public investigation into the modality and the impaot of implementing bilingualism in air-ground communications, and given the fact that Mr. Keenan has been appointed to hold this inquiry and that the same Mr. Keenan is the very person who prompted the pilot union to adopt its strategy to fight bilingualism, would the Prime Minister tell us what guarantee he has about the impartiality of Mr. Keenan?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, according to my information-I say that because I do not know this lawyer personally-Mr. Keenan was indeed a lawyer who acted with the pilots but I do not admit at all, as suggested by the hon. member, that he was the promoter of that strategy against the official languages legislation.
According to my information, Mr. Keenan is an able and unbiased lawyer. That he may have the sympathy of the pilots in this case is not a bad thing as long as he can show his impartiality and in that we trust.


René Matte: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
To enlighten further the Prime Minister, I have here an excerpt from a newspaper report according to which it was Mr. Keenan indeed who advised and guided the association last summer when they decided to strike to protest against the terrible dangers which the use of French would represent for the safety of airline passengers.


An hon. Member:: You are not plucky enough!


An hon. Member:: You do not mention the name of the newspaper.


René Matte: I would like to know if every precaution has been taken to ensure the impartiality of Mr. Keenan and what steps were taken before his appointment.


An hon. Member:: You are not plucky enough!

May 14, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not in a position to check the hon. member's allegations quoting a newspaper article unless he mentions the newspaper involved. I know the hon. member will provide me with this information and then, on the strength of it, I will look into the matter.
I do not think there is any reason to be overly concerned here. As I understand it, when a counsel works for a party, he advises that party. I do not know whether, in this case, this information has been verified or not. What is important is for the lawyers-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: What about Michel Cote?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is another counsel. The hon. member opposite is talking about Michel Cote. I know a certain Mr. Holden of Montreal who has not shown the impartiality that the hon. member seems to want him to display.
Mr. Speaker, when one deals with a profession as honourable as the Bar, I do not think one counsel should be misjudged merely because some of its elements are less worthy.


EDUCATION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. It has to do with his admission of a $111 million mistake in estimating the payments due to the provinces for the financing of post-secondary education under the Fiscal Arrangements Act. What justification does the minister have for reneging on the agreement with the provinces to pay the full amount calculated under Section 6 of this act in respect of post-secondary education?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the notion of an admission of a mistake is the contribution of the CBC, not mine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Hugh Faulkner: I have never admitted to a mistake. It was not a mistake. It was one of the realities of a restraint program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Hugh Faulkner: The second part of the question was: are we reneging? The answer is, no. We shall be paying 50 per cent of the operating cost of post-secondary institutions. What is at issue here is the rate at which we shall be paying over the next three years.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER TO PROVINCIAL
Flora Isabel MacDonald: In
the light of that rather weak answer, may I ask the minister whether he will table the letter he has written to the provincial ministers of education on this subject? Will he tell us exactly how and within what time frame the shortfall will be made up to the provinces?


James Hugh Faulkner: I find no difficulty about tabling a letter. I suspect the hon. lady has the letter right there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Check the Toronto Sun.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am trying to help the hon. lady in her role as critic. She needs help. As to the time frame, that is a matter I shall be discussing with the provinces.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Can the minister tell us whether the government intends to compensate the provinces for any additional expenditure incurred by them, for example, interest charges on the interim financing they will have to arrange because of the federal government's error?


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. lady seems to be perpetuating the myth which the CBC initiated. It is not a question of error. We are talking here about estimated costs. The estimate offered by the provinces may in fact be higher than the real costs. We have a certain estimate-it happens to be a bit lower than the provincial one-but neither has been confirmed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. In recent days, many Canadians have been concerned about the pressure Revenue Canada has placed on Christian Prisoners Release International as a result of which a planned, orderly demonstration in front of the embassy of the USSR scheduled for May 8, 1976 was cancelled. May I ask whether pressure was brought to bear upon his department by the Department of External Affairs to threaten Christian Prisoners Release International with the cancellation of its charitable status should the march take place?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: No,


Mr.   Speaker.Mr. Epp@: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the pressure his department place on Revenue Canada-pressure which has been confirmed by Revenue Canada officials-developed as a result of instructions from the U.S.S.R. or its ambassador to Canada in an effort to get CPRI to cancel the planned demonstration.
95568-22Vi

May 14, 1976
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I know nothing about this matter. I will make inquiries.


REASON FOR TRIP TO HANOI BY PRESIDENT OF PETRO-CANADA
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I will direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister explain the reason for the trip made by Mr. Strong, President of Petro-Canada, to Hanoi recently? Can he confirm that Petro-Canada is negotiating for acreage off the coast of Viet Nam for exploration purposes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am aware of the trip Mr. Strong made some time ago; it was made with the knowledge of the Department of External Affairs and it had to do with discussions as to how there might be future co-operation between Petro-Canada and Viet Nam. I would have to search for details before I could give them to the hon. member.


James McPhail Gillies: Is it the policy of the government of Canada to see taxpayers' dollars invested in a very risky enterprise in a communist country which has just undergone a revolution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is not even in the cards.


James McPhail Gillies: The minister says it is not even in the cards. How can he reconcile that statement with his answer to my first question, that Mr. Strong went there to negotiate this kind of proposition?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member's second question contained a whole series of tendentious comments which are not applicable to the situation at all.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
It is about the next quinquennial census to be made by Statistics Canada. Since on the one hand the data related to the mother tongue of Canadians do not accurately reflect the dynamics of the country's linguistic reality and since, on the other hand, it is essential that this reality be defined as precisely as possible before proceeding to establish bilingual districts, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government has asked Statistics Canada to review its decision not to include a question about the language commonly used by Canadians in the questionnaire to be used for the quinquennial census which will begin on June 1?
(Mr. Epp.]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and some of his colleagues have written to me about this not too long ago, and I have asked that this request be transmitted to Statistics Canada. I must, however, admit to the hon. member that I have not yet received an answer and I cannot tell whether the letter has been forwarded. Still I do know that the question has been cut out of the quinquennial census questionnaire on grounds of economy rather than for basic reasons. Of course, the question remains in the decennial census questionnaires, but I will check into their attitude. I believe it is possible to reintegrate the question about expenses, but I will readily accept the supplementary question.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is in connection with a question I put to the minister last week regarding the transfer of production of Dunlop tires from the Firestone plant at Whitby to the United States and the importation of those tires from the United States with a resulting loss of employment. The minister said he would look into the situation and report back to the House. Is he in a position to give a report today?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The situation as I have been advised of it by the company concerned and by my officials is that there is no change in the anticipated level of activity at the company concerned. The actions to which he has alluded relate to the necessity to switch from a particular trademark, which I believe was Firestone, to the Dunlop trademark. It is strictly a matter of a change of that type rather than any basic change in the operation or procedures or plans of the company concerned.


Max Saltsman: Would the minister inquire further into this matter because there is a great deal more involved in it than he has indicated. Dunlop is a well known trademark; those tires were being made in Canada and sold on the Canadian market and now they are to be made in the United States and sold on the Canadian market. Firestone is going to make an unbranded tire which means that consumer acceptance will be somewhat lower than if Dunlop tires were being offered; it means there is an extra competitor in the Canadian market with a consequent loss of employment. Will the minister check into this situation again, particularly with respect to the likely loss of employment in Canada resulting from the use of the Dunlop trade name in the United States and those tires being shipped into Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, I will look into that aspect in more detail. I did make some inquiries along the lines the hon. member has indicated and I was assured the company did not anticipate any loss of employment. But I will look at
May 14, 1976

the question again and refer it to my officials as well as to the company and get an answer for the hon. member.

[DOT] (U40)


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Right on the heels of Statistics Canada's monthly announcement yesterday that our annual inflation rate was 8.9 per cent, Mrs. Plumptre of Anti-Inflation Board fame has said that her board's figures were more up to date and indicated that food prices were up, not down, as Statistics Canada reported, thus resulting in higher, not lower, inflation levels. Would the minister indicate whose figures he intends to follow when he refers to inflation levels in his budget and on future dates, those of Statistics Canada or those of the Anti-Inflation Board?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think probably it would be the policy generally to rely on Statistics Canada for those and other figures, but I would, of course, be interested in talking to Mrs. Plumptre about her views on the question.


LEVEL OF OIL PRICES ON WHICH INFLATION TARGETS BASED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Minister of Finance. Since it is the clear intent of the present administration to raise domestic oil prices substantially in the near future, can the minister tell the House whether his inflation targets of 8 per cent this year and 6 per cent next year were prepared on the assumption of higher oil prices this year and next, and, if so, would he indicate to the House the basis for his assumption of oil price increases this year and next?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The assumption was that there would be price changes. I cannot recall offhand the analysis used, but a figure, of course, had to be chosen for this purpose.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Minister of Transport or the parliamentary secretary. It arises out of the clear direction by the government that the railways will be required to follow guidelines with respect to restraint in this period, as set forth from time to time by the government. Can the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary give some indication, in light of the 18.7 per
Oral Questions
cent increase in container freight rates out of the ports of Halifax and Saint John into Montreal, whether the government intends to ensure that the CTC review the matter? If I may also put a supplementary, if it is not thinking about it, would the government undertake to file an intervention respecting this freight rate increase that will take place on July 1, which will amount to about an 18.7 per cent increase since January 1?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of the precise answer to the hon. member's first question, and the second part of the question depends upon the first. I will undertake to get a specific response to the matter for him and I will report back, hopefully at the beginning of next week.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that a few months ago, in regard to the Toronto harbourfront park, the President of the Privy Council said, to quote him, "We are looking at economies in all directions", and the minister himself, although he could not assure us that the cost of the park would not increase, said that he had gratifying information in that the costs have not accelerated as much as they might have been expected to, would the minister now explain how, particularly in these days of restraint, the cost of the harbourfront park in Toronto was allowed to skyrocket to $55 million from the original estimate of $36 million, with indications of further increases yet to come?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, there are no indications of further increases to come. Those increases took place between 1972 and the period when the restraint took place. It was a natural inflationary period at that time, and that is one of the reasons the restraint program is underway, as is the park.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this white elephant was born on the eve of the federal election in 1972 as a Liberal election goodie, and as of now is not scheduled to be completed until 1981, according to the minister's department, would the minister inform this House why this painstaking operation must drag on for nearly a decade at continuingly increasing, exorbitant cost to the taxpayer? Surely, there must be other higher spending priorities at this time.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Surely, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, being from the Toronto region, will realize that this is one of the most valuable "white elephants" that has ever been acquired.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 14, 1976
Oral Questions


Barnett Jerome Danson: The interesting timing of the acquisition, of course, related to secrecy of the negotiations in acquiring the site, and had nothing to do with an election pending at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: The hon. member's question really provides the answer. The long period of implementation-the period has not specifically been decided; it is a continuing operation-is because of the continuing cost. I have never said, indeed I have said the contrary, that it is my wish to see an instant park created. This site has to develop over a period of years in an economical and feasible manner. It was so even before the present restraint period was begun, and it is perfectly consistent with the feelings of the people of Toronto, as has been indicated in the various surveys that have been done.


EDUCATION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Following the question of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I wonder whether the minister would propose the idea that has been propounded by the AUCC, that before the Fiscal Arrangements Act is amended and we have another fixed period of tax point changes for post-secondary education, it might be an idea to have a federal-provincial meeting to try to delineate the goals of post-secondary education, or for that matter education in general? How has the minister responded to that idea?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I have responded sympathetically to that idea. I think it is a sensible and constructive idea. I have not at this point had any response to the idea from the provinces.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is this to be part of the negotiations in mid-June when the Fiscal Arrangements Act is being discussed by the first ministers?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will have to wait until mid-June.


ALLEGED INADEQUACY OF PAYMENTS TO WESTERN PROVINCES FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. While he is pondering the $100 million miscalculation, rather than error, would he also look at the inequity that exists in the 1972 Fiscal Arrangements Act regarding post-secondary schools in the western provinces that are facing large growth? The 15 per cent increments are not adequate to meet the needs of those universities and their colleges in their growth period.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, that is a subject on which I have received some representation, and of course it is being considered.


LOTO-CANADA DURATION OF LOTTERY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering that a moment ago my leader asked questions about Loto-Canada and considering also that he already knows that I and my colleagues are very much in favour of the objective sought by the government, that is supplementary assistance to the Olympic Games Organization Committee to make up the deficit, can the Prime Minister assure the House that when this matter will be discussed, the term of the corporation will be determined so as to dissolve it when the objective of helping the people of Quebec support the cost of the Olympics is achieved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if'I understand the leader of the House correctly, the question was put rather in another form; naturally, I did not hear it, no more than I did the answer for that matter. The government currently plans to set up a national lottery for an indefinite length of time. If the official opposition demands that that lottery come to an end in 1979-the hon. member knows full well that the bill is also intended to help the Commonwealth Games to be held in Edmonton-but if the support of the official opposition depends on that condition, the government is willing to consider the possibility of including a provision in the bill enabling the House to put an end to the lottery in 1979. The government is quite willing to negotiate those details with the opposition. Our intention was explained very clearly by the President of the Treasury Board: we intend to set up a national lottery to serve various ends, but for an unlimited time, as indicated by the President of the Treasury Board.
The President of the Privy Council tells me that he indicated in his answer a degree of flexibility on the part of the government, which is certainly open to negotiation with opposition parties.


CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
I do appreciate the Prime Minister's answer, but considering that the provinces are generally responsive to that objective of wiping out the deficit the province of Quebec will have to bear, and considering that the provinces are very interested in certain provincial lotteries, could the Prime Minister assure the House that the provinces will be consulted if the national lottery is to be permanent and before a final decision is made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know there already was an exchange of views and I

know for instance that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had the opportunity to talk with western provincial ministers indicating that a national lottery could serve certain national purposes. These are views we are prepared to entertain from the opposition. I repeat, we are flexible. The important thing is, and I think it is a matter of fact, that we have the support of the Conservative party that the lottery will last at least until 1979. If the opposition insists that there be a clause to put an end to the lottery, then we are prepared to discuss the matter with the different parties.


ALLEGEDLY CONFLICTING STATEMENTS CONCERNING PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT TO PRODUCE SWINE FLU VACCINE-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Recently the minister was reported as having stated that Connaught Laboratories was unable to buy equipment from the United States to produce swine flu vaccine because that country had prohibited the exportation of that equipment in order to keep it for its own needs. Apparently the opposition health critic, the hon. member for Athabasca, alleged that equipment was available except for federal government indecision and Mr. John Curran of Connaught also contradicted the minister's statement. Mr. Speaker, which is the true story?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Here is Corporal Lalonde.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Charles Joseph Clark: When did you last have dinner with Bryce?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I can tell you that I have dinner with my colleague more often than the hon. member is in the House.


Walter David Baker: I bet you don't enjoy it as much.


Charles Joseph Clark: We will see the results of that.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the statement that was made by the hon. member for Athabasca was unfounded and this fact has been confirmed by the Connaught representative. I stated in committee when the question was asked that Connaught Laboratories had negotiated with an American company and had reached verbal agreement to purchase the equipment when the American firm advised that they could no longer offer that equipment for sale. This point was confirmed in subsequent discussions with the management of Connaught Laboratories. Connaught Laboratories have indicated that even if the proposed acquisition of equipment had transpired there would have been difficulty in manufacturing significant quantities of the influenza vaccine in time for fall immunization programs. The deci-
Oral Questions
sion on the part of Connaught Laboratories to seek offshore sources of a swine containing influenza vaccines was predicated largely on the need to have insured supplies available in time for the early fall.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to direct a question to the Secretary of State but he seems to have disappeared.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


RECORDING OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS-INQUIRY AS TO PRACTICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. It relates to an answer he gave my colleague from Peace River yesterday in which he said he had a record of the conversation with the two Gazette people who interviewed him on the evening before via telephone. I wonder whether the minister would advise the House if it is common practice for his office to record conversations on the telephone with reporters?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the reporter from the Gazette phoned me he said he was recording the conversations so I said "I am doing the same thing".


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the President of the Privy Council. That is not the report I received from the reporter. Can the minister tell me if he can advise this House whether it is common practice for his office to record telephone conversations without telling the people at the other end.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That was precisely the question directed to the President of the Privy Council which was answered.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence but he has just escaped. He had to go on other business. Because of the urgency of the question, I shall direct it to the acting minister or whoever looks after Lockheed or whatever it is. In any event, I want to raise the question of lay-off notices being received by workers at CFB Sydney, some of whom have as many as 12 years service. Would the minister look into it and cancel these

May 14, 1976
Oral Questions
lay-off notices immediately in view of the economic situation in Cape Breton and the abnormally high unemployment rate.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring it to the attention of the minister. This is the first I have heard of lay-off notices at CFB Sydney, but I will be glad to bring it to the attention of the minister and report back to the hon. member.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance and the urgency of the situation, may I ask the hon. member just how soon we may have an answer?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I will try to contact the hon. member personally before the day is over and, if not today, on Monday at the latest.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Is it correct that the Department of National Revenue has recently suspended customs clearance services at the Saskatoon and Regina airports and if so, will he explain the basis for this decision?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That is a subject with which I am not familiar, Mr. Speaker. I will have to check it out and get back to the hon. member.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Last night I questioned him on the purchase of $875,000 worth of automatic elevators for the Confederation Building and the minister stated this was part of an energy conservation program. Would the minister give us a little more detailed explanation and tell us how long it will take to recover the $875,000 as a result of saving on the cost of energy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to answer my question?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; I was not paying attention.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I will repeat my question, Mr. Speaker. Last night I raised this issue of the spending of $875,000 to purchase automatic elevators for the Confederation Building on Parliament Hill and the answer was that this is part of an energy conservation program, that energy is being conserved by the spending of $875,000 to provide automatic elevators. Would the minister give us a little more detailed information and inform the House how long it will take to recover the $875,000 as a result of the conservation of energy.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, when I have the precise information I will be glad to report to the hon. member.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, has the minister consulted with Mr. Speaker as to whether there will be operators on the automatic elevators after installation is complete?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have not consulted personally with the Speaker on this question.


FINANCE
George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that many ranchers or cattlemen in Canada find themselves subject to income tax on compensation paid by the Department of Agriculture when ordered by the Health of Animals Branch to slaughter their herds, is the minister planning to correct this inequity in his budget of May 25?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, of course I could not respond directly to that now but I will undertake to consider that in the budget preparation.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Although it concerns the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I hesitate to raise the matter with him. The reason for my hesitancy is the seriousness and the horror we all must feel about the death of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. I put this question on the order paper on April 28 specifically because I did not wish to use the question period time, and also I thought the department was entitled to a fairly careful notice of the question. Unhappily, because of other pressures, presumably, the department has responded publicly and not bothered in any way to get in touch with the member of parliament who raised the issue 2 Vi weeks ago. This puts members into a dilemma if we wish to raise questions.
Presumably I could have given some notice, but I thought that the death and mutilation, in the most horrible circumstances, of an Indian woman needed the sensitive attention of the department, and I think it is getting it- but surely the sensitivity should also extend to the member of parliament who raised the question. Before the department makes a public statement, they might at least

May 14, 1976

have the courtesy to get in touch with the person who raised the matter.
I know the question was raised today by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. I wanted to put this on record because of the dilemma in which it places members when we use the order paper in the way for which I suspect it was designed, and then nobody bothers to respond.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I take the point that has been made by the hon. member. I think it is a good point, and I regret that events have developed in such a way that he was not the first recipient of the information, as he ought to have been.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which relates to the answer that the President of the Privy Council just gave me. When he answered the question yesterday I was quite shocked to hear him say there was a recording, because I did not think in this country we would be recording conversations, especially in ministers' offices. I took the time to phone the Montreal Gazette. I spoke to one of the two reporters who interviewed the President of the Privy Council, a gentleman by the name of Kendal Windeyer, who told me that when he phoned the President of the Privy Council he told him that he wanted to record the conversation to make sure that everything was accurate.
I asked him whether the President of the Privy Council told him that he was recording the conversation, and he said no, he did not. Today we have heard the minister say that he did record the conversation, but that he told the other party he was recording it. I am surprised that the minister would have the recorder so close to the telephone that he could put it on immediately when the gentleman telephoned him for the interview.
In view of the differences of opinion and the fact that the minister has a recording of the conversation in his office, and the reporters have a recording, I would like that tape, Mr. Speaker, if you think I have a question of privilege, to be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, to see whether the minister's account is accurate.


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness I must point out that the President of the Privy Council is entitled to be heard on this, and without hearing him I must say that there is no semblance of a question of privilege in the point raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta. However, I will hear the President of the Privy Council.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so there is no misunderstanding on this question, let me say that the reporter concerned who has been mentioned by the hon. member got in touch with my office some days ago and said he wanted to have an interview with me about a number of questions, including the employment of detective agencies. He sent me in advance a list of the questions he was going to ask, and he asked me whether there would be any objection to recording the conversation. I said "No." I decided, therefore, that since he was going to have a record of the conversation, I should have one too, so I asked somebody in my office to attach a machine to the telephone.


John Douglas Reynolds: You have to tell him that.
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: It was agreed, and it was recorded. I regret it if I gave the impression that I said that. I assumed that when he said the conversation would be recorded, there would be no objection if I recorded it too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might decide in your wisdom that my colleague does not have a question of privilege, but the response of the minister and the events that have just come to light prompt me to rise. In my judgment, this matter affects the privilege of all members of this chamber. That privilege, of course, is the right to enjoy privacy in telephone communications with members of the government, members of this chamber and, indeed, I hope with members of the public service of Canada. If there is a suggestion that telephone conversations are being recorded without prior indication to the caller, then I seriously think that the privileges of members of the House with respect to private communications are affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will certainly give the matter careful consideration, but it seems to me that there is a law in existence which governs what can and what cannot be done in respect of telephone conversations. As I have said, I will give this matter careful consideration.


René Matte: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


René Matte: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
When questions were put to the Prime Minister earlier, several government members, as it often happens, showed that they know practically nothing about air-ground communications and seemed to be too heavy to take off.
But to remove any doubt about the facts that I mentioned concerning the lawyer, Mr. Keenan, I want to point out that my information came from the column Bloc-notes entitled "Les risques d'une enquete", by Michel Roy, in today's Le Devoir, May 14, 1976.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in the question period a question was put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare which he was attempting to answer with the help of a file, and I presume the answer was important to him. The length and scope of the answer perhaps transcended the rules with respect to answers in the question period. I just want to make it clear that there is some anxiety for us to hear that answer as well. If the minister is available, perhaps he might want to make a statement on motions with respect to it, and we would be delighted to hear it.
I say that, sir, because it is extremely important to the conduct of the question period, first, that questions be answered, and second that the answers given to questions conform with the rules and the practice of the House. I wanted to assure the Minister of National Health and Welfare that there is an anxiety on our part to hear the

May 14, 1976
Order Paper Questions
answer, but there is also anxiety to preserve the question period. While there can be some danger in preambles to answers being too long and detailed, thus endangering the rights of members of parliament in terms of the use of the question period and the number of members who can be recognized in the question period, there is also some danger to the quality of the question period. I want to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the minister is available and wants to return to the House, we would be prepared to give consent for him to make a statement.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am pleased that the opposition House leader raised that point. It seems that he objects to the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare read his reply and that it contained information he obtained from his files, as was pointed out. I simply wish to indicate that if the hon. member objects to that, perhaps I should draw attention to the fact that most hon. members on the front benches opposite, when asking questions, read their preambles and read all the questions which are asked of ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These are interesting comments on what has taken place in the question period. However, I think in bringing the minister to a stop in the form of the answer he attempted to give today was an indication that it was too long an answer in the question period. Hopefully, there will be some other way to try to put forward the information.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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: 3,288, 3,835, 3,864, 5,008, 5,009, 5,029, 5,107, 5,152, 5,228, 5,263, 5,377 to 5,380, inclusive, and 5,382 and 5,383.


Mr. Brisco: What are the proposed and estimated costs for the implementation of a guaranteed income policy?


Marc Lalonde: It is not possible to answer this question because estimated costs will vary widely depending on the program configuration selected for a guaranteed income policy. The program configuration is now under discussion with provincial governments and a further Federal-Provincial Conference is planned for June, 1976.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, has a comprehensive resource inventory been made of each major fish species found in the environs of PEI?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fisheries)):: No.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, is the original objective of increasing individual fishermen's incomes still in effect and, if so, does the primary instrument for achieving this objective remain the reduction of the number of fishermen?
2.	How many persons in PEI made fishing their primary source of income in each year since 1969?
3.	How many persons making fishing their primary source of income does the sectoral objective aim to have in each year from 1975 to 1983?
4.	Have measures been taken since the Plan's inception to reduce the number of fishermen and, if so, what has been the (a) cost (b) effect of each measure?
5.	Since the Plan's inception (a) how many persons have taken up fishing as their primary source of income (b) what were their previous occupations, including percentage of total for each occupation (c) how many persons have stopped fishing as their primary source of income (d) what new occupations did they go to, including percentage of total for each occupation?
6.	What new measures are (a) under consideration (b) planned to encourage fishermen to seek alternate employment?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and Environment Canada as follows: 1. The original objective of increasing fishermen's income is still in effect. The primary instrument for achieving this is not a reduction of the number of fishermen.
2.	See table below.
3.	There is no fixed objective respecting the number of persons making fishing their primary source of income in each year from 1975 to 1983. However, it is anticipated that there will be some changes in the number of fishermen over that period resulting from a variety of factors including management policies adopted by the Fisheries and Marine Service of Environment Canada.
4.	No.
5.	(a) See table below, (b) Information not available, (c) Information not available, (d) Information not available.
6.	(a) None, (b) None.
Number of fishermen, P.E.I. 1965-75
Year	Full-Time	Part-Time	Occasional	Total1965	42	2,027	1,497	3,5661966	38	1,483	1,699	3,2201967	-	1,627	1,742	2,3691968	12	1,669	1,620	3,3011969	10	1,666	1,289	2,9651970	13	1,716	1,072	2,8011971	-	1,844	833	2,6771972	86	1,732	1,392	3,2101973	32	1,784	320	2,6361974	30	1,766	814	2,6101975	-	-	
May 14, 1976


Mr. Matte: 1.	What was the amount of federal tax collected from private incomes
(a)	in Canada (b>
in the Province of Quebec during the taxation years (i) 1974 (ii) 1975?
2.	What was the amount of tax collected on old age pensions (a) in Canada (b) in the Province of Quebec during the taxation years (i) 1974 (ii) 1975?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: There are, as yet, no data available on federal tax assessments for the 1975 taxation year. The information for the 1974 taxation year is as follows: 1. The amount of federal tax collected under the Personal Income Tax was: (a) $10,559 million (all Canada), (b) $1,928 million (Province of Quebec).
2. Since under the Canadian tax system, tax is levied on the total income from all sources, it is difficult to provide accurate estimates of the amount of tax paid in respect of any particular income item.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1 Do employees of Air Canada receive passes which entitle them to reduced fares when travelling aboard Canadian National Railways and, if so (a) under what conditions (b) how many are currently in issue?
2.	Do employees of Canadian National Railways receive passes which entitle them to reduced fares when travelling aboard Air Canada and, if not, is the Department of Transport giving consideration to a review of the policy of employee passes for Air Canada and CNR, or urging the companies to review existing policy?


Ralph Goodale: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Yes, (a) one trip pass per year after one year's service with Air Canada; 50 per cent reduction on commuter fares after two months' service with Air Canada, (b) During the first quarter of 1976, 411 trip passes and 301 commuter reduced-rate orders were issued.
2. The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: Air Canada provides limited free and reduced-rate transportation for certain Canadian National Railways staff, such as members of the Medical, Law Linguistic Services and Express Departments, who have a close working relationship with the company and whose duties involve them with the airline on a day-to-day basis. During the first quarter of 1976, a total of 518 of these passes were issued. However, any agreement on the unlimited exchange of free and reduced-rate transportation privileges between the airline and the railway requires that an opportunity must exist for reciprocity and for a close balance in the number of passes to be exchanged. Because there is a great discrepancy in the numbers of people employed by the two companies and because the passenger services available are of a
Order Paper Questions
different nature, there is little or no possibility of reciprocity and balance. It has therefore been agreed between Air Canada and Canadian National Railways that proposals for the exchange of free and reduced-rate transportation privileges cannot be implemented.


Mr. Cossitt: Do health inspectors of the Department of National Health and Welfare make periodic inspections of sanitary conditions and food freshness in the 5th Floor Cafeteria of the Centre Block, Parliament Buildings, and (a) if so (i) how often (ii) on what date was the last such inspection (b) if not, for what reason?


Marc Lalonde: Yes. (a)(i) The 5th Floor Cafeteria of the Centre Block, Parliament Buildings, comes under the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House of Commons. For this reason, health officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare inspect the cafeteria at the request of the Sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons, (ii) March 17, 1976.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	On what date was construction of Quays 53 and 54 in the Beauport Flats area of the Port of Quebec completed?
2.	What was the total cost for both berths and related back-up land?
3.	Did (a) NHB (b) DREE (c) any other department or agency help in financing the two berths and, if so, in what amount?
4.	For what purpose were the berths built?
5.	Have the berths been used at all since completion and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) how many tons of cargo have been shipped over them?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the National Harbours Board and the Departments of Public Works and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. January, 1971.
2.	$4,635,000.
3.	(a) National Harbours Board financing only, in the amount of $4,635,000. (b) No. (c) No.
4.	Multi-purpose wharves-dry bulk, liquid bulk, automobiles, containers, wood, metal, etc.
5.	Yes. (a) Dry bulk, liquid bulk, automobiles, containers, wood, metal, etc., (b) 3,380,106 tons.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Was the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Review Board the only body associated with the selection of specific consulting firms for the undertaking of certain obligations associated with the work of the Board as a result of the federal-provincial agreement between Ottawa and the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and, if not, what other body or bodies were involved?
2.	What is the make-up of (a) the Canadian Atlantic Power Group
(b)	Tidal Power Consultants Ltd. and, in each case, what are the names of the chief officers of all of the companies involved?
3.	(a) Who is Mr. R. L. Walker (b) what is the location of R. L. Walker and Partners (c) what is the full membership of the board of the firm

May 14, 1976
Order Paper Questions
(d) for what reason were they selected to be involved in the coordination of this project?
4.	Was any consideration given to Maritime Resource Management Service of Amherst, Nova Scotia or Atlantic Industrial Research Institute of Halifax, Nova Scotia and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. Selection was made by the Management Committee of the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Review Board with the Board's approval, both of which have been established by the federal-provincial agreement re the current Bay Fundy Tidal study.
2. (a) Canadian Atlantic Power Group is a joint venture of Acres Consulting Services Ltd. (H. C. Rynard, President); Foundation of Canada Engineering Corporation Ltd. (A. Chmielenski, Chairman of the Board; W. Weinstein, President and Director); and Surveyer, Nenniger and Chenevert (C. A. Dagenais, President and Chief Executive; J. P. Goudreau, Vice-President and General Manager).
2.	(b) Tidal Power Consultants Ltd.,-Directors are: G. V. Eckenfelder, Vice-President, Montreal Engineering Co.: Colin G. Smallridge, Vice-President, Shawinigan Engineering Co.; Murdo Murchison, Vice-President, Montreal Engineering Co.; John Godsland, Vice-President, Shawinigan Engineering Co.; R. E. Coxon, Managing Director, Electric Power Development Consultants (U.K.) and E. M. Fucik, President, Harza Engineering Co. (U.S.A.).
3.	(a) Partner of R. L. Walker and Partners, 65 Bank Street, Ottawa, (b) Given in (a), (c) Other partners are J. H. Diddens, Economist; J. B. Kirch, P. Eng. (d) R. L. Walker was selected because of his qualifications and experience for this type of assignment, and need to initiate activities quickly and comprehensively.
4.	Maritime Resource Management Service of Amherst were invited to submit a proposal for the work and failed to respond. Atlantic Industrial Research Institute of Halifax was not considered because that organization had not indicated capabilities in disciplines related to hydroelectric power generation which was considered a prime requirement for such studies.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Has the Department of Transport made any investments at the Trois-Rivieres Airport since 1971 and, if so, in what amounts?
2.	Can the Airport be used as an emergency airport?
3.	How many people have used the Airport since 1971?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Yes, $20,000.
2.	Yes.
3.	With the suspension of Air Canada's scheduled services in 1971, passenger data is sparse. Aircraft movement statistics have therefore been used as an indication of the amount of traffic at Trois Rivieres. Aircraft Movement Data (Local & Itinerant) 1971, 34,059; 1972, 32,790; 1973, 52,951; 1974, 14,609; 1975, 4,385. (represents itinerant movements only. Local movement statistics not available).


Mr. Dick: 1.	What is the extent of the office space rented by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the Bessborough Hotel in Saskatoon, i.e., how many rooms or offices?
2.	How many employees of the Department work in such space?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	The Department of Public Works rents the space that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion occupies in the Bessborough Hotel in Saskatoon. It comprises 86 offices or areas laid out as office accommodation.
2.	As of April 15, 1976, 97 employees work in this space.


Mr. Cossitt: On what date was Question No. 3,267 on the Order Paper since October 23, 1975 and concerning a cross Canada trip by the Prime Minister forwarded by the Privy Council Office to the Prime Minister's Office for preparation of an answer (a) what persons forwarded it (b) who received it in the Prime Minister's Office (c) who was assigned in the Prime Minister's Office to prepare the answer and on what date (d) is the answer ready and (i) if so, for how long and for what reason has it not been forthcoming (ii) if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


Mr. Cossitt: On what date was Question No. 3,520 on the Order Paper since November 7, 1975 and concerning refusal of the Prime Minister's Office to permit CTV to photograph furnishings in Cabinet Minister's offices forwarded by the Privy Council Office to the Prime Minister's Office for preparation of an answer (a) what persons forwarded it (b) who received it in the Prime Minister's Office (c) who was assigned in the Prime Minister's Office to prepare the answer and on what date (d) is the answer ready and (i) if so, for how long and for what reason has it not been forthcoming (ii) if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


Mr. Cossitt: On what date was Question No. 2,708 on the Order Paper since June 11, 1975 and concerning details of a trip by the Prime Minister commencing June 5, 1975 in South Eastern Ontario forwarded by the Privy Council Office to the Prime Minister's Office for preparation of an
May 14, 1976

answer (a) what persons forwarded it (b) who received it in the Prime Minister's Office (c) who was assigned in the Prime Minister's Office to prepare the answer and on what date (d) is the answer ready and (i) if so, for how long and for what reason has it not been forthcoming (ii) if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


Mr. Cossitt: On what date was Question No. 3,120 on the Order Paper since October 14, 1975 and concerning a holiday trip by the Prime Minister to the Northwest Territories during the 1975 summer recess forwarded by the Privy Council Office to the Prime Minister's Office for preparation of an answer (a) what persons forwarded it (b) who received it in the Prime Minister's Office (c) who was assigned in the Prime Minister's Office to prepare the answer and on what date (d) is the answer ready and (i) if so, for how long and for what reason has it not been forthcoming (ii) if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


Mr. Cossitt: On what date was Question No. 3,069 on the Order Paper since July 24, 1975 and concerning a trip commencing April 25, 1974 to places in Ontario by the Prime Minister forwarded by the Privy Council Office to the Prime Minister's Office for preparation of an answer (a) what persons forwarded it (b) who received it in the Prime Minister's Office
(c)	who was assigned in the Prime Minister's Office to prepare the answer and on what date (d) is the answer ready and (i) if so, for how long and for what reason has it not been forthcoming (ii) if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


Mr. Horner: How much has the government spent to date on Habitat and what is the estimated total expenditure, including security?


Barnett Jerome Danson: To date, the government has spent approximately twelve million dollars on the Habitat Conference, out of an estimated total expenditure of 15.3 million dollars. This figure includes provision for security.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 5,313?


Mr. Huntington: Did the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, receive complaints in writing during the years 1973, 1974, 1975 or 1976 by or on behalf of producers in Canada of canned peaches and pears respecting the dumping of canned peaches and pears in Canada originating in (a) Australia (b) the United States and, if so (i) what countries were accused of dumping (ii) what are the dates of the complaints (iii) were investigations initiated (iv) on what dates did notice of investigation appear in the Canada Gazette (v) on what dates were investigations started and completed (vi) did the investigations reveal evidence of dumping and material injury or material retardation (vii) was a preliminary determination made by the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise (viii) was it decided not to initiate investigations?


Mr. Claude Lajoie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, here is the answer:
(a)	In 1973, the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, received written complaints on behalf of Canadian peach and pear canners alleging detrimental dumping of similar goods coming from Australia, (b) There was no complaint regarding canned peaches and pears coming from the United States; more particularly: (i) it was contended that Australia was dumping; (ii) the first complaint was made on January, 5, 1973 and was supported by another on January 9, 1973; (iii) no inquiry was initiated and, consequently, questions (iv) and (vii) are not applicable; (iv) as for question (viii), no official inquiry was initiated pursuant to the provisions of subsection 13(1) of the Anti-dumping Act because, during the assessment of the complaint, it was established that at that time, the Australian exporters were not selling under priced canned peaches and pears in Canada. The department and complainants kept in touch about this matter and Australian export prices are checked regularly.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the remaining questions allowed to
stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 14, 1976
Capital Punishment



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, before the hour of adjournment interrupted my remarks a few days ago I advanced to the House the proposition that I did not consider the question before us at this time as a question of whether we should or should not abolish capital punishment but, rather, a question of whether we should or should not reintroduce some form of capital punishment in our country.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has said on many occasions outside this chamber and inside that he will not sign an execution order. In fact, in response to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who spoke on the opening night of this debate and who expressed his views about the necessity to retain some form of capital punishment in our country, the Solicitor General screamed across the chamber: "If you want to hang someone, get yourself another boy". In opening my remarks I advanced the proposition that the people of Canada do not have an opportunity to get themselves another "boy" until the government dissolves this parliament, calls another election and carries on a dialogue with the people about that. For that reason, the question of whether we should retain capital punishment is irrelevant until the year 1978, 1979 or whenever the government decides to dissolve parliament and consult the people as to its performance.
Now that I have put the question in the proper perspective, I should like to deal with the main points used by the Solicitor General to demonstrate to the so-called "misguided" 80 per cent to 90 per cent majority of Canadians why they are wrong and the government knows better. First, he articulated a strong case on the element of error involved in the judicial process. During the debate on Bill C-83 the same minister demonstrated the reasons for stricter gun laws by rolling out statistics on criminal acts in which people fell victim to gun-toting murderers. Five people daily are butchered with guns, and while not all victims are law-abiding citizens, they are nevertheless murdered. These figures increase drastically if one takes into account other forms of capital crime which do not include guns but which are murder in the first degree and also punishable by death.
Since the abolition of the death penalty for capital crimes in 1963-because that is when it was abolished; no one has been executed since-only 18 persons have been convicted of murder punishable by death. Of these, 11 are still on death-row waiting for the angels of mercy and the defenders of human dignity to come to their rescue. If one considers that the courts dealt with 829 persons charged with murder punishable by death since 1961, and that only

568 were convicted, 82 received the death sentence and 18 were condemned of which only two were hanged-before the period 1971 to 1973-the margin of error referred to by the minister is extremely slim, if indeed there is a margin at all.
The minister also quoted statistics to support his argument that juries are reluctant to consider guilty verdicts for fear that their action will result in the death sentence. Juries are made up of responsible Canadians from all walks of life, and I assume that this will always be reflected in their judgment. Of course, there is evidence to that effect. After all, we are only dealing with the premeditated, contract killer who has had access to all the avenues of the judicial process and has not received a recommendation for mercy or leniency from any source. The minister argues that a much greater percentage of convictions is achieved against criminals charged with lesser offences. The reason for that could be, of course, that our courts and our jury system provide for a degree of discretion, charity and compassion, and recommendations are often made to apply a lesser charge.
Next, the minister charged that the judicial process is unfair. It is very noteworthy that he said that only the poor are convicted of murder and the rich buy their way out of,trouble with money and influence. Is that the reason the government is so reluctant to bring matters which have interrupted the normal proceedings of the House for so long now before a judicial inquiry? Should the government not be responsible for correcting that situation, rather than reacting to it? Do the judges in Canada, who are appointed by politicians, really receive telephone calls from influential people in public life, and do some of them respond favourably to suggestions made to them? This is what the Solicitor General is implying, and I see no clause in this bill or in Bill C-83 which would offer a remedy to that situation.
It is alarming to me, to the people I represent and to all Canadians that this form of government patronage still exists, particularly when dealing with the judiciary.
The other day the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) made a statement in Vancouver to which the press throughout the country reacted. One of the major newspapers in my constituency telephoned me and asked for an interview. They wanted a list of the lawyers who represented Central Mortgage and Housing and government agencies in the city of Prince George. I telephoned the managers of these agencies in the city but was told that the list could not be given to me; it was confidential. There really was no problem. I suppose there must be a number of lawyers who support my political cause in the city, but none of them have complained to me. They are kept very busy and they do not get any business from CMHC or IDB.
I told the managers that if the list was secret I had to suspect there was something to hide. I telephoned the minister and he admitted that instructions are given to the managers in the various regions about which legal officers they should use in their business dealings. He was kind enough to send me a list of the solicitors who work exclusively for Central Mortgage and Housing in Prince George. As it happens, one of them was my Liberal opponent in the
May 14, 1976

last election. He is a good and diligent lawyer, so I have no quarrel with that. Four or five of the lawyers on the list are known Liberal fund-raisers and supporters. This is the kind of thing that Canadians object to in 1976, Mr. Speaker, and the kind of thing that has to be corrected if we are ever to have a greater degree of respect for the political process.
The minister says that civilized society which respects, above all, the human dignity and life of every individual cannot allow itself to consider the cost of enforcing our laws and the incarceration of criminals. I, for one, would applaud that argument if the government could demonstrate to me that this civilized attribute of charity applies equally to the criminal and the victim. It costs the taxpayers of this country up to a quarter of a million dollars to bring to account a person who deliberately challenges the institution which is the guardian of our law and standards of moral conduct. It costs up to $20,000 annually to keep a person incarcerated and isolated from the community. I, for one, cannot applaud that argument. Is it not fair to make a comparison between that and what we as a civilized society afford ourselves in the way of social services?
Are we making restitution to the victims of crime? Do we apply the same degree of generosity to our senior citizens, the handicapped, the socially deprived and the children who in our country go to bed hungry every night? Of course not, Mr. Speaker. Our charitable human instincts only surface when people confront the establishment out of sheer frustration and deprivation. The more violent the confrontation, the more understanding we become.
I cannot help but respond to the letters I get from my constituents who compare the contract killer who has killed a young policeman, with his widow, who is living on a meagre welfare income of $260 per month, trying to bring up two children and provide them with the means of competing in society when they grow up. We must consider what it costs to bring a person to justice and keep him incarcerated. This degree of charity is evident even inside our prisons. The murderer and hardened criminal is interviewed by the press and examined by the "head-shrinker". He receives the attention of every do-gooder who has ever dissected a pickled frog and has discovered he can grow whiskers. The prisoner who is a guest of the taxpayer for just a minor offence and strives to build merit points to support his parole application gets hit over the head with a lead pipe in the ballpark and lives in protective custody without colour television and most of the other essentials of modern-day prison life.
Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues speak about whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent to murderers. I do not think that is the question which should concern us at all. I do not even think that we need to apply the term "punishment". The only thing we need to consider is the right and responsibility to protect ourselves against those who show wanton disregard for our traditional values, and no respect for human life.
The Solicitor General told me on one occasion, privately, that he actually considers capital punishment an incentive to murder. It would take quite a measure of imagination to think that to a conclusion. He reasons that the murderer has no regard for his own life and that is why he confronts the establishment: therefore, he dares the system, by his
Capital Punishment
violent act, to put him out of his misery or, on the other hand, attach some meaning to his existence-a headline and a picture in the paper on the morning of his execution. The conclusion to this argument is, of course, that if society fails him he must continue to try to get our attention with an even more violent act. I cannot help but wonder in how many cases of the murder of prison guards and policemen this may have been the motive.
Mr. Speaker, I advocate the retention of capital punishment because we cannot condone having the ultimate value of living peaceful and fulfilling lives threatened. We have a right to protect ourselves against subversive and dangerous elements not just from outside our borders but also from within. The Solicitor General is right, execution is final-the condemned murderer will never kill again- and this has nothing to do with revenge or punishment. It has to be viewed as the removal of a cancer which cannot be allowed to exist in a healthy system once it has been identified as incurable.
Many of my colleagues have drawn comparisons between ourselves and countries which have already abolished the supreme penalty. None of their arguments hold water. Invariably they are making these comparisons with countries which have evolved social structures much more advanced than our own. For instance, Belgium-a country which has repeatedly been quoted-can trace the beginning of a cultural evolution back 2,000 years. Unlike our country, all people there are indigenous. The Belgians have two official languages, as we have, but their ethnic groups are not separated by a vast geographical expanse and economic disparities.
Mr. Speaker, what is more important is the fact that in Belgium, as in most other countries which have abolished capital punishment, it was done because the people themselves, not their governments only, were ready to have it abolished-and that is good. In most cases, referendums were held and the behavioural attitudes of their citizens were closely monitored. Superficial comparisons are, for that reason, not fair. One has to make an assessment of the attitude of the people and measure the degree of intellectual maturity of a society with which comparisons are made.
We have in our country today still a small percentage of illiteracy. I know this shocks a lot of people, but unfortunately it is true. In Belgium this has not been a problem for 150 years. This can be demonstrated in other areas as well. Why, for instance, is it that Germany has the lowest rate of labour disputes in the world, whereas we have the highest percentage of man-years lost as a result of industrial strikes and disputes? I suggest the reason is the adversary system to which we adhere in this country but which other countries in part have overcome.
Certainly, this fact alone cannot be attributed to the utter incompetence of the present government, even though it is a key factor. It must be viewed in the light of a fundamentally different approach to work and the work ethic, an approach different from that of our own industrial society. Just as our unions and business managers are not sufficiently mature to consider more advanced methods of labour relations, so 80 per cent of Canadians are not prepared to afford themselves the luxury of trading-off an

May 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
element of protection inherent in the imposition of capital punishment against extended prison terms.
One would think, Mr. Speaker, that our government should direct some of its attention to the need to accelerate the evolutionary process of which I spoke. It is also interesting to speculate to what extent the government should get involved in setting the direction in which our own distinctive culture should evolve. Do we wish to assimilate the "good guy-bad guy, happy-ending" society which dominates our neighbour to the south, or should we espouse deeper, more realistic values of human behaviour? These questions would come into play if we concerned ourselves more with preventing crime in the first place instead of only reacting to the effects of criminal acts.
In my opinion, we should examine closely the effects violence on television has or will have on future generations. We should subject our educational system to close scrutiny. Is our teaching process attuned to the contemporary need of our times, or are we offering our young citizens an utopian dream instead of preparing them for the society of today? Certainly, the post-war period, which brought with it modern teaching techniques, did not produce a society which is more rational in its relationship with the rest of the global community. We have not been able to make fundamental changes to the adversary system which dominates, not just our judicial system and industrial relations process but the political process as well.
Indeed, I feel that having less of the adversary system in this very chamber would be a step in the right direction. I feel that our Fathers of Confederation settled more of their differences in a consultative fashion than we are able to do today. The law reform commission made reference to and recognized this fact in its report tabled in the House just a few days ago. We have, as a nation, not become more charitable, nor are we using a more compassionate approach in our dealings with underdeveloped countries. The reason for this is, in part, that our own country is still underdeveloped, not just in an industrial but in a human sense.
Just as we still arm our military personnel with weapons not only of defence but of aggression, just as we still consider it our right, indeed our duty, to defend our country and the interests of our friends against aggression in a territorial as well as a political sense, and just as we are still prepared to kill the aggressor without an evaluation of the innocence or guilt of the individual whose life we are taking, so do we have the responsibility to protect our society from the fear of death inflicted on it by the criminal elements within our borders. I do not say it is right and proper that this should be an ongoing process, but this is the reality of 1976, the reality of the times.
I have the greatest respect for my colleagues who do not agree with me and whose conviction is not altered by political expediency. I, too, wish the world would be a better place to live in, a place without fear of war, hunger and suffering. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not. I, too, wish medical science and the science of human psychology were advanced to the point where remedial action were possible to deal with sick and criminal minds. But it is not.
My colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, our party's critic of the Solicitor General's department, and a reten-tionist, spoke earlier in the debate about war. He spoke of

his own experience as a bomber pilot over enemy territory discharging death and destruction on innocent people. He spoke of the fear he suffered in valuing his own life, and the deterrent the fear of death was to his making another trip. It is no secret to my colleagues that I, as a young boy, was on the receiving end of what was discharged from the aircraft in which my friend was a passenger. What a crazy world this is! Surely it would have been a source of comfort to me then, at the age of 12 when the war ended, to know that Erik, too, was scared-although I do not believe that he was nearly as scared as I was, because I have much grey hair and he still looks much younger than I do. To understand how Erik and I feel about all that today, one would have had to experience what we went through. But it should not be too difficult to understand why we both feel that if it were only possible to identify individuals who cannot be taught to conform with the norms of human justice, such individuals ought to be dealt with before they learn to operate in groups. God only knows what sort of a world we would have today if someone had had the fortitude to deal with Adolf Hitler before his rise to power.
It is true that society as a whole is partly to blame for its mistakes which often result in the dissidence of some of its members. But no society is truly free unless it is prepared to work diligently to correct its mistakes and prevent them from recurring. I also sympathize with the person who would have to make the final decision and put his signature to the execution order if capital punishment were returned. But surely this has to be one of the burdens he must bear if he competes for his mandate and the trust and confidence of the people who elect him to his office.
Today, Mr. Speaker, 80 per cent of people throughout Canada wish to retain some form of capital punishment. The reason is that they feel insecure and cheated by their political leaders who demand one thing of them and do another thing themselves. Canadians have been told too many untruths. They fear that the government is not really serious in its attempts to tighten the judicial process and restore the principle of law and order. The 25-year mandatory sentence provision could be rescinded next year once capital punishment is abolished. That is how some people feel. After all, this very government, in 1974, fought an election of the issue of wage and price controls. It said that we did not need such controls in the free society in which we live. Once the government was elected, it brought these controls in-and some people think the program will not work. People have lost faith and confidence in the group of individuals who sit opposite. They do not think they are really serious about tightening our bail provisions and doing those things which will restore peace, order, security and trust in our system.
The people have lost confidence. Between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of our people are worried. It worries me, as it does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Solicitor General, that we should be part of a society of so-called barbarians who want to kill people. I, too, would like to abolish capital punishment. But we cannot, because society is threatened and 85 per cent of the people of Canada have lost faith in the system. For that, the government is partly to blame.
The peace and security package is only a charade, as the "just society" was and as the "free vote" the Prime Minis-
May 14, 1976

ter has promised will be. Most members of the cabinet will not be guided by their conscience or by the direction given to them by their constituents; they will be guided by their political ambitions. Even ambitious Liberal backbenchers will fall in line. There is, however, a provision, and I advance that to my colleagues across the way.


Mr. Caccia:: How about your colleagues who will vote for the bill?


Frank Oberle: You, my friend, will have a chance to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member address the Chair and get back to the subject of Bill C-84.


Frank Oberle: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I have departed too far from the text. If the hon. member opposite will live by Your Honour's ruling, I will not be very much longer. I was saying that Liberal backbenchers will also fall in line when the free vote is taken- the free vote promised for Bill C-84 which is the subject under debate. There might, however, be an incentive for some of them to defeat the bill, if for no other reason than the fact that the Solicitor General would have to resign. That would create a vacancy in this shaky cabinet: one of the trained seals across the way might then fall into the slot.
Canadians in all parts of our country will learn, from the results of the final vote on Bill C-84, not only the extent to which our system will protect them from violent criminals, but also the extent to which our present government has removed itself from the popular demands and the will of our citizens.


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I can see, today's debate seems to have become some sort of a tradition established by this government. Indeed, I was listening to my colleague, the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Gauthier) and many others. They had the opportunity to take part in three debates on capital punishment since they received their mandate as representatives of their constituents.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, it is the first opportunity I have to speak on a bill to abolish the death penalty. Since the last debate dates back to 1973 and I was elected at the 1974 general election, I imagine that all hon. members who were able to speak during all those debates must find it utterly ridiculous to keep harping on the same issue. The Canadian people do not elect and pay their member to see him start considering all over again the same old bill without ever coming to a final solution in keeping with the feelings and the wishes of the majority.
Although I did not take part in the previous debates, because, as I said earlier, I was not the member for Villeneuve, I cannot help finding utterly ridiculous the situation in which we find ourselves today, because of the stubbornness and the obvious lack of goodwill and common sense showed by the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand). One thing is clear: he is consistent. In some people, it may be a quality, but the stubbornness of the Solicitor
Capital Punishment
General of Canada verges on monomania and obsession and he is bent on abolishing capital punishment. Failures do not stop him.
Year after year, election after election, he introduces a bill to abolish the capital punishment. Although he knows full well that most Canadians are against abolition, what does he care. All the members of the House have refused up to now to abolish capital punishment, for it is obvious that the constituents all across Canada will lose faith in their members should they dare go boldly against their wishes. But all that, Mr. Speaker, does not refrain the Solicitor General from coming back once again with yet another bill. It must be recognized that, this time, he was well prepared along with his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). They are beginning to be called the "Laurel and Hardy" of Parliament, Mr. Speaker. They came along with their peace and security package which is a mixture of thousands of all kind of provisions among which we can find, if we look closely, the abolition of capital punishment.
Why is it that the minister did not come openly and directly with a bill advocating abolition of capital punishment? Why did he feel obliged to devise a colossal joke such as the so-called program on public peace and security instead of simply trying to abolish capital punishment outright? In our opinion, it is merely because the minister knows that the great majority of Canadians are in favour of maintaining capital punishment. Consequently, he is using hypocrite methods and diverted means to impose his will to the people.
Mr. Speaker, is that democracy? The minister's position is shocking. He does not care at all about the opinion of Canadians. It seems to us that the minister is so intelligent that he can decide what is good for everyone, without taking into consideration the views of the people. This is the philosophy that prevailed in the days of the cave-man when the law of the mighty was the law of the land. However, with civilization, we have discovered the concept of democracy which means, in our opinion, that the voice of the majority must determine the course to be followed. The minister does not believe in that. Even when the majority of Canadians, even when most Canadians, believe that the death penalty should be imposed, he himself believes that his views must take precedence and that the death penalty should be abolished.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot have confidence in the Solicitor General now in office, because his credibility has shrunk to 20 below zero. Indeed, if you remember, in 1973, he succeeded in having a legislation passed restricting the death penalty to people killing policemen and prison guards.
This same minister, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has not even been able to implement his own 1973 legislation up to this day. He has systematically prevented the law from being applied to people who had murdered policemen and prison guards. Today, Mr. Speaker, the same minister is back again. He stands before us as if nothing had happened and he is asking us to have faith in him and to pass this bill he has introduced. I say to him, Mr. Speaker, that if he wants our confidence, he has to show

May 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
his mettle first and implement the existing legislation. How can he hope to gain our support when it is a well-known fact that he does not have the guts to implement the laws voted here by the people's representatives?
The Solicitor General announced recently that he would resign, and we cannot even be sure of that. We can no longer believe what he says. Once he asked that we support him on something and then he turned around and did the very opposite. He told us: "We will hang only those who will have murdered policemen or prison guards". And later, this same minister refused to apply the law.
Mr. Speaker, the death penalty issue is much simpler than some would have us believe. As regards our duty as legislators, is is obvious: we must respect the will of the people. The true issue is not to manipulate statistics the way we like. It is well known, and even hon. members opposite know, that figures and statistics can be made to say almost anything.
As far as we are concerned, what must guide us today in this debate is not our personal opinion or that of the Solicitor General but rather that of most Canadians. That is why many times have asked the minister for a referendum and I ask him again today. A referendum should be held on the issue of capital punishment. The government refuses to allow such a referendum in spite of all the representations to that effect from all parts of the country and all groups of citizens. Why do they refuse? Simply because the government has no intention of listening to the majority. I quite agree: there are Liberal members who are willing to listen to the majority of the people they represent, and I congratulate them for it. However, most of them and especially the Solicitor General, know that the vast majority of Canadians want the death penalty reinstated; but they have no intention of respecting the wishes and aspirations of that majority.
The Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker, reminds me of a soldier on parade with his regiment. His mother, standing amidst the crowd, is saying: "Look at my son on parade. Do you see, he is the only one marching in step?" As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has the same kind of reasoning. The vast majority of Canadians call for reinstating capital punishment, but the Solicitor General, the only one in authority, says: "I am the one who is right. I am abolishing the death penalty though no one agrees with me". Mr. Speaker, as we say back home, a fellow like that is "bull headed".
I have here, Mr. Speaker, letters that came to me from my riding. As the hon. member will notice, there is quite a pile of them, and I have others in my office. Then, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General of Canada may have an idea what reaction his bill is provoking in my riding. It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, that he is not here in the House now. He may not be as blind as he seems to be deaf. He might see that people from Villeneuve-like all Canadians, for that matter-do not agree at all with his attitude when it comes to capital punishment. Mr. Speaker, if I read all the letters I have received, the Solicitor General would undoubtedly be retired, perhaps he would be drawing his old age security pension by the time I got through reading them.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to mention that the Federation of the Chambers of Commerce of Abitibi-Temiscamingue, through its chairman Mike Amadio, sent

me a letter on May 15 last to ask for a referendum on capital punishment. That is why a few days later I came in the House to advocate a referendum on the matter because, in my opinion, the Chamber of Commerce represents a vast majority of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I can give you another example. I received a letter concerning capital punishment from one of my constituents. Mr. Wellie Rossignol from Louvicourt, who proposes that members of parliament ask the residents of their ridings to express their opinion on capital punishment. He also suggests-and I find it very clever on his part-that only those who call for the abolition of capital punishment pay themselves for the support of murderers. That way, abolitionists will have to bear the full consequences of their vote. It is not logical that those who agree with capital punishment be obliged to pay for the support of gangsters who are kept alive simply because of those who oppose capital punishment. Logically, Mr. Speaker, those who do not agree with capital punishment should take it upon themselves to pay for keeping murderers alive. Here is another example of letters I receive. This is a questionnaire I sent to all voters in my riding to know about their view on capital punishment. I have received thousands of letters in response to those questions. More than 93 per cent of those who answered have decided in favour of retention of capital punishment. Those figures are clear and, in my opinion, my mandate is clear and is to oppose the passing of this bill. Mr. Speaker, some hon. members make confused speeches, like the one made by the Solicitor General a few weeks ago, to explain that the issue is complicated, that the crime problem will not be solved by resorting to capital punishment and that there is no easy solution. In my opinion, they are wrong.
For any member or minister, the issue of capital punishment should not be complicated. We are not sociologists who split hair or play with statistics to make them say what suits us. No. The member of Parliament has only one way to follow, that is the one indicated by people who have elected him to represent them. Otherwise, there is no democracy. Mr. Speaker, there are and there always will be people who think they are more intelligent than others, people who think they alone possess the truth, people who are always right whereas everybody else is always wrong.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there will always be people who think they are wiser than others, that they are the only ones to be in step, that they are always right while all others are wrong. Mr. Speaker, they should not sit here in Parliament. Here we represent
May 14, 1976

the people who elected us and we give a voice to those people who trusted us.
Our duty is to reflect as faithfully as possible the wishes and the expectations of those who rely on us and this is why, Mr. Speaker, the question of capital punishment is simple for a conscientious member of the House. All there is to do is to consult-as several members did-their constituents and act accordingly. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this is the role of a member of the House. Otherwise, there is no democracy.
We must admit that Parliament allows the Majority of Canadians to have legislation corresponding to their aspirations and wishes. Hon. members who do not agree with their constituents are facing a very simple problem. It is not difficult at all. If in spite of their disagreement with the wishes of their constituents, they are prepared to represent faithfully those clearly expressed wishes, for them, there is no problem either. On the other hand, if the hon. member is unable as a matter of conscience or ideology to act according to the wishes of his constituents, he only has to resign. It is very simple.
Mr. Speaker, I am fed up with those book worms who are trying to alter the basis of the problem by saying that capital punishment retention is a difficult and frightening issue which is not easy to resolve. It might be true as it is not easy to determine from a laboratory or an office by playing with figures if capital punishment can or cannot deter a criminal from committing a sordid crime. For the conscientious member, capital punishment is simple issue. For me, Mr. Speaker, and the people who elected me, the question is the following: Do they want or not the abolition of capital punishment? Sociologists and criminologists can continue to scrutinize statistics and do research to establish if capital punishment really has a deterrent effect.
For us, what is important is not what a sociologist believes or thinks, but what the majority of Canadians think and what they desire and ask. The solicitor general has many friends among sociologists and it is quite normal. He is their best client as he is always commissioning studies on capital punishment, and giving them subsidies of $1,000 here, $1,000 there, no problem. There is an old maxim that says, Mr. Speaker: Tell me who pays you and I'll tell you who you are.
The Solicitor General is the milk cow which feeds those criminologists who do not know what to do with their ten fingers. Do you think that guys like that would take the chance of making the Solicitor General of Canada angry? In my view, Mr. Speaker, these criminologists are not stupid. He is the one who feeds them, who enables them to live and consequently they prepare the reports he wants, reports which supposedly prove beyond any doubt that capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is what they say in all these learned studies made at the back of dusty offices, far from reality. Meanwhile, policemen who are in direct contact with criminals are calling for the retention of capital punishment because they believe that criminals would think twice before killing if they know that they forfeit their own lives. Mr. Speaker, like all other hon. members, I received last week a letter from the executive director of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Mr. Bernard Poirier, in which he says:
Capital Punishment
We remain categorically and unequivocally opposed to the abolition of capital punishment.
This testimony has to be taken into account since it comes from our policemen, from people who are responsible for the protection of citizens against criminal activities. I also received a letter from Mr. Brown, Chairman of the Association of Metro Toronto Policemen. In his letter, he emphasizes that members of parliament must respect the will of people who have elected them as their representatives.
And he indicated that according to a survey by their own association, motte than 87 per cent of Canadians favour capital punishment. These association presidents and police officers therefore urged that capital punishment be retained. So there we have the views of a responsible individual, familiar with criminals because he has met thousands of them. His business is fighting the murderers who endanger the lives of innocent citizens. He has a different knowledge of these criminals than a criminologist such as Ezzat Fattah, beloved child of the Solicitor General. Fattah is typical of the worst, the most dangerous group in social sciences. As I said, he thinks he knows better than the others, than 90 per cent of Canadians. He decided capital punishment is not an adequate deterrent. Police officers familiar with criminals, the people who want to be protected from those criminals, and every retentionist were wrong. He is that kind of a soldier, as I said, who alone walks in step, and so is the Solicitor General. He is the sort of guy who dares say that legislators should not heed the voice of the people.
This is more or less what that fathead stated in his study titled "Canadians and capital punishment", which was financed by the Solicitor General in person, of course. That guy is dangerous because he does not believe in democracy. He thinks the government should listen to him and not be concerned with what Canadians may think. It is with that kind of guys that people wake up in a dictatorship. They believe they are more intelligent and better qualified than every one else to decide what others should do.
In my name, and in the name of all my colleagues, I protest these insulting and ridiculous statements by Fattah the Fantastic who, in an attempt to give more weight to his criminology paper, does not hesitate to suggest people in favour of retaining capital punishment are less educated than abolitionists. But somewhere else, he states there are now more people in favour of capital punishment than 10 years ago.
Then the question arises whether he means that people are now less educated than they were 10 years ago? This of course is utterly ridiculous. People go to school longer. His statistics are based on a bunch of nonsense, just as Mr. Fattah is. People today have easier access to education than before, and this does not prevent them from favouring capital punishment, in spite of what he says.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I know people with PhD's as long and as fat as Mr. Fattah, who cannot even tell the difference between a gun and a murderer. They cannot even tell which one of the two is responsible for the murder. The present Solicitor General also belongs to that category of pseudo intellectuals who believe themselves more intelli-

May 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
gent than 90 per cent of Canadians. Fortunately there happens to be some Liberals who are a little more intelligent than he, as they are for capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, people like that who think they know better are a threat to freedom and democracy. Since we are living in one of the most developed countries on earth, what should matter is liberty and respect for the views of most Canadians. I am sure that Canadian taxpayers would be indignant to hear that their tax money is being squandered by the Solicitor General to pay a fat salary to a guy like Fattah who advocates that the government disregard what the people think. This is the icing on the cake. Not only are we paying taxes, but the money from these taxes is used so that people may tell the government to ignore what Canadians think and want.
This government will not get out of it so easily. The mandate it received in the 1974 elections did not include abolition of capital punishment. Mr. Speaker, I saw the Trudeau Express. I saw the smile of beautiful Margaret, but I never heard the right hon. Prime Minister or one of the government members say during the election campaign that the Liberal party wanted to abolish the death penalty. Yet, the government has now introduced a bill to abolish capital punishment. Despite surveys which show that more than 80 or 90 per cent of Canadians want the death penalty to be maintained, despite the thousands of letters which we receive daily in our offices and in parliamentary offices, to try to make us swallow this bill more easily, the government says that there will be a free vote on the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I want to issue a warning to hon. members who always support blindly their own party. They will have to answer to their voters if they put faithfulness to their party before respect for the wishes of the people they represent or are supposed to represent. As I said earlier, for the members of this House, the issue of the death penalty is not complicated, it is not a moral for a theological or a conscience issue, it is first and foremost a question of respecting one's voters. If the voters, the constituents of a member say that they wish the death penalty to be maintained, the member should vote for the retention of the death penalty. If some members do not understand this, they should not be sitting in this House.
For my part, and I think that this is clear, my fellow citizens of the Villeneuve riding have written to me, and, as I said earlier, I have received thousands of letters from people asking me to oppose firmly the bill introduced by the Solicitor General of Canada, which we are now considering.
If my constituents, as most Canadians, are opposed to the abolition of capital punishment, it is because they are fed up seeing criminals slaughtering with impunity innocent citizens because the law is not severe enough to have a really deterrent effect. Mr. Speaker, these honest citizens, who abide by the laws and who respect their fellow beings, witness horrible and sordid crimes and they know that their children, their spouses could be the next victims of some bloody murder. They also know that, with the death penalty, the murderer can only be a threat to society.
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General himself recognized this fact in his report published in March 1975 when he said that it is just as obvious that the death penalty definitely eliminates the threat that an individual can pose

to society. Canadians are not blind. They can see that criminals are not afraid of the law. If they kill, they are sent to prison for three, four, five or ten years and then they are let free and can go on working havoc. We know that about 300 horrible crimes have been committed in Canada since last year.
I have here an article published in the February 13, 1976 issue of the Ottawa Journal. In this article, it. is said that the 19-year-old murderer who killed a 16-year-old gas station operator during an armed robbery asked the police: "Does it really matter even if I killed him? I am 19 years old, even if I am sentenced to life imprisonment, it won't last more than 20 years because life imprisonment in Canada is imprisonment for a maximum of 20 years. And, if I am lucky, I will be freed on parole much before that".
That is what murderers are saying, Mr. Speaker: Why worry? The worst that can happen to me is life imprisonment. Life imprisonment never means more than 20 years, and often less than 10.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of risking their lives while the same Solicitor General fusses around with philosophy. Canadians want the criminal to put his life on the line. If he takes the life of an innocent, he looses his. Capital punishment opponents often say that life is too valuable for society to execute killers. Those people seem to forget that the lives of the innocent victims are as valuable as those of the assassins. What can we do?
And what can we do to protect and force the killer to put his most valuable asset on the line? That is what justice demands. That is what Canadians demand. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we must take our responsibilities and respect the clearly expressed will of the great majority of our fellow citizens and reinstate capital punishment. When the people have spoken, the government only has to obey. That is the message, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to convey today on behalf of the people of my constituency of Villeneuve.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, since the start of this debate about 34 speakers have participated in the discussion of the bill before us, and in making a quick calculation I find the breakdown is as follows: one NDP member has spoken, which is somehow a disturbing silence on the part of that party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: There have been two speakers from this party.


Charles L. Caccia: Also, one independent member, 14 Liberals and 13 Conservatives. Of those who have spoken so far, about 12 have spoken in favour of the bill, namely, in support of the abolition of capital punishment, and about 22 have spoken against, namely, in support of retaining capital punishment. I know that several members are undecided on this very important matter, and it is for that reason that those of us who have made up our minds feel it is worth while to participate in this debate.
Those who are against the abolition of capital punishment can be divided into two groups, those who have
May 14, 1976

strong personal beliefs, and those who follow the results of a questionnaire that has been circulated in their ridings. In the first group, those who are in favour of retaining capital punishment have so far failed to prove that capital punishment is a deterrent. So far in this debate no one has come up with any evidence to prove that. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the onus is on the retentionists because it is they who propose to take a life in return for a murder. I challenge them to come forward with the proof that the penalty is a deterrent or is an effective preventive measure.
This morning, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) said, if I understood him correctly, that he considers the question of whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent as irrelevant, that it does not mean anything to him, that it is not part of the consideration which we should include in arriving at a conclusion. Instead, he considers illiteracy as a relevant criterion. I reject that argument because it implies that people with better education are less prone to commit murder. I believe it has to be substantiated by facts before this strange thought is put forward for our consideration. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has sent me a correction-for which I thank him-saying that so far two NDP members have spoken in this debate and a third one is to come.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River went on to say that he considers it more important to deal with the question of the adversary system in labour relations, that if we had less of the adversary system in this chamber it would be a step in the right direction. I invite the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River to speak to his leader and his frontbenchers to see whether they will heed his advice, but I do not think these considerations are relevant to the question whether in Canada, in 1976, we should continue to have the death penalty on our books.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River proceeded by saying that really this is not going to be a free vote, and that it will be a kind of alignment of backbenchers on the government side just to vote for the bill because of our personal political ambitions. I should like to draw to his attention that it has already been demonstrated by interventions on the part of hon. members of his own party that there will be a free vote. Frontbenchers and backbenchers of the Conservative party will be voting for this bill, and therefore they will demonstrate with their vote that this is, and was meant to be a free vote-and quite rightly and understandably so.
Before going on, I should like to be allowed to quote from a book written 200 years ago by a man who was born in the same town in which I was born. In 1764 he published a book about crime and punishment, and this passage translates as follows:
The death penalty cannot be useful, because of the example of barbarity it gives men. If the passions or the necessities of war have taught the shedding of human blood, the laws, moderators of the conduct of men, should not extend the beastly example, which becomes more pernicious since the inflicting of legal death is attended with much study and formality. It seems to me absurd that the laws which are an expression of the public will, which detest and punish homicide, should themselves permit it, and that to deter citizens from murder, they order a public one. Which are the true and most useful laws?
Capital Punishment
That is the question which Cesare Beccaria asked. He was a writer, philosopher and thinker 200 years ago who put what I just read down in a book. He also argued as follows:
The objective of the penal system . .. should be to devise penalties only severe enough to achieve the proper purposes of security and order-
I doubt very much if there are many in this chamber who disagree with this conclusion. He went on to say:
The effectiveness of criminal justice depends largely on the certainty of punishment rather than on its severity. Penalties should be scaled to the importance of the offence.
He continues:
Beccaria was the first modern writer to advocate the complete abolition of capital punishment and may therefore be regarded as a founder of the abolition movements that have persisted in most civilized nations since his day.
Why have so many countries since then done away with the death penalty? If we look at the western world, who is left amongst the countries which apply the death penalty? To the best of my knowledge, in the western world they are France, Spain and some southern states of the United States, because there that is a provincial responsibility.
If the death penalty were the answer, why is the murder rate higher in some countries where the death penalty is practised than in some countries where it has been abolished? The answer to this question must come from the retentionists, from those who want the death penalty, because, as I said before, the onus is on them to prove that it is a measure which does deter. Perhaps the retentionists, following this intervention, might wish to address themselves to this question.
There is another question. Looking over what has happened in the history of humanity, when the death penalty is involved, who is really affected? Is it the rich, the poor or those somewhere in between? We really have not been able to find, in the records of those who have been executed, cases of people who have had the means to pay for a good defence and all possible means at their disposal to protect their lives. However, there is a long list of people who could be considered the weakest elements in society, who could not afford to do so, who were the victims and who were executed because of lack of a sufficient and adequate defence.
I was intrigued by the intervention of an hon. member a couple of days ago when he said that perhaps, instead of carrying out the death penalty by hanging, we should still have the death penalty but we should have it, as he put it, in a gentle manner. It was not elaborated upon, but one could imagine-if we were to have things that way-that perhaps the person to be executed would find a pill served with his breakfast, discreetly covered by a napkin, and a note saying, "Whenever you are ready, please help yourself. We will take care of the funeral expenses, of course". That is the kind of thinking going on in the minds of some hon. members who feel that we should still have the death penalty, but that we should change the way we are to put it into effect.
I know this is a rhetorical question, but what can be done to bring back the lives of those people who are executed in error? Some people say there are not any, or only very few, but even if there were only one it should be sufficient cause for us to pause and think. However, it is

May 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
more than that. The records of Sing-Sing which have been kept since 1890, prove that 12 per cent of the lives which were taken there were taken in error-12 per cent, or 50 people, who afterwards were discovered to have been innocent. Who is going to bring back those lives, I ask hon. members of this chamber who want to retain capital punishment? Obviously, the answer is no one, because it is too late.
I should like to discuss for a moment the kind of punishment in our society which would stand as the one we would consider to be preferable. Which one is more likely to be remembered; in other words, when life is taken or freedom is taken? Let us consider the following situation in which a life is taken. We have all read about it. It is in the early hours of the morning. It is cold and damp. There is a priest following the man to be executed, saying the last prayers. There is the director of the prison, one reporter, a doctor who has to pronounce the man dead once he has been hanged; there is the executioner waiting there, and next to him there is a strong and heavy person. That is the person who is supposed to throw his weight and hang from the legs of the executed person until they are sure he is dead.
Is that the kind of scene we would like to see happening again in Canada? I ask this question seriously. Surely we do not, and the majority of Canadians do not. If the majority of Canadians were to see a scene like this, they would want to do away with that kind of approach.
What kind of punishment is society more likely to remember and to be impressed by as a measure whereby the state is effective and efficient in catching up with those who have committed a crime? That is the case when freedom is taken away. When a man is kept in an institution for 5, 10, 20 or 30 years of his life, he is daily a physical example, of one who has been taken away. All those who live in that region, who drive by, who read the news, know that he has been taken and continues to receive steady punishment. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) said the other day, these people rot away in the prisons. Other members have said the same thing. This should be a cause of concern to us because such treatment is not human. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is not a reason for supporting the retention of the death penalty in Canada.
The second category that I wish to deal with is all those people who have spoken before me and who are supporters of the death penalty because of questionnaires. When listening to them, I ask myself whether they really believe in making up their minds through means of a questionnaire. It should be remembered that ten years ago Canadian public opinion was in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. Would they have supported that? Suppose that ten years from now Canadian public opinion should swing again in favour of abolition. Where would they stand then? How will they account for the lives taken in the meantime? Will they say, "I go as the wind blows. If it blows from the east, I will vote one way; and if it blows from the west ten years later, I will vote the other way"? Is that the position they will take? I am sure it is not, Mr. Speaker. Are they certain that elected representatives are to be void of ideas on this vital subject? Is that the indication, that they are

empty inside and their opinion is formed as the result of a questionnaire? Is that the thesis they put to this House? I doubt it very much.
We all receive letters in the mail which accuse the cabinet of having acted outside the law when it commutes the death penalty. I think it is important in this debate to put on record that cabinet does not act outside the law when it commutes a death sentence. Section 684(1) of the Criminal Code, approved by this parliament, gives the power to cabinet to commute death sentences. This matter has been raised in many public meetings in Davenport and I have received the question, in the form of letters, from many parts of the country as well.
A debate of this kind would not be complete without some remarks devoted to rehabilitation of inmates in our prisons and the prevention of crime in our communities. It seems to me a system of flexibility and of incentives would permit the rehabilitation of the convicted person. The shortcoming that exists in this bill is that the fixed, rigid terms for murder do not offer any ray of hope, even with the best performance and behaviour. The convicted person will have to wait a fixed number of years for release, regardless of the quality of his conduct in the penitentiary. I would ask for the removal of fixed terms in order that those who deserve it may benefit from the rehabilitation process. I hope that this desirable flexibility will be introduced at committee stage, and if not then, at a time when an atmosphere of better understanding prevails.
I was very impressed when I attended a public meeting in St. Jean, Quebec, organized by a group called ARCAD. This group had held public meetings throughout southern Quebec with the intention of bringing together members of the community and prison inmates with the co-operation of the penitentiary service and the Secretary of State. A lot of tough questions are asked at the meetings, and interesting answers are given in an educational process which raises the perception and understanding of all who participate.
Prevention is a subject that deserves a full debate in itself. From what I know, much needs to be done with the young, particularly those growing up in our large cities. Community workers are necessary in cases where guidance and direction are missing. We should be particularly concerned with the growing number of youngsters placed in the care of foster homes. That is not to say that all foster homes do not offer an adequate environment; most probably do. But there remain a certain number of young people who do not receive adequate attention and grow up according to the rules of the street. Eventually they may drift, picking up bad habits and ending up in deep trouble.
Another question we should ask ourselves in this debate is whether, once a person has been convicted and stored away in one of our maximum security penitentiaries, we can really expect, considering the conditions that prevail in most penitentiaries, that he will again become self-reliant and able to function properly after many years of imprisonment. In view of what seems to be going on in our high-security penitentiaries today, I am sure particularly in places like Laval, that the quality of our penitentiary service needs to be improved.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I offer a challenge to members of this House who really believe in the death penalty

to come forward in this debate with the proof and the facts that will support their thesis that society will be better off, better protected, by its retention. The onus is on the members who are advocating the taking of human life by the state in retaliation for murder; it is on those who want the state to reply to a murder with a coldly calculated kill. If members who believe in the death penalty will not come forward with the facts and the information in support of their stand - and so far they have not - they will have failed to demonstrate the validity and the merits of the stand they are taking in the name of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that Canadians can be better protected by means other than the death penalty- by adequate penalties and punishment for murder, for assault, rape and other forms of violence, with better penitentiary services, by improving the rules governing the release of inmates on full parole, day parole and temporary absence, through crime-prevention measures, through improved social services and with the help of youth workers in the community. Hon. members know that the tendency toward crime starts long before the crime takes place. We have to go to the root of the problem, Mr. Speaker-and the death penalty does not!
The bill before us is a step in the right direction, and I support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate today I wish to say that I do not do so with any sense of pleasure or elation. I venture to say this feeling is shared by a great many members, if not all, of those taking part. Rather, it is a sense of responsibility that causes many of us to participate in a debate of such importance. I am sure all of us are aware of the fact that Canadians are alarmed at the breakdown in the administration of justice in this country. They are very anxious for something definite and concrete to be done in order to reverse the trends we now find in society.
A short time ago the House considered Bill C-83, which was designed to reduce the incidence of violent crime. Now we are considering the other bill in the package, Bill C-84, which deals with capital punishment. This is the fourth major debate on capital punishment in which I have participated. As I read the speeches made back in 1966, 1967 and 1973, and compare them with the speeches delivered to date in the debate of 1976, I cannot help but wonder what the government has been trying to prove in consistently bringing this matter before the House.
I made the point in my speech of 1973, which my hon. friend for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) raised as for back as 1967, that the government is using the capital punishment debate as a diversionary tactic to divert public attention from our economic problems. That is one element I wish to bring to the attention of the House, although I am sure many hon. members are perceptive enough to recognize that fact. The second element I wish to bring to the attention of the House is this: regardless of what we in this House decide about this legislation, and particularly if we reject it, the government will still continue on its present course. This government has made up its mind that no one
Capital Punishment
is going to be executed, and regardless of what parliament says it will have its own way.
The government disregarded the will of parliament in 1966 by introducing a new bill on capital punishment in 1967. It has disregarded the will of parliament since that time by automatically commuting the death sentence of every person convicted of capital murder. When parliament, in 1973, extended the partial ban on capital punishment, the government completely disregarded the will of parliament by procrastination and the postponement of justice. In Canada today we have 11 individuals under sentence of cleath.
So I say, again, that this debate is a diversionary tactic. Why else would the government pursue a course which permits 100 speakers or so to participate in debate on the issue? What they say will not influence the direction the government is taking. If this bill passes, I imagine nothing will change. It will make it easier for the government to do what it has been doing in the past. If this bill is defeated, the government will continue to act against the intent of the law as it stands until the economic situation reaches a stage some time in the future where the government will need another diversion. Then, without doubt, we shall have another debate on capital punishment-and it could take place as early as next year if this bill is defeated.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that people are skeptical about the bill. I am skeptical, because it is difficult to be anything but skeptical when we consider the actions and performance of this government. I state that at this moment I am against the abolition of the death penalty and it is my intention to vote against this bill. Nothing I have heard in the three previous debates on this issue or in this debate has made me change my mind. I have listened to all the arguments, including the argument of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), even though he has accused individuals who hold views opposite to his as lacking intelligence, and although he may question our intelligence I can suggest one thing: I know many individuals of the same persuasion as me, but if they were in the position of the Solicitor General and had to implement a law in which they did not believe personally, they would resign. That minister has chosen to ignore the intent of the law, he has talked, in all seriousness about lack of perspective and "stumbling blocks to an intelligent and informed public discussion of the real problem." The latter comment appears on page 13088 of Hansard for May 3, 1976.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Solicitor General himself is lacking in perspective, otherwise he would have resigned long ago because of his views on capital punishment and refusal to carry out the present intent of the law. Furthermore, if the minister wants to talk about stumbling blocks, I say that he and the government are the major stumbling blocks to a reasonable and rational system of justice and administration of justice in this country.
I speak for an area of Canada which has the misfortune to contain possibly as many as 13 penal institutions, including the Matsqui institution in which are housed serious offenders, including a number of those convicted of the crime of murder. I believe that the increase in lawlessness in this country, and particularly the increase in violent crime in my area, dates from the time the former solicitor general stated in the House that from then on the

May 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
emphasis of the government would be on the rehabilitation of the criminal, rather than the protecting of society. The minister opposite can quote all the statistics he wants, but he, his predecessor and the government must share the blame for the deterioration in the administration of justice in this country.
I have stated on a number of occasions that I am not against the rehabilitation of the criminal. I believe that this rehabilitation is essential. It should be one of our major responsibilities and prime objectives. But I do not believe that it should be done at the expense of the citizens of this country.


Charles L. Caccia: Nobody said that.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I listened intently to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) when he spoke, and I heard his interjection. I suggest that his interjection hardly corresponds with some of the statements which have been made. As I pointed out, the major objective, or the main emphasis, will be the rehabilitation of the criminal rather than the protection of society. If the hon. member challenges my interpretation of the minister's remark, he may look it up for himself.
As we consider the situation in which we find ourselves today, I am sure we shall recognize and acknowledge the fact that rehabilitation is of vital importance. We have been living in a period of permissiveness in society which has shown itself not only in juvenile delinquency but in the lack of ethical conduct on the part of government

I am speaking generally now-which is indicated by charges laid against some in the business community with respect to kickbacks and bribes. It has shown itself in practically every area of our society. You have minor crime and major crime. I believe that this directs our attention to one thing, Mr. Speaker. If we are to solve the problem of crime in Canada, it will have to be done by a redirection of our society. If not, I am afraid the future will be rather bleak, to say the least.
I wish to refer briefly to an article that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of Saturday, April 10, 1976, headed "Delinquency Casebooks: 'Sick' Facts", written by Journal reporter Ian Haysom. I am sure that all members have read the article so I will not put on the record more than two or three paragraphs. I quote:
A disturbing number of Ottawa teenagers-
We could substitute "Canadian teenagers".
-are dwelling in a world of sex, crime, drugs and violence-and many are encountering deep emotional difficulties as a result, according to social agencies in the city.
Teenage prostitution-sometimes involving girls as young as 13 and 14-is becoming increasingly evident.. . He-
That is referring to a social worker.
-identifies the main problem areas in Ottawa as juvenile prostitution; under-age drinking (and subsequent alcohololism); teenage depression and other psychological problems; promiscuity (leading to. venereal disease and unwanted babies, especially among 14 and 15-year olds); crime (especially vandalism and breaking and entering); the emergence of gangs in certain areas of the town; drug-taking and pushing; and a general trend towards teenage violence.

When we consider this in light of the problems we are facing in Canada, the problems do not just concern the teenagers and juveniles. It is a failure on the part of society down through successive generations, the last several generations in any event, to face up to the responsibility in which justice prevails, honesty and uprightness are characteristics to be desired, and righteousness is exalted above the iniquity we see about us.
While believing very strongly in the principle that in the final analysis we, as individuals, are responsible for our own actions and must suffer the penalty for wrongdoing, I do not hesitate to say that in trading off moral and spiritual values for the seeming benefits of crass materialism and secularism, successive generations are providing the climate in which selfishness, disrespect for the rights of others, and naked violence find ready expression. Spiritual laws have been repudiated, the old-fashioned virtues have been replaced by the so-called new morality, and situation ethics have taken the place of the principle of right and wrong. To the extent that this development has been promoted or countenanced by society, we share in the guilt of those whose activities we are now attempting to curb.
Therefore, one of our main responsibilities is the rehabilitation of those who have been caught up in these trends and circumstances. Instead of elevating and challenging our young people to the highest principles and motivations of life, we have allowed them to drift aimlessly, caught up by these influences that are working for the degredation of human society.
I just give that as background to the main issue before us today. I have pointed out that even though we believe it is important and necessary to retain a system for severe penalties and crime, we must recognize that we have a responsibility wherever we can to salvage, assist, and rehabilitate those caught up in these situations.
I should like to briefly comment on the question of deterrence that the minister likes to talk about so much. He and the government claim categorically that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder.
I would like to put on the record a couple of quotations from a study of "Punishment: its Severity and Certainty", by Bailey and Smith, published in the "Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science", December 1972. I quote from page 531 of this study:
The lesson to be learned from capital punishment is not that punishment does not deter, but that the improper and sloppy use of punishment does not deter or rehabilitate.
This of course makes sense to everyone but the government. The government since 1962 has seen fit to ignore the law and not administer capital punishment, and yet when he wants to quote statistics the minister uses the period since then to back up his claim that capital punishment does not deter. This is the folly of the minister's reasoning.
Severity of the punishment is an important element in deterrence theory, but of equal importance is the certainty of the punishment. It is not enough to have a severe penalty like capital punishment on the statute books. The penalty must be used or it is no longer a penalty.
I quote again from the study:
Deterrence theory suggests that the severity and certainty of punishment are additive factors. That is, when punishments are severe and
May 14, 1976

administered with certainty, maximum deterrence results. Inversely, when punishments are slight and uncertain, deterrence will be minimal. Common sense as well as some evidence, would seem to support these assertions.
Because of time I shall only quote one piece of evidence from a study of crime in the United States in 1968, recorded in the same article:
The average homicide rate of states with low levels of certainty and severity was found to be three times the average for states with high levels of certainty and severity. Eighty-one per cent of the states with both low values of severity and certainty had homicide rates above the nation's average, while only 9 per cent of states high on both severity and certainty had rates above the average.
These facts are very enlightening in view of the many statements the minister and other members of the government have been making on the subject of deterrence. As one last thought on this subject, I would like to point out that we do not hear of many people who would go to the Solicitor General or some police officer and state, "I had intended to kill someone, but I changed my mind when I thought about the punishment."
Several years ago, and this was referred to in some of the previous debates, a man who had been incarcerated for murder and was either on parole or had escaped got into another situation in which the police were involved. When asked why he did not shoot the policeman, he replied that he knew that he could face the death penalty. Regardless of what the minister or anyone else says, there was a deterrent as far as that individual was concerned. We do not know how many others were called upon to make a decision in light of that fact. In reality we do not know how much of a deterrent capital punishment, or any punishment, for that matter, has been. Most people just will not admit, or the occasion will not arise for them to admit, that they have been deterred from committing a crime.
I would recommend the article to which I have referred as good, enlightening reading for the Solicitor General and other members of the government, together with another article published in the journal of the same name in December, 1973, and entitled, "The Impact of Certainty and Severity of Punishment on Levels of Crime in American States: an Extended Analysis," by George Antunes and A. Lee Hunt.
The minister has made much of the so-called provision in this bill which would substitute a mandatory 25-year prison sentence for capital punishment. May I say I do not believe the government has any intention of putting anyone in prison for 25 years. It has no more intention of sending anyone to prison for that length of time than it has of executing anyone should this bill be defeated. I say this because,the bill contains at least one great loophole in this respect-I refer to the provision for review of a sentence after 15 years. If any hon. members remain uncommitted after this debate I hope they will look closely into this aspect.
The bill has been publicized as replacing capital punishment with a mandatory 25-year sentence. I submit that this is misleading. The 25 years is really a maximum sentence; in practice it will more likely be 15 years and perhaps something less than 15 years if the government can find a way to make this possible. This provision can be compared
Capital Punishment
with the measure the government introduced in 1967, and again in 1973, when it wanted the unrestricted abolition of capital punishment. To pacify its own backbenchers it attached to these measures a provision for capital punishment in cases where prison guards or policemen were murdered. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the government had any intention of executing anyone: that provision was attached merely to enable it to get the support of its own members many of whom were opposed to abolition. Similarly, I do not believe the government has any intention of sending anyone to prison for the stated period of 25 years.
I should like to quote from the report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada entitled "Dispositions and Sentences in the Criminal Process." If hon. members have been reading these reports carefully they will understand quite clearly the source from which the government is deriving its ideas. On page 26 we read:
A prison sentence for the purpose of protecting society by separation should not be for more than twenty years.
Elsewhere in the report is an indication that it ought to be a lot less than 20 years, in the opinion of the Commission, so I hope hon. members will not be taken in by this tough talk about 25-year sentences. I would point out that Bill C-83 itself says parole can be considered after 15 years.
In conclusion, may I say that I abhor capital punishment and I abhor murder, but I believe it is necessary for society to maintain the ultimate sanction in order to protect itself. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that some other method of sanction should be considered in place of the present method. I should like to see a society in which punishment was not necessary, a society in which we did not need jails, and in which people could live in peace. I believe Canada, under the present situation, has gone further away from that goal. It is unfortunate that this should be happening, because until we reach that goal we must live in a society where jails, punishment and, indeed, capital punishment, are necessary facts that face us.
I should like now to refer to two or three letters I have received. I do not intend to read them all, but they were forwarded to me just the other day, together with petitions from my constituents. One of them is directed to me as the member for Fraser Valley East, and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). It states:
We, citizens of Abbotsford District and Matsqui Municipality, located in the central Fraser Valley of British Columbia, are living in the midst of thirteen penal institutions with an inmate population of approximately 2,500 prisoners. Because of the increasing frequency of violent crimes committed by prisoners who have been granted passes and parole, and by persons released on bail awaiting trial, we believe our personal and public safety is seriously threatened by your present system.
Therefore, we petition the Department of Justice:
(1)	to refuse to grant parole or temporary absences to prisoners guilty
of murder, rape or drug trafficking.
(2)	to refuse to grant such persons bail while awaiting trial.
(3)	that these policies be instituted as law throughout Canada and
enforced by the Department of Justice.
The other letter is addressed to myself and to the Solicitor General. It is along the same lines but it has to do with capital punishment. The petition reads:
Therefore, we petition the cabinet and the Attorney General's Department that for all persons convicted of murder the death penalty be maintained and enforced within the shortest time possible.
13540

May 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
Appended to each of these letters are between 1,500 and
2,000	signatures, indicating the grave concern felt by the people of my own constituency where, as hon. members know, there are some 13 criminal institutions within a small area. Attached to the petitions was a letter from the person who had circulated them. I want to read this letter. Mr. A. B. Patterson, M.P.,
Dear Sir:
Enclosed herewith are two petitions signed by a large number of residents of this area for presentation to yourself and Hon. Ron Bas-ford, Minister of Justice, and Mr. Warren Allmand, on the following matters:
1.	Refuse parole or bail to persons awaiting trial on charges of murder, rape or trafficking.
2.	Maintain death penalty for all persons convicted of murder and penalty enforced in shortest possible time.
On March 22nd, Council unanimously passed the following resolution: MOVED by Alderman (Dr.) K. A. Boulton
SECONDED by Alderman Hougen that we endorse petitions presented for submission to Minister of Justice and Solicitor General. CARRIED:
Yours very truly,


JOHN K. HOCKING MUNICIPAL CLERK
[Stage Direction]
I put this on record to show that I am not speaking only from personal conviction when I say I believe we should retain this ultimate sanction so as to make it clear we shall not tolerate cold blooded murder, but that I am speaking on behalf of a great many of my constituents, including those who signed these petitions which are in themselves an indication of the predominance of support for capital punishment which exists across this nation of ours.
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I suppose in a way that this long debate on abolition or retention of the death penalty can tempt any of us to a certain amount of cynicism and boredom. After all, the issue has been debated in so many countries, including our own, so many times that we all despair of throwing any new light on such a complex and emotional question.
The one thing of course that all of us agree on, whether we are abolitionist or retentionist in any form, is a respect and reverence for any human life. No matter where we get this from, whether from an innate moral, natural law, child training and or indoctrination or whatever, there is a paradox in this debate in that, although arguments may be heated, each side assumes a reverence for life and a need for protection of society. These are wanted by all.
The abolitionists generally argue that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to crime and bring supporting arguments from social science studies, including those done by specialists in the field of criminology, as a sub-branch of sociology or social psychology. They likewise point to the evidence of states in the United States that are retentionist, or abolitionist, or countries of western Europe, to show that capital punishment cannot be proven to have any perceptible effect on the murder rate.
The retentionists generally argue on this point that deterrence can be interpreted in various ways; incidentally on this point so can the opinion polls for which some MP's 
seem to have an unwarranted adulation. This is especially true of their own made up private opinion polls which, without the use of proper methodology, can be easily abused. The abuses can be done subconsciously through the way questions are stated, the size and nature of the sampling process, and a whole series of pitfalls that are inherent in the process and known to anyone who has done research and methodology studies is sociology or social psychology. It is even so when trained specialists draw up these questionnaires and polls.
These polls can easily be used on such touchy questions as abolition and abortion for a member to escape from his or her responsibility to put their conscience first. I reject the notion completely that we are delegates here of the people. We are their representatives, and when they put us here they presumably did so deciding that our concern, understanding, and judgment would be brought to bear on these issues, not on what pseudo-scientific opinion polls suggest the majority of Canadians want. They, the people, through the ballot box are ultimately our judges.
The retentionists also argue that the threat of execution has an impact not provided by the threat of very long sentences of even life imprisonment. On the other hand, in 1954 Hugh G. Christie, then of Oakalla prison in Burnaby, B.C., told a special parliamentary committee that executions convinced other prisoners that they were hated, whatever their offences.
The retentionists argue that sometimes murderers are known to have broken out of jail, threatening society all over again. They also argue that the economic cost of maintaining society's most antisocial and threatening members is very high. Why should all Canadians have to maintain such a criminal for the rest of his or her life? The abolitionists reply that the judicial system can make mistakes, that once a person has been executed in error the mistake cannot be corrected. They also maintain that there seems to be a good deal of truth that executions deepen and maintain the violent instincts that are obviously predominant in our culture today, as for example in such popular art forms as movies.
I personally think there is a good deal to this argument, even though I consider its expression by some abolitionists as somewhat one-sided. One of the reasons that I am opposed both to abortions and the death penalty is that I think there is a "fall-out" on people's attitudes which tends, subtly but insidiously, to undermine the special regard we have traditionally held for human life in this country.
I also think that there is a good deal of truth for saying, and a considerable amount of systematic studies among criminologists to show, that juries tend to acquit when conviction means execution, whether by hanging or some other means. The retentionists argue that retribution is part and parcel of human nature and of every society. In fact our whole social and legal system is based on it.
The ultimate form of retribution is execution and social anthropologists have found it used in all societies at one time or another. Some retentionists, as every MP knows form his or her mail, point to its acceptability in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, and they refer us to Genesis 9, verse 6.
May 14, 1976

Many of the latter are strictly biblical fundamentalists, regardless of what denominations they belong to. They seem either to be unacquainted with, or will not accept, modern Biblical scholarship, and while accepting certain hardcore teachings as fundamental to a Judaeo-Christian concept of life, put much of the scriptures in the cultural context of the times in which they were written. I respect the right of these people to favour the death penalty for premeditated murder. I must say, though, that when some of them use the name of Jesus Christ in support of capital punishment, I see red. If there is anything that all Christians share, and I also include here most Jews as well as Christians, about Christ and his teaching, it is that love, mercy, forgiveness, and compassion are the essence of his life and doctrine.
Granted that we need retribution against murderers for the sake of the safety and cohesiveness of society; that does not argue for the death penalty. I am in favour of the 20 or 25 year imprisonment for premeditated murders, as long as there is judicial review after 15 years and we get some built-in guarantees in the legislation that more of the medical resources of psychiatry, and more and better trained clinical psychologists, are attracted to the prison system by market and other types of incentives.
This decision is a vexing problem for all of us. We have to decide how we will vote in the privacy of our conscience, even if it does not seem to be the popular thing to do now, when pressure groups and opinion polls seem to be trying to persuade us that we should not exercise that precious right but should give in to some vague concept of "collective consciousness" in Canada.
It is obvious to us, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most important duties of government in any society is to protect its citizens against the effects of crime. The only possible reason, as I see it, for a member of parliament to vote for capital punishment would be its proven ability as a protection against murder. I cannot, in my conscience, accept the evidence for this proof as presented by retentionists, and I therefore intend to vote for the abolition of the death penalty in Canada.


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it has seemed to me that since coming to this Chamber your title, Sir, has an ironic twist, for though it is your duty to preserve order in this Chamber it is we who are the speakers, and we whose duty it is to give voice to the region we represent.
Contrary to public opinion it is not rare that we who are parliamentarians have the opportunity to deal with the synthesis of a wide variety of opinions expressed and even unexpressed, together with our own best judgment, but this is called a "free" vote. I submit, Sir, that every vote is a free vote, for every person here is free, due in part at least to the work of succeeding generations of parliamentarians and our democratic process. We are free to reflect in legislation our best judgment in our time, and in my case with a government which understands what liberalism really means in expressing philosophy.
The statute books of this nation at this time retain a law pertaining to capital punishment implemented in 1967, a
Capital Punishment
law which has been de facto abolition. This law states in part that capital punishment is officially and legally suspended except for the murder of a law officer or any prison guard. This law was a product of a time which honestly believed it was on the road to abolition. Like the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) we were all confident that our nation would undergo the basic social changes necessary which would make the death penalty unnecessary.


An hon. Member:: Then we got a Liberal government.


Iona Campagnolo: If the hon. member has a question, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to entertain it.
Succeeding governments have commuted these penalties on examination of jury recommendations for mercy or otherwise by Her Majesty's right of clemency. Each time this action was taken by succeeding governments, Mr. Speaker, I submit it was done in the earnest expectation that indeed and at last "just around the corner" a new world, where abolition would be possible, would surely evolve. In my opinion that world, so devoutly desired, has not yet arrived and a decision must now be rendered at last.
The succeeding moratoriums have failed. "All the words have been said"-I quote my dear friend and colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), from the last debate in 1973, and who would be speaking today if she were here. We have basic changes to make in this world of ours and it is to this that our House should address itself before we can consider abolition of the death penalty as a move toward the security of all Canadians.
The most basic areas of change which I foresee as being paramount to a society in which abolition could be adopted are in parenting, child care, education, the media, and penal reform. I will amplify each of these only briefly, since again I am sure hon. members have heard it all before. For instance we blithely assume that, like the animals of nature, human beings are natural parents. Most are not. Parenting is an untaught art in our society, that unique distillation of love and discipline and example which can create in its best evolution a security for children to grow in knowledge of their place and role and responsibility to civilization as a whole.
Child care in our nation is yet another area largely unlearned. The fostering of children, our own or others, can be a richly rewarding service to humanity. But in our world we find neglect and mistreatment of children. We find adult selfishness intervening in the full development of a child's potential. We find children without rights or hope, and without a future.
Today's education seems stubbornly bent, at worst, on reteaching lessons for a world that is past, or in teaching for a world that is only here today and gone tomorrow. Education is an ongoing flow where one is taught not facts but rather the ability and capacity to constantly learn. In an ever-changing kaleidoscopic world of multi-data, all our citizens have a right to know how to think, to organize their lives, and to remain mentally agile enough to accommodate their lives to an increasingly altered and flexible lifestyle. Without such adaptability human beings are under a strain which is intolerable.
95 568-2 314

Capital Punishment
Another needed basic alteration appears self-evident. The media in general, and television in particular, that medium so powerful and all pervading that it can induce a consumer to choose one type of dog food over another, has profoundly changed our lives. But we refuse to come to terms with this fact and with this threat.
I ask members to cast their minds over recent television programs they have observed. Violence, death, and destruction dominate our "entertainment". In one average month on our own CBC there are more numbers viewed in this country than actually occur in the nation in a year. But let us examine those murders more closely. Our home screens portray actors dying quickly, cleanly, and without undue pain. Do hon. members know, let alone young impressionable minds, that television actors must portray violent death without undue anguish, blood, or even without taking too much time in synthetic dying? No wonder our society regards killing as of little lasting importance and believes life is expendable.
Then we look at penal reform. It has been infinitely stated in this debate, and in those that have preceded it, that until this nation is prepared to invest in the rehabilitation process for criminals and violent people in our society we will remain a criminal and violent society. I submit we will be faced, as a result, with taking on the responsibility of deciding the fate of those who so severely transgress our laws as to be non-reformable. Further it must be admitted there are sociopathic personalities who simply cannot distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil and what is acceptable social behaviour. There is no cure for these humans. What is our answer to the problem they represent?
It has been widely stated across our nation that members should vote as their constituents demand. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, contrary to I am sure what most constituents believe, on this particular matter constituents do not speak with one voice but with hundreds and thousands of voices. Parliament is being asked to decide. "Make a decision" is the outstanding theme of almost all who have joined in this national debate. Although an overwhelming majority do indeed desire retention of the death penalty it is true, the variations and gradations of the manner of that retention is a veritable babble of contrasts, and there is no consensus or no clearly defined direction. The option members have, is to follow their own judgment.
I would ask constituents everywhere to consider the words of Edmund Burke who stated, "Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgment and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
In addition to what I consider our social unpreparedness to accept abolition of the death penalty, it is my opinion that it would be both illogical and inconsistent for me to vote for Bill C-84 for the following reasons. I arbitrarily accept that life commences at the moment of conception, a premise which I grant is not universal. In spite of this I endorse our law for therapeutic abortion. This, Mr. Speaker, is the taking of life, and I would refer to my speech in this House on that subject last May 29.
Similarly, although this House has not yet dealt with the ethical-moral problem of the unnatural extension of life by artificial means, and here I must state I consider

euthanasia a misnomer although it must suffice as language is imprecise. This so called "life", artificially extended beyond clinical death over a protracted period of time, is abhorrent to me personally, and I believe not in the best interests of our society. If it were me or someone I loved in such extremity, I pray that the artificial "life" would be humanely terminated.
Feeling as I do on these other matters, it is not in accordance with my philosophy and judgment to deny the retention of our current law which should be duly enforced. Indeed in the case of those who so gravely transgress the laws of our society as to take the lives of those assigned by our society to be our protectors, I endorse the retention of the death penalty within the current law of our nation as one of the admittedly imperfect answers in our search for a secure society.
I submit that we are defining the shape of our national character in this debate and, although some of us might not like what we see, I regret that my idealism does not extend to acceptance of this as the moment in time to acknowledge that we have reached a sufficient level of civilization to allow us to abolish the death penalty, even though I am confident that the day will come when basic changes in our society will make such extreme punishment unnecessary.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, although I intend to speak in favour of retaining the death penalty in Canada at this time, I look forward to the day when it will not be necessary in our country. However, the government must accept the responsibility for the rising demand by the .public for retention. Certainty of punishment is the best deterrent to crime we know.
The present laws have just not been enforced in a satisfactory manner-in effect, the government is seen to have shirked its responsibility in this matter. Hon. members have already pointed out that the actual time served in prison by 42 murderers paroled between 1968 and 1974 averaged just over 13 years, and that in 1974 alone over
1,000	temporary absence permits were issued to inmates convicted of capital murder. Surely at this time we would be well advised to retain the death penalty in limited cases of murder rather than to ram this bill through and further diminish respect for the law.
I have the greatest respect for the many constituents who have telephoned and written to me favouring abolition; however, I feel that I represent the apparent majority of my constituents who wish to have the death penalty retained.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This can only be done with the permission of the hon. member because it takes away some of his allotted time. Would the hon. member allow a question?


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I thank the hon. member. I want to preface my question with the

May 14, 1976

remark that I respect whichever position he holds on this contentious issue. I would like to ask him a simple question. Since this is to be a free vote, how can he state in the House, without at least smiling, that anyone is trying to ram the bill through the House?


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider that all of us will be allowed to have a free vote in the House. We will on this side, but I have my doubts about the other side.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) misses the whole point about the trust delegated by the Canadian people to elected representatives. Those who put themselves forward for positions of civic responsibility cannot opt out of that responsibility by claiming it is too heavy for them. We are placed here in Canada to manage our day to day affairs, and short of divine intervention we must uphold our laws.
To say that there is not the slightest guarantee that by executing murderers violence will be decreased, is to beg the question. There may be cases where the knowledge that a murderer, if caught, would forfeit his life, far from having a deterrent effect might have the reverse effect.
Yet there are others-as, for instance, armed men or hunted criminals, not yet guilty of murder, threatening to kill hostages unless their outrageous demands are met. The knowledge that their own lives would be forfeited for certain if they carried out their criminal threat would be far more likely to induce them to avoid committing such a crime. Terrorists are ready enough to risk their lives in taking those of others, so long as they themselves have a sporting chance of surviving. But it takes an exceptional man to act in such a way as to condemn himself to death.
It seems to me that we have to keep the death penalty for certain kinds of crimes. We now have in our federal prisons people who have committed more than one murder, and there is no further punishment that can be meted out. In effect these people have a licence to murder. Take another case of a man who is threatened with life imprisonment for a crime he has already committed. What reason has he not to kill the arresting officer in an attempt to escape? His punishment would be the same. In short, there are many cases where the death penalty is the only penalty available that could possibly deter.
Anyone who takes another's life should know that he thereby forsakes his own and does not just suffer the inconvenience of being put into prison for some time.
Life imprisonment now really means anything, but even if it meant real life imprisonment its deterrent effect would never be as great as that of the death penalty. It is because it is irrevocable that it is the one people fear most, and because it is feared most it is the one most likely to deter. We have all read reviews, such as the one recently printed in the American Economic Review, which state that over the period between 1933 and 1969 an additional execution per year may have resulted, on the average, in seven or eight fewer murders.
If you assume the evidence for the deterrent effect of the death penalty is not clear, you face two risks. The first one is that if you impose the death penalty and it does not have an additional deterrent effect, you have possibly lost the life of a convicted murderer without adding the deterrent and thereby sparing future victims. The second risk is that
Capital Punishment
if you fail to execute the convicted murderer and execution would have an additional deterrent effect, you have failed to spare the lives of a number of future victims. Between these two risks I would much rather execute the convicted murderer than risk the lives of innocent people who could have been saved.
Our system of'punishment is based not just on deterrence but also on what is called justice, namely, that we feel a man who has committed a crime must be punished in proportion to the seriousness of the crime, and since the crime that takes life is irrevocable, so must be the punishment. Once we make it clear to a person that if he deprives someone else of life he will suffer only minor inconvenience, we have cheapened human life, and we are at that point today.
We hear the argument that the death penalty is legalized murder because it inflicts on the criminal the same situation he has inflicted on his victim, yet most punishments are designed to inflict on the criminal what he inflicted on the victim. The difference between the punishment and the crime is that one is a legal measure and the other is not. As for the brutalizing effect, I think that people are more brutalized by their daily TV fare, and probably are more brutalized by our failure to punish brutal acts seriously.
There is no question that there will be a demand for discipline in penal matters. Some of the shocking murders in Canada of late may well make it impossible for the government to hold out against the demand for restoration of capital punishment. I am sure the change in the trend of opinion is there for everyone to see. Even convinced abolitionists are changing their minds, and have come to believe that terrorism is a type of crime for which death cannot be a deterrent available to one side only. There is a strong public reaction present which must precede any general restoration of discipline in our society.
Surely the purpose of criminal justice should be the protection of society, rehabilitation of the offender, and compensation for the victim. Our present system of criminal justice is dominated by the treatment approach, the idea that criminals can be rehabilitated and thus prevented from returning to crime. That is a basic notion of the government, and it is under strong attack.
Our correctional system is not working. Present methods have little effect on the tendency of criminals to return to jail. The basic elements of our probation and parole system were both designed years ago, primarily to handle what we would now really consider mild criminal types. However, we are now dumping serious criminals into this system. We now have a set up operated on the principle that some young fellow with a master's degree in social work can actually treat 75 or more hard bitten convicts over the telephone, or during a half hour interview per month.
No wonder people think it is a farce. What they really do is force convicts to be fakes. Convicts know they must prove to the Parole Board that they are trying to improve themselves if they are to get out. They figure if they have to take a reading course, or physiotherapy, or get up in group counselling, or denounce themselves, or anything else, they will do it. They want out.

May 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
Of course we all know that it is far better to prevent crime than to put people in jail after they have committed a criminal act. Therefore the main thrust of our society should be in the area of crime prevention. We must appreciate that the most effective and essential tool in crime prevention is to reduce people's leaning toward crime, and to develop a stronger national disposition toward observance of the law. This approach must start from the grass roots level. Every institution in our society has a responsibility to bring its influence to bear on this problem, including the home, the church, the school, the media, and all institutions which instil, build, and fortify character and self-discipline.
Without going over all the arguments, perhaps we could look at one reason behind the existence of capital punishment. The historical reason for the death penalty is that in earlier days it was the only way in which the state, that is, our organized society, was able to prevent the perpetual and self-perpetuating orgy of killing. The state took over from the injured individual the avenging of a relative's murder, and imposed the sentence of death itself on the murderer. No longer could the relatives or friends of the murdered man avenge his death by themselves committing murder, but in return for abstaining from doing so the Crown or state assumed the responsibility for seeing that justice was done, and of course the result was that there was a great decrease in the number of private killings.
The abolitionist claims that capital punishment is not a deterrent to would-be murderers. This is an empty argument and completely beside the point. There is no way to determine how many murders were not committed by those who wanted to commit the act but did not through fear of execution.
The question should be, does the supreme crime demand the supreme penalty? In effect, do we place the highest possible value on the life of the victim? There have been some grim pictures brought to mind in this debate about the condemned man going to say his last prayers before execution, and so on. All I can say in reply is that his victim seldom has a chance to say his last prayers.
The abolitionist movement, which has grown so strong in recent years, is not based on any moral grounds, regardless of its claims to the contrary. It is propagated mainly by those who feel that it is somehow the fault of society that men are criminals and that therefore they should not be held fully responsible for their actions. I do not think we should allow capital murder to be passed off as the sin of someone's environment. What I hope to see in our country is people striving to expand the moral factor of our society and relying less and less on excessive regulation.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have complete respect for the opinions on all sides of the House, regardless of which side of the question they support. This is the first time I shall have spoken on this issue, but I have listened very carefully to those who are possibly of a different frame of mind, and I must say that in the first instance I had two speeches prepared because I tried to listen to both sides. Fortunately, I have been able to prepare a third, and since it is almost four o'clock I would appreciate it if I could call it four o'clock and reserve my time so that hon. members

might at least hear my speech in its entirety and so that there can be some continuity.


Mr. Nowlan:: I would have finished my speech by four o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure hon. members will agree and give consent, and by next Monday perhaps the hon. member will have made up his mind on which speech he will make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that he has until Tuesday to make up his mind.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, through the usual channels we have agreed that-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)?


Jean-Jacques Blais: I understand that the hon. member for Vaudreuil was persuaded by the latest argument I presented. The agreement is that we will deal with notice of motion No. 45 standing in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), listed at page 60 of Monday's order paper.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we stand all notices of motions appearing before No. 45 which is in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, and proceed with No. 45?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suppose that includes the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who is waiting for the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. By consent we will proceed to motion No. 45.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider entering into the necessary agreements with the other levels of govern-
May 14, 1976

ment concerned to (a) cost share in construction of a crossing over the Shubenacadie River and in completion of other missing links in the Fundy Trail (b) share in guaranteeing the financing of a toll traffic tunnel under the Northwest Arm in Halifax.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I must say that probably this motion should have been seconded by both the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) because while the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (myself) will not be running next time in a constituency quite as large as that which includes the Northwest Arm bridge, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley will probably be running at least at one end of the Shubenacadie River crossing.
I shall begin by dealing with both matters. If I may I will devote ten minutes to each, and hopefully my seatmate, who comes from a part of British Columbia, will remind me with dispatch when I have reached the end of 10 minutes so that I can turn to the other matter.
First I shall refer to the Shubenacadie River crossing. When I first became involved with East Hants which, by the way, started out life in this parliament with representation by the Hon. Joseph Howe, I timidly ventured into its waters and was told that we should not concern ourselves with the perhaps larger issues which were involved with the tidal power which could be developed in the Bay of Fundy. I think we should be concerned-and that is probably the royal "we"-about the crossing between Truro and Windsor on the Shubenacadie River. I fought three elections in my constituency, perhaps not brilliantly but with some success, and I promised the people that I would raise this as a major issue. I have kept that promise, Mr. Speaker.
There has been an earlier debate in this parliament about the possibility of federal participation in providing a crossing on the Shubenacadie River. Such a crossing would complete the transportation link through the south-northwestern part of Nova Scotia connecting the town of Truro with the Annapolis Valley. That was my view when I first represented the area in 1968 and I have not had reason to change my mind.
Even without resort to all the statistics and studies available to us, it seems very obvious to me that East Hants can best be served by a crossing over the Shubenacadie River. It would serve to open up an area that was famous in the days of old wooden ships and iron men, and the whole history of Atlantic Canada. It goes back that far, Mr. Speaker, but it also has very real importance in the present day.
I make no apology for raising the issue again, Mr. Speaker. It has been brought up two or three times in the past eight or nine years, and even then maybe I could have brought it up oftener. I have the satisfaction, however, of having prompted an hour of debate some years back when members from Atlantic Canada raised their voices in support of my motion.
There are several reasons why there should be a crossing over the Shubenacadie River, Mr. Speaker. It is an integral part of the Fundy trail proposed by the Department of Public Works. Many Americans visit this part of our coun-
Federal-Provincial Cost-Sharing try and want to travel right around the Bay of Fundy. At the present time they have to start near the port of Saint John, then go through Albert country, through Cumberland County, and by some magic means get to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. The missing link is the problem of crossing the Shubenacadie River, and that is my first point, Mr. Speaker.
Some hon. members may ask why the federal government should be interested in a bridge or a causeway or a tunnel to circumvent the river. Mr. Speaker, the federal government has paid substantial sums of money to make river crossings possible for Montreal and for Vancouver. That being the case, surely the same can be done for Maitland, Nova Scotia, or Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia; or Truro, Nova Scotia. If anything is to be built surely it should be approved by the federal government. I am sure the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East would agree that the concept of the Fundy trail has been approved. The issue has been argued in this House by the former member for Saint John-Lancaster, Mr. Bell, and by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, and myself.
As you and I know, Mr. Speaker, lots are drawn to determine the allocation of time for private members' business. When I drew number 45 I thought it would be next year before I had a chance to present my motion to the House. The government decided that the session should keep going, however, and all of a sudden my motion was called. Not only that but I think it was called on four occasions when I was not here. In that regard I want to apologize to and for the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) who has waited patiently, with a great long speech prepared, to take part in the debate. Unfortunately he had to be out of town today and asked me to convey his apologies to you, Sir. I hope when the matter comes up again we will both be able to congratulate somebody for having built the crossing over the Shubenacadie River.


Alexander Bell Patterson: That is the first lesson; now give us the next ten minutes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my genial seatmate is familiar with both the old and the new testaments; he knows when a message should be broken off and the new message begun.
This I think will be my last chance to speak in this Chamber on behalf of the people interested in the Shubenacadie River crossing. They have given me much encouragement and I know that in the future they will be incorporated in another constituency. I wish them well, Mr. Speaker, and wish that I had been able to do more for them in this matter. When I instituted the debate on the subject two years ago I thought I had proved, brilliantly and beyond all reasonable doubt, that a crossing of some sort would make a great deal of difference to western Nova Scotia.
My seatmate reminds me again, Mr. Speaker, that I said I would divide my remarks into two parts. I will now proceed to the matter of a crossing under instead of over the Northwest Arm in Halifax.
As you may have gathered, my constituency is rather large. Part of it includes a portion of the old city of Halifax; a rather large portion includes the new city of

May 14, 1976
Federal-Provincial Cost-Sharing Halifax, the spill down the southeastern part of the Northwest Arm in Halifax. At one time the member of parliament could come here from Halifax to try to explain the situation in terms of wartime conditions, but that is no longer possible in the modern House of Commons. I shall therefore try to address myself to conditions and circumstances as they exist nowadays when making my plea for this particular venture.
My colleague from Dartmouth-Halifax East and I have shared the responsibility of representing all of that growing area since 1968. Since then, after the revision of powers, so to speak, we have gone our separate ways.
I think my colleague will agree with me that if Halifax is to be made a viable city, one of the major areas for action must be in the field of transportation. The most obvious need in the city of Halifax, as I see it, is to provide some kind of transportation link between the downtown core of old Halifax, which represents perhaps 80,000 people, and the outer part on the other side of the Northwest Arm, which represents perhaps up to 40,000 people. That corridor at least should lead to growth.
We know that the central parts of old cities rarely grow much after they have finished their initial growth. The inner core tends to stabilize in size. As I said, I think about ten years ago in the House of Commons, one of the crazy facts of life of the area is that for every person who enters the downtown area, one person must leave. That is still a fact of life. Actually the cartoonist working for the Chronicle-Herald or Mail-Star back in those times drew a cartoon showing a baby being carried out by the stork while a car was entering the city. These conditions still hold true. I leave this matter to more competent commentators, including the urban affairs critic on my side of the House and the minister in charge of urban affairs-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson).


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, who is the hon. member for York North. In any event, I have digressed. I was trying to argue that there should be some kind of crossing which will help the development of the city of Halifax reach its maximum potential. The old Halifax existed on a peninsula. One of the classic problems to do with old Halifax was peoples difficulty in getting to work. One could go by way of what we call the Armdale rotary. A short-term solution advanced by many, including the former member representing this area of Halifax who is a colleague of mine, involved specific traffic controls and traffic lights, which can control traffic using the Armdale rotary. I thought it was an excellent short-term solution, and an awful lot of money was spent on that idea. But the long-term solution must come with the building of another exit out of the city of Halifax.
I do not think all traffic should come off one corner of a boot, as it were, and the traffic pattern there resembles a boot. I do not know if hon. members can imagine traffic streaming forth on either side at the end of the boot; or else the traffic can go off by bridges which radiate out from the instep of the boot. But we are stuck with this situation in Halifax. We must do something in order to siphon traffic

off in a different direction altogether; otherwise the city will be paralyzed, and the people mortified.
I wish to propose a solution. I know it is not endorsed by the present administration in Halifax, and not endorsed by the columnist who is the be all and end all when it comes to suggesting things which should be done in Halifax. I will make my proposal now, because I may not be here as the representative of the people of the area another time. I think it would be good if we could spend money to develop Halifax from its end, to the northwest. I think the link should go under, rather than over or on the Northwest Arm of Halifax. It would be tragic to build a great bridge across the Northwest Arm of Halifax, one of the most beautful areas I have seen in the world. It is residential and has no great commercial mix. I realize others can say the same about their own constituencies. I suggest that we could make mistakes, architectural or otherwise, and they should be buried underground.
Let me say this in my final minute or two. About five years ago the Government of Canada was good enough to pledge itself to providing a $25 million fund for what was called the Metropolitan Area Growth Investment Company. But to this day the Metropolitan Area Growth Investment Company has not provided jobs for many people, except those who are trying to find out what the hell the damned thing can do-pardon my vulgarity, Mr. Speaker.
May I suggest that the company use the $25 million to build a nice tunnel under the Northwest Arm of Halifax, which at least would have the virtue of allowing people to travel from one point to another. Possibly the company could charge for the use of the tunnel, and the money collected could repay the Metropolitan Area Growth Investment Company. That way the Metropolitan Area Growth Investment Company will probably be around to haunt the future hon. member for Halifax-East Hants or whoever dares to represent that constituency 150 years from now.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, knowing that I shall speak against the hon. member's motion, much though I admire the hon. member, I hesitate to rise and speak in this debate. But I do not admire the motion and therefore oppose it.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why is the hon. member involving himself in the debate? This is a local Halifax matter.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I wish to speak on both parts of the motion, Mr. Speaker. From the point of view of regional economic expansion the fact is that the activities of DREE in Nova Scotia, as in all other Atlantic Provinces with the exception of Prince Edward Island, are carried out largely in accordance with a General Development Agreement with the province. The General Development Agreement with Nova Scotia was signed on September 12, 1974. Its purpose is to facilitate joint federal/ provincial co-operation in initiatives for the economic and socio-economic development of Nova Scotia in pursuit of certain broad objectives and in accordance with a strategy for development answered to the General Development Agreement. This strategy provides the framework within
May 14, 1976

which DREE operates. It is subject to review, of course, and does not preclude other joint or separate actions. Nevertheless, at this early stage of the implementation of the General Development Agreement, the bulk of DREE actions is directed toward implementing the strategy originally set forth.
The specific sectorial and geographic approaches mentioned in the GDA strategy include certain development aspects, as such, of the Halifax/Dartmouth metropolitan area; the development of the economic and social opportunities of the tourism-recreation and related sectors; and more generally, the funding of infrastructure required to support identified development opportunities.
Thus the General Development Agreement is an enabling agreement. Under it, individual sub-agreements are negotiated which will permit a comprehensive or package approach to the solution of specific development constraints or problems. However, isolated infrastructure projects are not undertaken simply for their own sake. They are supported only in pursuit of some broader development opportunity. Through negotiation with the provincial government, the federal government tried to develop an approach which will enhance the entire economic development of an area or a province. This is carried out through the signing of the special sub-agreements I referred to a moment ago.
Accordingly, as a matter of principle, the two specific actions covered by the motion would be considered by DREE only within the context of their relevance to a comprehensive development approach, whether sectorial or geographic. Thus far these projects have not been isolated, either by the provincial government or in DREE's own analytical work, as being sufficiently high priority to warrant immediate further attention. Now let us look specifically at the proposal in the hon. member's motion.
DREE, in co-operation with other federal agencies, including the Canadian government office of tourism, is now in the process of working with the province of Nova Scotia to develop a mechanism for federal/provincial cooperation in tourism.
Tourism is an important economic factor in the province. In 1974, for example, the estimated expenditure by visitors during the tourist season was approximately $76 million, yielding some $13.5 million in tax revenue.
The over-all goal of a tourism development program should be to improve the quality of life of Nova Scotia residents, not only economically but socially and environmentally as well. In this regard the tourist industry can add not only dollars to the economy but also make Nova Scotia a good place in which to work and live, which indeed it now is. Industrial and other development is enhanced by a healthy and agreeable environment which provides recreational possibilities for people. Such a situation is becoming increasingly important on this continent.
The nearness to a large population market, an abundance of historic attractions, the attractive resource base of the province compared to the deterioration of the environment elsewhere, add strength to Nova Scotia's ability to attract even greater numbers of visitors in the future.
Federal-Provincial Cost-Sharing
Much effort has gone into the promotional aspects of tourism, resulting in yearly increases of approximately 5 per cent in the numbers of tourists entering the province. More attention must be paid to the development aspect which can increase the economic impact through longer stays and highef dollars per day expenditures.
The non-economic aspects of tourism are difficult, if not impossible to measure quantitatively. Yet they cannot be ignored. There is evidence throughout the world, more particularly in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States, that concentration on the economics of tourism to the exclusion of other considerations can lead to environmental deterioration, with negative effects on the quality of life and a consequential backlash of public opinion. Nova Scotia is not immune from this danger, and already there have been public expressions of concern about it by individuals and groups.
Consequently in pursuing the developmental opportunities inherent in tourism, Nova Scotia's basic general aim is to exploit the economic potential of the industry to the fullest extent consistent with the preservation and ultimately the enhancement of a social, cultural, and physical environment that traditionally has been attractive to residents and visitors alike.
Considerable background work has already been done by the province. The provincial strategy provides for the concept of tourism travelways which are being established by utilized already-established trails, extending and rerouting some of them, and designating new ones. The Fundy Trail was originally proposed as a trail extending from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, to St. Stephen, New Brunswick.
In establishing a route for the proposed Fundy Vocation Trail, field investigations were conducted to determine the extent to which the location of existing highways was considered to be suitable and the locations where new construction would be required. Factors taken into consideration included the proximity of existing highways to the shoreline, scenery available along existing highways as compared with that available with relocation of the highway, and the extent to which the proposed trail would serve local traffic as well as tourist and other through traffic.
Based on the selected route and design standards, the estimated cost to establish the 887 mile-long Fundy Vacation Trail is as follows: Phase one, $37,700,000; Phase 2, $12 million; Phase 3, $16,800,000; Phase 4, $39,500,000; for a total of $106 million.
The Shubenacadie River crossing and completion of other links in the Fundy Trail in Nova Scotia are part of the Glooscap Trail. From the New Brunswick border the Glooscap Trail goes to Minudie and Joggins, and with the comletion of highways upgrading will proceed along the coast to Apple River, Parrsboro, Five Islands, and via the Shubenacadie River crossing will follow the Noel shore and terminate at Blomidon.
The provincial department of highways has work in progress on sections of highway between Apple River and Joggins and hope eventually to upgrade all sections of the Glooscap Trail. It has also started work on the substructure of the Shubenacadie River crossing. The total cost of this structure is estimated to be in the order of $7 million
13548

May 14, 1976
Federal-Provincial Cost-Sharing and plans call for cast-in-place concrete construction having a clear centre span of 700 feet and a total length of approximately 1,450 feet. Construction time is estimated to take 18 months.
While it is quite possible the province may wish to pursue the possibility of DREE assistance toward these projects in the future, we have not been requested to share the cost of their construction.
Let me now turn to financing of a toll traffic tunnel under the Northwest Arm in Halifax. Under the special areas and highways legislation, consideration assistance was provided to the Halifax/Dartmouth area as a special area requiring special measures to facilitate economic expansion and social adjustment. Under this program financial assistance was made available to the metropolitan area, by way of grants and loans, for specific infrastructure projects such as roads, water and sewer systems, schools, etc. required to make this key centre more attractive as a site for future industrial and population growth. Much of this work was identified through the efforts of the metropolitan area planning committee whose task was to formulate a Halifax/Dartmouth regional development plan.
One of the objectives of this plan was "to create an effective regional transportation system, including an efficient highway system and the development of an effective transit system which will provide a viable alternative to the use of the private automobile". A task force under the metropolitan area planning committee was established to develop a total plan for urban transportation. Various possibilities were considered during the preparation of this plan. Initial studies projecting the current trend of population growth and development indicated excessive transportation costs by 1991. A third harbour crossing south of the existing two spans at an estimated cost of $100 million was a necessity. It was agreed, therefore, that a careful selection of the areas to be permitted to develop must be made. To this end, an urban form known as Scenario No. 14 was agreed upon.
The outstanding features of this scenario are that the expensive third harbour crossing is eliminated, the required size of the Northwest Arm crossing is eliminated, the required size of the Northwest Arm crossing was reduced to four lanes, and the necessity for an expressway through the central business district was removed. Road requirements increased slightly along the less expensive land routes such as the Bi-Centennial Highway. To achieve this urban form there must be a careful selection of the areas that are permitted to develop. The Bedford/Sackville and Cole Harbour areas are to be first priority residential, with the Burnside area of north Dartmouth between these two population centres to be commercial and industrial.
The south mainland Halifax area or Spryfield was second priority residential with in-fill only for the short term. The regional plan incorporating Scenario No. 14 was approved by the province in April, 1975. To facilitate traffic movement from this area to peninsula Halifax, the provincial department of highways is constructing Northwest Arm Drive between Spryfield and Bi-Centennial Drive. Completion of this highway, coupled with the

improvement under way at the Armdale rotary will improve traffic flows to peninsula Halifax and to other points via the new Dunbrack Street which is also under construction at the present time.
A general feasibility study of Halifax peninsula access carried out under the DREE special areas agreement in 1972 noted that the early construction of the Northwest Arm crossing introduces a high cost project which in the short term is then under-used and causes a significant and undesirable shift in route usage within the area of the isthmus. The "back-lag" or feeder route connections should be constructed first, with the Northwest Arm link scheduled for approximately 1981. Concurrent with the initial phase road construction would be extensive up-grading of the public transportation system with consideration being given to a "buses only" lane on the Arm crossing.
Various studies directly related to this Northwest Arm link have been carried out. One in the early 1960's made reference to a tunnel being a satisfactory solution to the physical impediment imposed by the Northwest Arm. No detailed investigation, to my knowledge, was pursued at that time, probably because of the obvious topographical constraints imposed by unfavourable land contours adjacent to the Arm. Since that time, with the construction of the Halifax Container Pier the feasibility of a tunnel is even more remote. The solution recommended in more recent studies of the problem suggests an aesthetically pleasing bridge structure as the most appropriate alternative. Costs of such a structure would be in the order of $15 million. In view of the recommendations of the approved regional plan, I am not aware that the province intends to proceed with any crossing over the Northwest Arm nor have I any reason to believe that it is a very high provincial priority for cost-sharing at this time.
The motion before us and its source surprise me somewhat, for two reasons, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the House are constantly being lectured by the Tories for intruding into provincial jurisdictions. Yet they are constantly putting forward motions such as the one before us which would involve even greater intrusion into the provincial domain. Indeed it was only this morning that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was waxing indignantly, if not very knowledgeably, about that very topic.
Second, the opposition is constantly decrying the increase in federal spending. But its members have no hesitation in putting forward proposals to increase spending further. They would then be the first to condemn the government if it did just that.
Finally, while I can understand the hon. member's desire for such a development I personally cannot lend my support to this type of glamour project at a time when the basic transportation needs of the entire Atlantic area have yet to be fulfilled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I notice that at least one continuing Nova Scotian still wishes to speak in this debate, so this Nova Scotia descendant will not cut into his time. However, I would like to commend the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) for putting this motion before the House. It is, of course, worded in the way such motions must be worded, that is to say, it expresses the opinion of the House
May 14, 1976

that the government should give consideration to the advisability of carrying out the projects set out in the resolution, and even after the details given us by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) it still seems to me that the two ideas which have been put forward ought to be considered. I refer to the Shubenaca-die crossing and to the idea of a tunnel under the Northwest Arm rather than a bridge above it.
It seems to me that the government is committed to two principles which support the position taken by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. It set up a Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and in doing so it has taken the position that we should do something at the federal level to get rid of regional disparities, at least to some extent, and I therefore support the assistance for an area like the province of Nova Scotia.
The other principle the government favoured strongly in the month of June, 1974, was greater concern about the quality of life in our cities. To the extent that the hon. member's second proposal aims at doing something about the traffic problems in the great city of Halifax, I think it should be considered. I recognize, and in this I agree with the hon. member across the way, that we cannot decide this afternoon which of various proposals would be the best, but I believe the two proposals set out in this motion should receive consideration and support. With these words, I yield to the continuing Nova Scotian.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in the twilight hours of this parliamentary week it gives me a great deal of pleasure to take part in this private members' debate on the bill put forward by my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). For the benefit of members who are not altogether aware of what this bill is doing, may I point out that earlier, opening the debate, my hon. friend said the bill was divided in two between the Shubenacadie River crossing and the Westarm tunnel.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not a bill; it is a resolution.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the fact that the resolution, as it has to be according to parliamentary form, is in resolution form, I am not going to take much of the time of the House talking about the Northwest Arm tunnel because that has been gone into and explained at very good length. But I am going to talk about the Shubenacadie River crossing and in particular hopefully answer, in a most constructive, reasonable, logical way, two of the complaints raised by the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne).
Before I get into the content of the resolution I would commend the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, who has been trying, not during this time of government restraint but ever since 1968 when he sat in this House as the member for Halifax-East Hants, by question and/or resolution, to get the federal government to move on something that, Mr. Speaker, has always been as perpetual as those tides that sweep in and sweep out of the Bay of Fundy.
Federal-Provincial Cost-Sharing
My riding takes in a good part of the Bay of Fundy, Mr. Speaker, and the tides that sweep in and sweep out with 55 foot crests are just about equal to the promises that have been made on the Shubenacadie River crossing by members in this House on the government side.
I agree with my hon. friend from Northumberland-Miramichi that obviously this is a joint federal-provincial matter. The premier of Nova Scotia, a former constituent of mine from the county of Hants, which would be so well helped and advanced by a Shubenacadie River crossing, more than two years ago promised that tenders would be called, and most likely tenders have been called this year.
We on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, know that whether we have times of restraint or whether we have times of expansion it takes a lot of hard, detailed, dogmatic, determined work by any member to try to focus the government's attention on something that seems to be so remote from this lovely capital of this lovely country. I agree Nova Scotia is miles away. For any of you who do not understand what is going on, just put out your left hand and extend your thumb, pretend your thumb is a sort of a joint to New Brunswick and that the curvature between the thumb and the forefinger is the Bay of Fundy. The Fundy Trail comes across the isthmus, the neck that joins Nova Scotia with New Brunswick, goes around the curve of the thumb and up the forefinger.
Because there is no Shubenacadie River crossing, for those of you here who are married, who were liberated many years ago and wear wedding rings, just project the path you now have to take. You cannot follow the Bay of Fundy-taking the inside of the angle of your thumb and forefinger-and see the beautiful scenery and go through some of the lovely villages along that shore without a Shubenacadie crossing at a certain point of the river. You have in effect to go up to your wedding ring where you have some fingers with little inlets. They do not run quite that way, but one of those inlets is the Shubenacadie River. Therefore you have to make such a diversion and take such a detour that the whole concept of the Fundy Trail is almost forgotten. You have to wend your way way inland, and then finally come back to the Bay of Fundy.
That is one of the reasons why this has been such a constructive, concrete proposal that has been advanced by my hon. friend. With all respect to my very fine colleague from Northumberland-Miramachi, the eminent parliamentary secretary of a department that needs much eminence, by the way, obviously this matter is in the provincial domain. An integrated effort is required by DREE and/or federal Public Works, along with the department in Nova Scotia.
The parliamentary secretary talks about spending restraints today. Separate and apart from the tourist potential that a Shubenacadie River crossing would give to western Nova Scotia-and my riding is western Nova Scotia-it would be of fundamental help to the economy of western Nova Scotia to get that crossing in place, so that traffic that comes from New Brunswick and central Canada into Nova Scotia does not have to take this wide detour almost across Nova Scotia and then double back to start servicing parts of western Nova Scotia.
Certainly we on this side of the House appreciate restraint. At this hour on a Friday no one is going to be in a
95 5 68-2414

May 14, 1976
Federal-Provincial Cost-Sharing very partisan mood and I am not going to talk about the reasonableness and efficacy of the estimates of this government. But my hon. colleague, in checking with Nova Scotia and/or this government after all the years since 1968, still cannot find one little grain of sand of an estimate, in the federal estimates or the provincial estimates, to show that there is some planning, some surveying, some core taking, to get the structure started, let alone to complete the crossing.
The tourist industry, Mr. Speaker, quite logically is one of the industries in Nova Scotia which must be helped. I am not one of those Nova Scotians who believe that we can have the Pittsburghs in Nova Scotia. I believe that we have to develop an industrial base that is compatible with the area.
In western Nova Scotia we have agriculture and I think the type of industrial development we have there has to be related to our agricultural potential. We make mistakes when we try to transplant on barren soil some kind of industrial technique that is not complementary to the surrounding countryside or complementary to the labour force we have there. But tourism in Nova Scotia and the Fundy Trail are very much a potential that I think should be developed, and should receive the favourable attention of this House. As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, we could alleviate some of the bottlenecks in transportation that are along the Fundy shore by the initial workings.
I am certainly not the one who is going to talk out my colleague's bill. Because the parliamentary secretary has already intervened, I know there is not likely to be objection on the other side of the House. The mood of the House on this lovely May afternoon-


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It's raining outside, Pat.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -is such that we might just take one little step forward, so that people in Nova Scotia and certainly western Nova Scotia would finally appreciate that Ottawa and hopefully those in Halifax are at least starting work on something that can be such benefit to western Nova Scotia.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I welcome an opportunity this afternoon to participate in this particular discussion, first of all because of the nature of the hon. gentleman who moved the motion. I take his suggestions and his arguments very seriously. I think we always regard the comments that he makes and the motions he puts forward with seriousness, and we always examine the very worthy ideas that he presents to the House.
I am also pleased to have the benefit of the comments of the other members who have participated, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) who has just taken his seat and who adds in a colourful way to the discussion, and my hon. friend from Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), who earlier in a very learned and detailed way put on the record certain of the aspects of this particular problem with which the federal government is concerned, particularly in relation to the work and terms

of reference of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
In all of the measures we have talked about this afternoon I think we can boil the discussion down to one of economics and developmental opportunities. The economy of Nova Scotia is generally a diversified one amongst its major sectors, and I think it is fair to say that some progress toward the reduction of disparity has been made in recent years. Of course we all know there is a great deal more to be done in the Atlantic region, in Nova Scotia and in other parts of the country, to continue working upon that challenge of economic disparity in Canada.
Measures indeed are under way, by this government and in conjunction with other governments, provincial and local across the country, to ensure continuous progress and indeed acceleration of improvements as they relate to economic opportunities in all parts of Canada, and toward the elimination so far as is possible in this land of the economic disparities which exist between regions. The measures, and I think it is useful to bear them in mind in any discussion of this kind, include encouraging the expansion or maintenance of viable long-term employment opportunities and optimum quality of life, within Nova Scotia in this particular case, increasing the earned incomes of the people of the province, and assisting in development of a dynamic and creative provincial economy which will encourage the growth and stability of economic activity in the province.
I know that the hon. gentleman who moved the motion this afternoon who is from Annapolis Valley, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, the former Nova Scotian from Winnipeg North Centre, and others share those general objectives, so I hope hon. members will not take what is said perhaps specifically in terms of opposition to any individual idea as opposition to any of the general principles that are involved, because certainly that general opposition is not intended.
I think the specific measures to which I have referred briefly could be described as broad, general objectives which have the co-operation of the federal, provincial and municipal governments jointly pursuing a consistent and co-ordinated course of action involving specific sectoral and geographic approaches. This I think was the gist of the argument that was presented to the House earlier today by my friend from Northumberland-Miramichi, that is, the need to approach the developmental challenges in any particular region of the country in a co-ordinated, consistent and co-operative way so that the actions of one level of government or the projects of one particular area of government do not act in competition to or in conflict with the work being undertaken by another area of government.
The areas of developmental opportunity really are numerous. I think I would like to take a moment of the time of the House to highlight them. I think of the development of new or expanded employment opportunities throughout the province by the identification and implementation of appropriate developmental opportunities; the design and implementation of urban and rural developmental measures required to support and really
May 14, 1976

promote economic and socio-economic opportunities as they are found to exist; the development in the Atlantic region of the resource industries of fishing obviously, agriculture, forestry, and mining through measures to improve their efficiency, productivity and optimim resource utilization, including intensified research and the further processing of their primary products. Then there is the development, specifically as my friend from North-umberland-Miramichi said, of the Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area with special emphasis on high technology industries, communication, distribution, and transportation related industries, and a wide range of business and personnel services consistent with its evolution as a major business and service centre.
Next we have the continued growth of the primary and secondary processing of imported and domestic raw and semi-finished materials in the Strait of Canso area, including such industries that may be associated with or in any way dependent upon its existing base of petroleum refining and related services and secondary industries. We have the fostering of economic and social opportunities associated with tourism and recreation and other related sectors. This is a very relevant factor in connection with at least the Fundy Trail part of the proposal in the motion today. There is a provision of special interim assistance required to eliminate impediments which might threaten the retention and maintenance of otherwise viable opportunities and industries. Further, Mr. Speaker, there is the development of spin-off opportunities related to the supply, service, exploration, extraction, and distribution of off-shore oil and gas.
What I have tried to provide to the House is a partial list. The list could go on, but I have provided at least a partial list of some of the fundamental concerns and developmental opportunities in the Atlantic region, particularly in the province of Nova Scotia, which present to a provincial government, to municipalities, and to the Government of Canada a range of opportunities for action.
Of course the challenge or really the dilemma before any government, either at the provincial level or at the senior level, is really sorting out among all those authorities what really can be acted upon in an urgent sort of way, what has priority attention, and really what must be left in terms of priority for a later time and for further consideration. At the present moment in time I believe it is fair to say that both in the assessment of the provincial administration and in the view of the various involved agencies of the Government of Canada, a number of other areas of challenge and opportunity really must at this stage have a higher priority than the two specific programs which are mentioned in the motion before us this afternoon.
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has signed three subsidiary
Federal-Provincial Cost-Sharing agreements with the province of Nova Scotia under the provisions of the General Development Agreement which generally covers the province. Taken together they call for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to spend a total of $104 million on developmental schemes. For the information of the House, Mr. Speaker, these agreements include the metropolitan Halifax-Dartmouth area developmental agreement, the Strait of Canso area development agreement, and the Canada-Nova Scotia subsidiary agreement on mineral development.
I could take some considerable time to run through the various aspects of these programs which are extremely important because they demonstrate a concern at both the federal and provincial level for the developmental and economic challenges and opportunities that are present in the Atlantic area. I think it would be useful for the House to have that detailed kind of explanation on the record because it is an encouraging one, one which looks toward the future and really holds out some substantial optimism and encouragement for the developmental prospects of the Atlantic region, particularly the province of Nova Scotia. Unfortunately time does not permit.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to devote a brief word or two to the question of transportation per se, I suppose most particularly on the Fundy Trail aspect of the motion before us. We of course have not had in the past a generally co-ordinated suggestion, argument or proposal from the Atlantic provinces about a general program of highway or road improvement as we have had for example, in the case of some of the western provinces. Indeed in the west we have a comprehensive strengthening program for highways in the western provinces. Recently of course we have had the benefit of some views presented by the four Atlantic ministers of transportation or highways as they presented to the Government of Canada a detailed report, which report presently is under study by officials of the Ministry of Transport.
I hope the analysis of that report will lead to some constructive and positive conclusions which will be of benefit to the province of Nova Scotia, particularly the area which the hon. member has so dedicatedly worked for over the past many years in connection with the proposal now before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 17, 1976