1976-07-12

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, July 9, 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 third time and do pass.
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the debate at this point to indicate to the House what my position will be when the third reading vote on this bill is taken.
When I voted in favor of the principle of abolition of the death penalty on second reading of the bill, I did so after a great deal of study, in which I learned that in no country has it been demonstrated that capital punishment is a deterrent to committing murder, and it is for that reason that I believe that the most effective punishment for the crime is life imprisonment.
However, since the second reading vote, I have learned from my riding that the overwhelming majority of the people living in Prince Edward-Hastings strongly favour the retention of the death penalty for the crime of murder committed against any person. I have always believed that when a member of parliament is made aware that a clear majority of those living in his riding hold a strong opinion on an important matter which is before parliament for decision, it is the duty of the member to express that opinion in parliament on behalf of those he represents, and to back up that opinion with his vote.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to vote against this bill when the third reading vote is taken, and by so doing, express the very strong opinion of the overwhelming majority of those I represent in parliament that the death penalty should be the punishment meted out to those who commit first degree murder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members recognize that at this time there is not very much new which can be said with regard to the retention or abolition of capital punishment. I think, however, that the events of recent weeks have demonstrated quite clearly to Canadians that Canada, in all likelihood, is about to become an abolitionist state.
[DOT] (ino)
I should like to take some time on third reading to put on the record what I think becomes the obligation, now in view of the fact that we are likely to abolish capital punishment, of some sectors of our society other than parliament. The real issue that we have been talking about has been the issue of law and security or law and order. That is not a goal that can be attained by legislation alone. The attainment of that goal is an obligation that must fall on other groups of our society, and it is highly important that some of these people take on the full responsibility of achieving peace and security.
In this debate I should like to refer to what happens in radio and television, that is the emphasis on negative concepts in which we keep marinating our minds, the soaking up of what we find is bad in society and making that the main subject in our news. Obviously, this is one of the factors leading to the violent crime which takes place in our society. The fact of the matter is that we never hear all the news, we only hear part of the news; we hear the bad news, the negative aspects of the news which enter into the newscaster's script. If advertising sells Chevrolets, bubble gum or beer, then surely it is also true that if we marinate our minds in negative concepts it will have an effect on how we behave, it will have the same effect as advertising on our behaviour. If every time we turn on the television to listen to the news or open up a newspaper and the predominent issues we hear or read about are the negative aspects of what has happened in society, that will have an influence on people who are wavering between behaving acceptably according to the mores of our society and behaving not in accordance with the norms of prescribed behaviour.
Recognition is more important to a human being than whether that recognition is obtained through good or bad behaviour. People have a psychological need to be recognized, and if they know that in the newspaper, the television or the radio we give recognition to the negative aspects of what happens in our society, then obviously that will have an influence on how people will behave. I believe that the spreading of the news has largely been the cause of the hijackings that have taken place around the world. The first hijacking was very novel, but it hit the news every hour following the incident. It is interesting to note that within the first week of that hijacking more hijackings took place. Aeroplanes have been around for a long time but the hijacking concept is very recent and it is interesting to note that following the first hijacking there was a rash of them. I believe the cause was in large part prominence and attention given to it by the media.
I should like to underscore another situation which I think was an inexcusable example of how the press focuses on the negative. This past summer I attended a national student debating seminar for high schools students from

July 12, 1976
Capital Punishment
across Canada which was held in Winnipeg. There were students from every part of Canada at that seminar which was held on the topic of regional and economic development. The organizers of this large event invited over 100 students from all over Canada and asked the press, radio and television to film and report some of the activities that were taking place. The television people announced that they would not attend that particular seminar. However, when the organizers arrived the next morning they found the television crews had arrived. The reason they were there was that some vandals had broken windows in the school the night before. Here was a national event with students collected from all parts of Canada speaking on major topics at a seminar which could not get publicity, but when some vandals broke windows in the school the press found that this had to be reported. This exemplifies the fact that the negative aspects get attention in the press. I believe that this kind of reporting leads to some of the violence and to some forms of unacceptable behaviour. In my view, it is not only the politician who should bear the burden of trying to achieve peace and security in our society.
I should like to give another example. Recently on parliament hill the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was drenched in milk during a demonstration. Later that night I heard on the radio that milk had been thrown on the minister when he spoke in English to French speaking farmers. The implication was obvious, that this was not simply a situation of upset dairy farmers but that the bilingual issue was involved. That kind of reporting is not only inaccurate, it is malicious. When we get that kind of reporting which focuses on the negative, when recognition is given to only certain sectors in our society, this stimulates the amount of violence in which certain elements engage. Surely, there must be a balance between the positive achievements that take place and the negative behaviour that occurs. We should not be continually exposed to such words as terrorist, hijacked, escaped, defrauded, incarcerated, raped, government graft, ransom, arrested, on strike, commando raid, demonstrators, execution, mercenaries, security, alleged plot, revolt, armed guard, Liberals, or defeat. All those words were gathered from one news broadcast. When you listen to such broadcasts and focus on the words, you ask yourself where all the good news is.
I should like to recommend two possible ways of trying to develop a system in which we can focus more on the positive achievements of man and give more credit to those who do positive things by giving them more attention in the news we hear and read. The newspaper guilds should establish within their ranks a regulatory body similar to that established by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. There have been a number of examples across the country of the College of Physicians and Surgeons severely disciplining doctors within its own ranks. I know there is a newspaper guild, but it does not ensure that newspapers give proper balance to the positive achievements in our society versus negative aspects, such as crime and violence. I believe there should be such a regulating body that would have some muscle. Obviously, this is not the role of the government or of some outside agency; it is high time that the press organized such a regulating body.
The other suggestion I should like to put forward is that radio and television should change their practice of coming

before the CRTC in Toronto. Such hearings should take place on a periodic basis in the radio and television broadcast regions. I have heard people in my constituency recommend on numerous occasions that news about crimes be taken off the air, but when you talk to them you find that they watch such programs as Kojak, and this is reflected in the ratings. A more reasoned discussion, however, might show that the very people who watch are those who recognize the risks. If groups made representations at CRTC hearings in a more thoughtful manner instead of basing their judgment purely on the ratings, society would probably have a greater influence on the kind of television and radio programs it receives, and I think this is important.
I would simply conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to have peace and security in society, it is not the role only of the legislator-it is not the role only of the press either; it is the role of all Canadians. I think we could take a tremendous step forward if we could establish a number of organizations which would ensure that radio and television programs would reflect some of the positive achievements of Canadians. In this way, our young people would find a sense of reward in the programs rather than growing up believing that human nature is slanted to the negative and that there is more to gain outside the mores of society than from within. I believe all sectors of our society would then begin to pull together to give the young people a sense of achievement and to play down negativism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have chosen to speak again on third reading debate to oppose Bill C-84 because statements have been made here that beg answers.
The statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)- which were most impressive-also require some answers. Those statements better argued for retention than abolition, I may say. The Prime Minister has said this is a guessing game. It is indeed. Any time the state seeks solutions to human behaviour with its hundreds, perhaps thousands or maybe 22 million variations, it is a complex guessing game with no definitive answers possible. No absolutes are available, whether at the polarized ends or in the middle.
There will never be, and never has been, a perfect solution. There cannot be formulas to solve the social problems of a fast-changing, fast-moving society that is bombarded on all sides with depressing, disturbing, distorted information. Not only is society fast changing, but people change and as fast as a solution is found for one individual, never mind the whole of society, another change occurs.
Rather than debating with the Prime Minister I would have preferred to debate with the abolitionist statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Unlike our leader, he is consistent in that he says nothing-nothing worthy of debate. In fact, I suspect his politics consist of two sides and a fence.
This will be my last attempt to halt a dangerous experiment in the lives of innocent people and the fabric of our
July 12, 1976

society, Mr. Speaker. I hope that some of the additional knowledge I provide in this debate may cause some who voted for this bill on second reading and who rejected motion No. 13 at report stage, to rethink their position. This vote will be the last chance they will have to represent the wishes of their constituents and at the same time halt some premeditated ruthless killers who have proclaimed they have nothing to lose if they kill again. I believe capital punishment is a deterrent, Mr. Speaker, and I shall explain that later. I am not making a token speech. Some such people have already served notice on our guards and police. Throughout the country the number of murders, attempted murders, vicious, assaults with rape is growing at an accelerated pace.
Perhaps one day in the future when we are advanced sociologically far beyond where we are now in our preventative correction-as was suggested by the hon. member who just spoke-we can face the abolition question and end hanging in Canada. We must not do it in the way of Bill C-84, however, which is an abomination in justice, a trade-off in brutality and cruelty.
When all our children are assured of safe passage into adulthood, when mature programs replace whimsical, hit and miss social work for preventing family breakdown and destruction of children, when our institutions-schools, hospitals, treatment centres and holding facilities-are competent to prevent and cure social ills before frustration, violence, paranoia, psychopathy and sociopathic ills develop, then I shall be the first-if I am still alive when that great day comes-to strive for abolition. I did work for abolition in the 1950's when every person who killed was sentenced to death if convicted.
Before I go on I want to discuss briefly the right of every member to participate fully in this debate. One or two members-perhaps three-have indicated that we on this side should only participate with token statements to let our constituents know we have taken a position in this debate. I suggest this was a reprehensible attempt to silence and intimidate us which reflects the superficiality of those-very, very few, I might say-who would say that. It only inspires me to greater determination to complete my intervention in this debate.
It is my understanding of parliament that this is the place for debate-that it is here that we make our points and if possible influence others who may have less knowledge or experience in the subjects under discussion- whether it be abolition or finance. Many talented people are gathered in this House and each has some knowledge, experience and wisdom in his or her own field to pass on to others. I have learned much from hearing and reading the debates; I must admit I have also learned a great deal about corn and balderdash.
I feel very strongly that I have every right to use my time in debate here, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe in the backroom lobbying that I have seen in this House. If the debate continues in the lobby, I will participate. But I do not believe in rigged votes whether in this House or in party conventions-that means the other parties and my party-where the advocates of one side pack the vote. It is a fraud on the people of Canada. Nor do I believe that inducements or threats should be used to influence people to change their vote-especially when this is a free vote.
Capital Punishment
Unfortunately, both the cabinet and the opposition shadow cabinet are toeing one line so we are not alone over here in the lack of a totally free vote. The NDP is even worse, toeing a party line on an issue as serious as this. Participatory democracy is thus frustrated, Mr. Speaker. Had this been a totally free vote the public wish for retention of the death penalty would have been fulfilled.
Perhaps this rush to get this bill through is so that some people can make history-Richard Nixon made history from his victory-and they are prepared to win by default, by limiting debate and witnesses in committee and trying to intimidate their opponents, thus imposing their wish on the people of Canada and denying the majority the right to the protection of the state.
Canadians today are perhaps more angry over parliament's-and that is both sides of this House-arrogance or elitism in overriding the wishes and demands of about 18 million of their 22 million constituency than they are over the issue itself. This is not the society of Edmund Burke. Ours is a public that is wise, educated and sees what we do within minutes of our actions. It judges us from a background of its own knowledge and experience which in the majority of cases is equal to if not superior and even better than, that of many of us here. In the majority of cases that knowledge and experience is equal to if not superior to that of many members of this House.
[DOT] <H30)
My remarks apply even to the media which tries to press its convictions on the public. I am thinking particularly of that segment of the Ontario group which imagines, amusing as that may be, that it is an opinion maker. It tried to establish an erroneous opinion on the Calgary Stampede. The hate mongering Maclean's magazine tried it with reports of anti-Americanism, which does not exist in the west. They have been found to be wrong. People of this ilk are writing this type of material on this issue which we have been reading. There are those in this eastern' group of the media, and some stragglers from other areas of Canada, who attempt to press their convictions on us and on the public. Perhaps some may mistake this as public opinion. I do not. Most people recognize such writing for what it is, that of one single voice. The public also has the intellect to recognize the exaggeration, perversion of truth and the strange practice of reporters interviewing other reporters on events they all covered together. The Prime Minister described that as "Drinking each other's bath water."
I am disappointed at finding it necessary to say all this. Fortunately, there are some great reporters in this country who can call themselves part of the fourth estate. The others dare not take that name. They are a disgrace to the fourth estate.
There is emptiness in mere talking or writing and in never doing anything. There are those who verbalize about standards of behaviour and morality but cannot meet them themselves. There are those who express compassion for a concept such as abolition but would not fight for the life or freedom of one convicted person. I have seen this both in journalism and law. The very people who criticize my position today have never worked on a parole and never as lawyers or journalists cared a damn for the people locked in cages we call prisons. Nor have they attempted to listen

July 12, 1976
Capital Punishment
to the anguish of the guards who are spoken of by some here as less than human. I have heard a member of the NDP talking about bad prison guards. We assign them to the role of protecting us. How dare any member suggest that these people should expect to die or that they are less than human.
It is the attitude of some that our prison guards and policeman are less than human. As if this were not bad enough, inside prisons policemen and prison guards are called pigs. In this very House they were held up to contempt on Friday. If they try to achieve control or discipline, they get no support from the administration. That is the truth in British Columbia. Their lives and the lives of their families are in jeopardy, and they face many threats. But who in this House is listening to them or cares? Which member of this House will take their places after this House enacts laws whereby killers will be locked away for 25 years, their only hope being in hostage taking, murder and escape? That is the only way open to them.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: That is the only way out for them.


Simma Holt: That is right. I recall, in days when there was only one degree of murder, capital murder, and on conviction the judge had only one choice, to sentence the killer to death, that I was involved with the tenants of death row. I am speaking of the period of the early 1950 and early 1960s. During that period I approached lawyers, the Law Society, reporters and columnists-all the big talkers, the ones who should care and who put out much of the dialogue we hear on the issue-I appealed to them to help to save some who today would not even be charged with second degree murder, perhaps not even manslaughter, let alone first degree murder.
Most lawyers then who took murder cases did it for everything the accused owned. They charged all the traffic could bear. Few top flight lawyers took murder cases on the basis of legal aid. Legal aid fees then were $100 for the trial, no matter how long, and $50 for preparation fees. There was provision for payment of a transcript if the case went to appeal. Naturally, the amateurs and beginners did not care about the fee. They needed the publicity to establish a practice. I fought at that time to bring legal aid defence fees up to the level of the prosecution fees, which ran at $100 per day, plus all the resources of the state. The Law Society was silent in response to all appeals. Yet some of those people-I hasten to say that there are only a few- are crying out today for abolition. In those days only beginners chased after murder cases in order to get headlines. As a result, many accused were convicted because they were represented by a bad lawyer. But the killer had to face the gallows.
There is a columnist in the west today-at that time he was at the top of the professional ladder-who today accuses me of "wanting to hang every jaywalker." Others here have described me as an ardent retentionist. That is remarkable inaccuracy. I believe in capital punishment for persons who plan and carry out murder for a fee or to satisfy their own ends.
Let me come back to this western columnist. Recently, while searching through some papers, I found a letter I had written to him on July 17, 1957, pleading for his help to

save several condemned men in death row. I offered information, letters from these people and insights into life on death row from those facing the gallows who, as I said before, today would not be charged with first degree murder; at best they would be charged with manslaughter. Any reporter would have welcomed this kind of material handed to him on a platter. That columnist would not do anything; he would not help and he remained silent. Today he sits in his study and writes nice columns and attacks all those who did something. But wait; he would do nothing to help even one person. Today, he still does nothing either but verbalize high principles. I could name others.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Who is it?


Simma Holt: I could name a couple of others, but I will not. Some day I may write a book in which I shall name them.
As I watch some of the lawyers who were involved in those cases and are now abolitionists, I wonder at the load of guilt they are carrying. In those days, because the convicted killer went to the gallows, they had real reason to feel guilt. I wonder if they do not feel that, somehow, they can cleanse their own souls by voting for abolition because they could not prevent convictions in the past.
I also wonder at some of the journalists who engage in punditry. I remind them all that the end of all talk must be action. When I oppose this bill now, I oppose it because I believe that killers of policemen and prison guards, contract killers, international terrorists who kill and criminals who in the course of rape and robbery kill another human being should be prepared to face the courts on a capital murder charge. They should face the consequences of their acts. I do believe in equality in justice.
There have been many generalizations bandied about in this debate and in the newspapers based on emotionalism. I was going to say, male emotionalism, but that would be chauvinism. I note, too, a great reliance on academia. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) hired a man from academia, Professor Ezzat Abdel Fattah, to say what he wanted said in support of his abolition position.
There are a number of competent people in academia; certainly, those who leave the cloistered halls periodically to work in the real world can make judgments based on reality. But too often academia is a retreat for those who dare not grapple with real life: those whose egoes cannot stand the competition of valid expertise born of worldly experience. They dare not leave those cloistered halls lest their dreams be shattered by life's truths. They would rather collect government money to write "learned papers", for which the only source material is usually provided by students learning to research. Usually, the work is a series of footnote fantasies. They rewrite other theories which, too often, are footnotes from the writings of others who theorize but who are maintaining tenure in accordance with the university syndrome, publish or perish. Perhaps it would be better for society if their academic contributions did perish. I would not waste any more time analysing that ridiculous document produced by Professor Fattah than I would analysing the sort of person who produces such nonsense.
There is another incident to which I must refer, another attempt by the Solicitor General to distort facts so as to make his point. Mr. Speaker, it was necessary for the
July 12, 1976

Solicitor General to demolish a major study of an economist well known in this country and in the United States, Isaac Ehrlich, in order to sustain the abolitionist claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Ehrlich examined documents covering some 36 years. On the basis of data pertaining to the period 1933 to 1969, he was able to claim that each execution prevented either seven or eight murders. Some say he has stated that some executions prevented as many as 17 murders. That is a pretty significant deterrent argument. But I gather it does not convince the abolitionists.
The Solicitor General hired one Robert G. Hann, a lecturer and principal of Decision Dynamics Corporation of Toronto, whatever that is. Who knows Hann, and what is Decision Dynamics? I never heard of Hann in the west; perhaps he is known in the east; I do not know. Why should anyone take seriously his report, an instant report assigned to contradict information compiled by Ehrlich in his study? Obviously, it was intended to demolish obstacles raised in this debate aimed at abolition. As reten-tionists, we are challenged to prove that capital punishment is a deterrent. I have already given proof through statements from the mouths of would-be killers. They admitted they were deterred from committing murder when the death penalty existed but would act quite differently now that there is abolition. No one took me very seriously because they are still mouthing their platitudes. With all the research facilities available to hon. members, this documentation can be found to prove that capital punishment is a deterrent. I also pointed out that where murder is deterred, there cannot be comprehensive statistics. Most members here must have, at least, elementary education; they learned that ten times zero is still zero. Therefore, if it is a zero, you will not have a valid statistic.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), whom I consider to be the most brilliant member of this House, even though he is a refuge from academe, had a worldly experience to offset the cocoon intellect of many who hide in the cloistered halls. In his abolitionist speech of June 15, he said:
Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not up to me, as an abolitionist, to prove that the execution of murderers will not prevent other murders. It is up to the advocates of capital punishment to prove that it will. If they cannot, their case must fail.
Why is it up to us? We are not the ones who are changing the law, imposing a dangerous unproven experiment on the public. We are not the ones fighting for a weakening of the law, diminishing the protection of the public. We are not in the minority of this nation as are those who are fighting for abolition. We share with the majority, a majority which knows the society in which we live has become angry, the knowledge that death is occurring that would not occur if there were strength in the law. However, since the Prime Minister and others appear not to have noticed the examples given by many members of the deterrent effect of capital punishment, I will provide a few more, and if necessary reiterate some previously given.
First, there is the case of Charles David Garry. Head, age 30, who murdered the seven year old daughter of a British Columbia penitentiary guard, a constituent of mine. He raped the child, Tanya Bush, in every perverted way, assaulted her and then murdered her. His words-and if
Capital Punishment
this is not a message I do not know what is-were "If I kill the father I swing: if I kill his daughter I get nothing more than what I'm serving.'' Therefore, a child who could not defend herself died. The guard, who was protected by the law, survived. There might not have been another murder because the guard would have been stronger than his daughter and possibly could halt this murder. The little girl could not. No deterrent, hon. members?
Leonard Peletier, the American Indian who killed two FBI agents in the United States and was arrested in Calgary, has been carrying on a relentless battle against extradition in Vancouver. He knows he faces execution for his crime in his country. It is known that he is prepared to kill a Canadian, probably a guard, rather than be returned to the United States where he can die. He knows in Canada he can remain in prison and live, perhaps take a hostage or two, kill someone and escape. It would not matter if he killed two or three people; he would get exactly the same punishment. No deterrent, hon. members?
John Waslynchuk, the aristocrat of bank robbers and safe crackers in the west for many years, gave me insights into prison and crime from his knowledge and experience. Most of this was after I was involved with two police officers in collecting evidence that proved he was innocent in a capital murder case in Seattle, Washington, a bank robbery murder. He was not there at the time and we were able to prove it. Though close to the gallows himself, but reformed by the experience, he still maintained after modified abolition was introduced here in 1968, that if he were still in "business" he would shoot his pursuer or any witness because he could be sentenced to the same time in prison for murder as for armed robbery. It did not matter if it was 14 or 20 years. To him, it was life. What is the difference, he said to me. He told me, "There are advantages to killing". He and one of his associates told me the advantages of killing were so obvious that they wondered why those who abolished capital punishment did not see them. There is the gamble of escape, the elimination of witnesses who could identify them and give evidence against them in a trial. No deterrent, hon. members?
Incidentally, the word in Vancouver is that all witnesses in major cases, cases where long sentences are inevitable, will be put on contract for murder. Can you see what will happen to justice? What citizen or police officer will take the risk to do their civic duty in a court of law? Warnings have gone out to the B.C. Penitentiary task force who were assigned to a terrible responsibility in the hostage incident of June 11, 1975 in which Mary Steinhauser died. They were absolved of blame in that incident by a coroner's jury last week. An NDP member attacked the guards and claimed in this House, without even studying the facts, that the guards had killed her. The coroners' jury found that the killer, Andy Bruce-a man who had already killed on contract-was responsible for Miss Steinhauser's death. He had participated in four hostage takings. He was held responsible.


Walter David Baker: That was the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Simma Holt: No, it was the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). I would like to remind the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and all the others who
15234

July 12, 1976
Capital Punishment
deny the deterrent quality of the death penalty of a case that the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) would probably have used in her speech as a retentionist had she been able to participate here. She was the one who told me the background on Leopold Dion. After he and his brother raped a girl in Quebec in 1940, he started to strangle the victim to death. His brother shouted: "If you kill her, Leo, you will hang." Leopold loosened his grip. The girl survived. She no doubt gave the evidence that convicted him.
Paroled in 1960, Leopold picked up four small boys aged about nine to 13, and one at a time assaulted them and forced them to their knees to pray before he murdered them. He was convicted of murder, his sentence commuted by cabinet, and his execution was carried out by the inmates of St. Vincent de Paul. But I suppose such executions are acceptable to the abolitionists, as long as the state does not do it, as if the state is not responsible. I am sure the original victim of Leopold Dion would tell you that capital punishment was the deterrent that saved her life.
By 1971-1972 police murderers and guard murderers were pretty sure they would never hang for their crime. Certainly by 1974 it was an absolute certainty. Thus, John Miller, 29, and Vincent Cockreill, 19, could feel secure in their plan to kill a policeman-any policeman. On March 29, 1974, RCMP Constable Roger Pierlett, 23, was ensnared by them in their plan for the senseless execution of a cop. The next day he was to celebrate his engagement. His parents, flying west from Montreal for the occasion, found him on a slab in the morgue. His assassins were protected by the law from the same fate. Roger's older brother, Luke, 29, who at the time did not know whether he was an abolitionist or not, recently said, referring to his brother's killers:
I am not bitter against them as persons. I don't even know them. But they should hang for the deed they did. When two men can kill a complete stranger, I maintain this behaviour is undermining our whole moral fabric. What the government is doing is giving everyone a licence to kill. They are devaluating the price of everybody's life.
I list these facts because abolitionists say that capital punishment is no deterrent. Somebody will no doubt be saying we shall have to mop up the floor of the House again. But I do not mind a little compassion being shown in this chamber.
Then there is the case of Rainier Peter Schuenemann, 27, who kidnapped Mrs Margaret Siborne, 53, on May 1, 1976. He left her in the woods to die, bound, gaged and tied to a tree, while he attempted to extort money from her husband. When picked up by the police, Schuenemann said:
I'm a dead man. The woman in the bush for three days without food or water must be dead.
Told Mrs. Siborne was alive, that she had escaped her bonds, the prisoner fell to his knees with his hands over his face and wept uncontrollably, according to witnesses at his trial. He knew that the only person who could identify him had survived to give evidence against him. He knew he would get the same sentence if she had died. But in that event there was a chance that no witness would appear against him and he might thus have escaped conviction.
We are speaking of deterrence. Since there is de facto abolition in Canada, perhaps the price demanded for

murder in Vancouver today will tell us something about the usefulness of the ultimate penalty as a deterrent. Life is very cheap in Vancouver today. In the 1950s and early 1960s when murder could bring the death penalty, the price of a contract to murder ran anywhere from $2,500 to $25,000. Today it is $50 to $500. Indeed, paid killings are now child's play since it is easy and the penalties are not too severe for hardened criminals to contemplate. Most killers are certain they can get away with it anyway.
Members may be interested to learn that a 10 year-old boy has built up a sophisticated crime gang among peers in Vancouver. He has formed a crime ring, organizing it in a way few older people could have done, and has advertised through the underworld that his gang is prepared to accept contracts to kill. A sidelight to this story is that social workers and civil libertarians, many of whom favour abolition, are upset that in the course of investigating the numerous crimes of this "child Fagin" the police decided to take his fingerprints.
Ernest Von Den Haag in his book "Punishing the Criminal"-and I wonder why the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) did not assign a local to debunk this work-said:
Life becomes cheaper as we become kinder to those who take it. The burden of proof should be on those who oppose the death penalty, not on those who favour it... for say the death penalty does not deter; all we have lost in exacting it is the life of a convicted killer. But if the death penalty does deter, then by refusing to impose it we have consigned to death some future innocent victim.
In refutation of those who maintain capital punishment is not a deterrent, I can produce statements by the very people who use murder as a tool in crime-evidence which the abolitionists could find themselves with a bit of effort. How many times have hon. members read or known personally of cases where the robber got the loot he had come for, but killed anyhow? There was such a case in Burnaby, B.C., in the past week. Three brothers ordered a young clerk to lie face down on the floor while they carried out their crime. They robbed the company, Lumberland, and then they shot the young man in cold blood. They got what they wanted, but the slaying could add little to their penalty if they were caught; it was a gamble, and the murder was an outlet for their brutality.
I could give further proof of the deterrent value of capital punishment, but at the moment I will simply refer hon. members to other evidence which I have put on record in previous speeches. I challenge those who say it is not a deterrent, to prove their case. The onus is on them, not on the majority of Canadians. To quote Von Den Haag:
If the death penalty does deter, by refusing to impose it we have consigned to death some future innocent victim.
Apropos the dialogue on the deterrent effect, the day after the vote was taken on the second reading of Bill C-84, inmates in B.C. jails and in the B.C. penitentiary were jeering at the guards, shouting such things as, "You lost, we won." Some were saying, "Our quota: one cop a day, one guard a day," or "Careful, pig; we can slash your throat." One particularly violent inmate expressed himself in this way, "Careful, pig; we can slash your throat; we have nothing to lose. You had better start taking Dale Carnegie courses to improve your attitude, because we can cut your throat."
July 12, 1976

In addition, there were two attempts in recent weeks to take hostages. These, I presume, are now barely noticed in the B.C. penitentiary because they have become so commonplace. The technique in one case was to start a mattress fire in order to lure one or more guards into the cell. This method was used in an American prison last week and it ended in death for four people. We were more fortunate in B.C. because the penitentiary guards there have greater experience. They fought the fire from outside the cell and the inmates got the smoke, not the hostage they had expected.
Let me turn to another aspect of this proposal. I find it remarkable that no serious contingency plan has been prepared to take into account the instant effect of the passage into law of Bill C-84 which provides for 25 years' imprisonment, without hope, for those convicted of first-degree murder, and 15 years-possibly 10 or 20 years- without hope, for those found guilty of second-degree murder. To my mind, this trade-off for abolition is inhuman in its effects both on inmates and the staff. Perhaps the army is being prepared to enter our prisons and assist in dealing with the explosive situation there.
What is likely to happen is that we will return to the medieval practice, dropped 15 years ago, of caging men in tight security locking them in their cells for as long as 22 or 23 hours a day, and put an end to programs which might have rehabilitated a few of them? We are already seeing the abandonment of the practice of issuing day passes to prisoners with possibilities of rehabilitation, brought to an end because of careless handling of this valuable technique for rehabilitation. Yet the only real protection society has is the prospect that convicted criminals will return to the streets better than when they were sentenced, not worse, as is the case after long imprisonment with poor treatment services.
A number of abolitionists resort to the specious, yes, childish whimper, "If you favour capital punishment, you should be prepared to spring the trap." Mr. Speaker, by the same reasoning, those who would abolish it should become guards to look after desperate killers who have nothing to lose if they kill again in the course of a 25-year sentence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: There are other stock lines which are used ad nauseam. One is that the death penalty is simply legalized murder. Mr. Speaker, that is as stupid as it would be to suggest that arrest and imprisonment are nothing more than legalized kidnapping or legalized slavery.
I agree with Von Den Haag that the application of the death penalty to those guilty of premeditated killing is the mark of a society which holds dear the life of its citizens. It is the society which holds life cheap which imposes weak penalties for taking life.
There is another point that must be raised in this debate, and that is that those who attempt murder, intend to kill. When statistics are used in this debate, few recognize the significant fact that there is a large statistic of people who fail in their attempt to murder, though they may succeed in maiming or injuring their victims for life. Take the case of the UBC and Florida criminologist, Dr. Charles Eich-
Capital Punishment
man, 38, who beat his wife Cora, 48, almost to death. She had a good life ahead of her, having completed her education to the Ph. D. level in education. She had a considerable amount to contribute. She now lies in an institution in Regina. This was not murder, but partial murder, because in this institution she is unable to do anything for herself. She cannot even think. They use the word "vegetable". Eichman was given a ten-year sentence, and if when he comes out he succeeds in a subsequent murder attempt, this will be regarded as his first murder. When he comes out he will be the better prepared to finish the job because of the lessons he will have learned in prison.
There are two reasons why attempted murder is not murder. The first is because the killer was a bad shot, or did the job badly. The second is that medicine was too good; it saved the life. Attempted murders have quadrupled in Vancouver since modified capital punishment came into effect in 1968. In Canada it has more than doubled. Montreal statistics and general reports indicate that murder and attempted murder has increased as much as or more than in Vancouver.
Candy Knowles, 16, a constituent of mine who lived only a few blocks from my office, died at the hands of a man who once served time for attempted murder. This man's name is Edward Donald Bigelaie. He shot his girlfriend and knifed himself in Toronto in 1960. The girlfriend did not die that time. After 11 years in prison he was released on a pass and never returned. In Vancouver, as Mile Lewis, about age 30, he dated Candy Knowles. The girl's former boyfriend, a postman, was threatened by Lewis but wrote it off as idle talk. Something happened to stop the murder-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Simma Holt: On September 20, 1974, the man who had attempted murder in Toronto succeeded in his second attempt. Candy Knowles bled to death from six bullets that he fired into her. Her cries for help were unheeded by people passing by.
The remarkable speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which influenced so many members of this House, requires answering. He accuses the retentionists of engaging in "specious philosophy" in discussing the fact that if capital punishment saves one innocent life, it is worth while. He called it "compelling rhetoric". However, he set it aside because of a fatal flaw, namely, that we would be experimenting with human lives.
So much that the Prime Minister said in his speech could have been said by the retentionists. What he said could more appropriately apply to the abolitionist philosophy and I repeat it in that light. It is compelling rhetoric, but it contains a fatal flaw, namely, that the abolitionists in this House who want to remove the final and ultimate punishment would be experimenting with human lives. I repeat, the abolitionists, not the retentionists, are experimenting with human lives.
95570-631/2
July 12, 1976

Capital Punishment
As for the concern of the Prime Minister over a society that adopts vengeance as an acceptable motive for its collective behaviour, is it vengeance any more than any other punishment, or is it strong and equal justice for the most horrible crime possible, that of taking-without right or law-the life of another human being? And what about the collective behaviour for which the state must be held responsible, that of allowing execution by the underworld to continue unabated without any threat to their own style of justice, by police who know that the state is no longer willing to protect them, by inmates in prison, by guards and by citizens who believe that the state's machinery has faltered and broken down? What about that collective behaviour?
The abolitionists constantly ask the question: What civilized country still uses capital punishment? I ask them, what civilized country does what Bill C-84 will do-lock men up for 25 years without hope other than escape through hostage-taking? As reported at page 14500 of Hansard, the Prime Minister had this to say:
-it is inevitable that the defeat of this would eventually place the hangman's noose around some person's neck.
If I am willing to take on my conscience the execution of police killers and those who commit deliberate murders, I am quite satisfied, if I vote as all of you vote, that I am taking the responsibility for my vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: But the abolitionists must also take responsibility, especially those who voted in 1968 and 1972, for saving the lives of sadists. Take the example of three ruthless killers who seized hostages in the B.C. penitentiary incident that ended in the death of Mary Steinhauser and the mental breakdown of at least two prison workers. Because of those votes, these three lived to kill another day. They are Andrew Bruce, a paid contract killer, Dwight Lucas, who planned and carried out an axe murder on the prairies and was the one who for 41 hours held a knife tip in the eye and at the throat of John Ryan, who is now mentally ill, and junkie killer Clair Wilson who, after his conviction, stabbed a sheriff who was guarding him. I think that the abolitionists must accept responsibility for the conduct of these three people.
If the abolitionists win this week in this major vote, the public, which no doubt will feel that their wishes have been treated with contempt, will have their say in the next major vote. Let us hope that the sanction to kill that will be given by this House will not allow the hoodlums to move beyond control before the mistake that the majority vote of this House could be making this week is corrected. I urge hon. members at least to study the points that many of us have made in support of the retention of capital punishment in Canada.


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak following the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), whose speech was one of the better ones that we have heard in this debate. I have been in touch with this debate right from the beginning of second reading and all through committee stage, and have spoken a little over three hours in total, so I am not going to take long on this third reading

stage. Most of the cases that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway brought up are good examples of why I am a retentionist, though I was an abolitionist at one time. Having heard some of the cases that the hon. member referred to, I think a lot of people will, or should, show consideration for change.
One of the points that I want to bring up in this final stage of debate concerns the method of capital punishment that is used today. I think this is one of the reasons some people in this country are still opposed to capital punishment. All through this debate, every time the CBC, CTV or any newspaper carried a major story on capital punishment they showed a rope and noose and talked about how cruel was that aspect of capital punishment.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that some day there will be a return to capital punishment in this country, but I hope that the next time we have to debate this subject we will decide on a more humane form of capital punishment before the debate begins which would remove the situation where everyone who is a retentionist is called a hanger. Other methods of capital punishment can be used, and personally I think the gas chamber is a much better form. Had that method been in effect in Canada, I do not think some of the comments that have been made would have been made. I think the way the press reported the method of capital punishment that is used was irresponsible.
I should like to quote a couple of articles that were sent to me. During this debate all members of parliament have received a lot of mail, and I am no exception; but I have a couple of items that I think are very appropriate. One of them was sent to me by a constituent in my own riding of Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and is about the government's attitude toward capital punishment. I was sent this copy of an editorial which appeared in our local paper, and I should like to read it. It states:

Morally, intellectually and psychologically there is a glaring irrational streak in the federal government's attitude toward the sanctity of human life.
The Trudeau cabinet is committed-some of its members emotionally so-to the total abolition of capital punishment. Yet it not only condones but actively encourages an enterprise which can endanger the lives of millions.
That enterprise, of course, is the peddling of CANDU nuclear reactors to unstable nations.
There has been ample evidence, including India's behaviour, of the dangers inherent in CANDU sales. Now from the U.S. energy research and development administration comes a terrifying report.
A study completed for that body six months ago, but only just made public, says that, based on the output from just half the reactors that the International Atomic Energy Agency has projected would be sold to the less developed nations in the next 15 years, "the annual production of plutonium in terms of minimum bomb equivalents is truly staggering." The 46 countries studied, according to the survey, "could annually produce some 15,100 kilograms (33,022 pounds) of plutonium by 1990- enough to produce 3,002 small nuclear explosives."
In the face of this, continuing CANDU sales to unstable countries like Argentina is to bury our heads in the sands of balance sheets.
It makes a mockery of the government's cliche-ridden expressions of concern for the human predicament.
That is the concern of many of my constituents. I wanted to point that out to the House because I think it is very appropriate at this time. I received another letter, from a young lady in Quebec, which I was not even sure I should
July 12, 1976

read into the record. It is a sad type of letter, but I did check it out and I think I should read it because it is very important, particularly if we are to talk about one of the things that I consider important, that is, what happens to the victims of crime. I am very saddened that even before we got into this debate the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) did not introduce something to this House which would tell us what he and his government plan to do for victims of crime. With the type of easy-going attitude which this government has adopted in respect of law and order, I think we are going to see an increase in crime in this country. I am sure we will see that increase in the next few years. What is this government going to do for the victims of crime?
Let me read the House this letter to show what can happen to families as a result of these tragic happenings that occur from time to time. It reads:
Dear John Reynolds:
I am 15 years, and cannot wait to be 18 years old so that I will be able to vote, (that is if I make it to that age). And when, and if I ever get a chance I will make sure the person who I vote for is a retentionist like you. And many of my friends intend to do the same. When we are teenagers, people ignore our opinions, but soon we will be the future voters. You see, sir, since last year our whole family's life has changed. My mother has been in the hospital, under psychiatric care. She is out of the hospital now, but still has to take many pills. She cries all the time, and sleeps with a knife under her pillow; she also bought a gun, just in case someone breaks in. My twin sister and I are afraid to go to the store alone, or even to the bank. It is terrible to be afraid, but our family has a good reason to be, because last year my 16 year-old sister, Sharron, went to the store and never came back. She was kidnapped, raped and murdered. And that was at 7 p.m. on a Saturday. I was taught to love and trust, but now I trust no one, not even the government.
Doreen Prior.
It is in cases like this about which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has expressed the fear that some of these sick individuals are getting out of prison and doing it again. In one case that she mentioned this did occur, and there have been a number of others. For that reason alone, I think capital punishment has a place in our society at this time. For this reason I emphasize the question as to what the Solicitor General and his government intend to do to protect the victims of crime. Certainly, these people are not being protected at all at this time, yet the persons who are guilty of such crimes under the law that has been in force could be out again in seven years and back on the streets with very little to worry about. I do not think these other people will ever again lead normal lives.
Let me also ask the Solicitor General about the intended review of our penal system. When is he going to put a program before us that will solve the problems that occur in places like the British Columbia penitentiary and Mill-haven? We have not seen that program, yet we are being asked to abolish capital punishment. When is the Solicitor General going to bring before this House a program in respect of juvenile crime? The Solicitor General might well say that he does have a book out called "Youth in Conflict with the Law" that is being discussed across the country. That is true, but why can this program not be considered as quickly as the measure to abolish capital punishment? I do not think the priorities of the Solicitor General's department are appropriate.
One of the major problems in this country is associated with juvenile crime. Certainly, in my own area we have
Capital Punishment
taken an active part, with the Solicitor General's department, in respect of this specific problem. I have attended a number of meetings of interested parties. In fact, we are now having meetings on a bi-weekly basis. These meetings are attended by my constituency secretary when I am unable to attend. The people in the area are trying to come up with solutions to the problem of the juvenile crime rate there. I must admit that there is no money available, but the people and the programs are available to solve the problem. Yet here we are abolishing capital punishment, spending a lot of time in this House on the one thing that would probably result in a very small number of people being put to death over the years.
I think the Solicitor General owes it to the country, before this vote is taken on Wednesday, to take some time to come up with his priorities, to tell us what he intends to do in respect of penitentiaries in this country, and to solve the juvenile problem across the land. None of us expects a utopia, and we know the Solicitor General is unable to solve all the problems; but we would certainly like to see a blueprint of a plan the Solicitor General might possibly have to cut down on the number of problems that lead to the existence of some of these vicious people about whom we are talking.
I would like to finish by talking for a minute or two about the vote to be taken on Wednesday. I hope all members of this House will be here for this vote. I know a lot of people are saying that the whole issue has been decided and maybe they should not come back. We heard that from a number of sources over the weekend. Let me point out the closeness of the vote on second reading and the fact that since then we know the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) has indicated he is switching his vote. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) also indicated on the weekend that he is switching his vote. If you add to that the two gentlemen who are retentionists who could not make it for the last vote due to unforeseen circumstances, such as the airline strike, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), that brings us to within two votes.
In view of rumours that others in the House intend to switch their vote, I hope every member will see fit to be here to exercise the responsibility of voting on Wednesday, because I would not like to see an issue that is so close, an issue that has so divided this country-for which we must blame the government-won or lost by one or two votes, with one or two members not present in the House.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, we are now getting down to the time when we will finally have to make a decision on this very important issue. My great concern-and I will be very brief-is for the feelings of the people in the riding of Middlesex-London-Lambton and, I believe, of the people throughout Canada. I had a very disturbing phone call this morning from one of the teachers in our local high school. She said, "Larry, I took a poll of our grade 13 class with regard to capital punishment, and I am afraid it is going to be quite a shock when you find out exactly what the consensus is, and the percentage." I asked her to tell me, because I felt that perhaps some small pocket in my riding would agree with the abolitionists. She said, "Larry, 90 per

July 12, 1976
Capital Punishment
cent of this grade 13 class agree with the retention of capital punishment."
I believe this is an overwhelming indication of how the people of Canada feel. I thought the 90 per cent figure was too high, but I have also heard 80 per cent and 70 per cent expressed as being in favour of retention. My great concern in this respect is for the people and their viewpoint. During my political life, including my background of 11 years in municipal politics, I have always tried to remember what the people want. I was told many years ago never to forget the people, because they are the ones who put us here and they are the ones who will take us out. If we do not listen to the people, we are in trouble because we are not doing the job we have been put here to do.
I am not endowed with an intellectual background. My background, rather, has been one of hard work, getting things the hard way, sometimes by using my shoulders and arms to a greater extent than my head. It is my belief that the people of this country feel that our basic problems can be related to hard work, and their existence may be the result of a lack thereof. When they look at this parliament and see its members completely disregarding the feelings of the people, they lose confidence; and when people lose confidence in government they lose confidence in the basis of the democratic system-this is, government for the people, by the people, something that is said many times in retort. But in this case, on this bill, in making this important decision we come right down to the crunch that these things can be rhetoric no longer.
Let us get back to the grass roots. If I were an abolitionist I would have no qualms about going back to the people and listening to them. There has been some discussion but it is obvious that the abolitionists have not been listening. I feel that at this time perhaps we should take more time and let the abolitionists talk to their people, get their feelings, not just through the newspapers but directly from the people who elected them. It is important to listen to the people of this country if we are to keep it united. There is always the danger that this great union of ours will be broken up, and I would hate to see that done through this bill. I am sure the abolitionists would be glad to talk to their constituents over the summer. If they believe in abolition, they will come back at the end of the summer and vote for abolition. There is no problem there.
So, Mr. Speaker, I propose a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles);
That all the words after "that" be struck and the following substituted therefor:
"this bill be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day three months hence".


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I considered speaking on third reading prior to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon). My reason was twofold. I will not go into all the pros and cons of abolition and retention put forward in the philosophic debate we have had on Bill C-84 for several weeks. I am one of the members who has been confronted with this question three other times in parliament and, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), who in my opinion made a very powerful

speech at the third reading stage and mentioned that she had been an abolitionist, in the philosophic sense, prior to her election as a member, I voted the first time on capital punishment in 1968 in favour of abolition, and the second time I voted for a qualified abolition, or retention, depending on how you define that vote.
I believe that perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was more interested and involved in the matter than I was when I was practising law in Vancouver for some years and used to read some of her columns. I must confess that I was not all that involved in the issue before I became a member of parliament, and since then, quite frankly I have been overinvolved in this issue, as has the parliament of Canada, because four times in 11 years this House has debated the issue.
I believe that this issue should have been resolved some time ago. This bill flies right in the face of 70 per cent to 80 per cent of Canadians from coast to coast, and that is one of the reasons I wanted to speak at this time. I do not think this is a normal debate on capital punishment. Before this time we were supposed to be in a trial period, and perhaps Canadians were uncertain as to the conclusions to which such a trial period might bring us, and thus the public, in my opinion, has not been as aroused or irritated and certainly not as frustrated as they are today with Bill C-84 which does not propose a trial period but proposes the total abolition of capital punishment.
We all know that the law until now has been for capital punishment for the murder of prison guards and policemen, yet it has not really been followed, and therefore there has not been a reasonable trial period. In a general sense, that is one of the reasons the Canadian public has been more exercised over the debate on capital punishment this time than at other times. I also think that the Canadian public at large has never been more frustrated, and capital punishment has become the focal point for the frustration of Canadians over a good number of issues, even more than the law and order issue.
It is the feeling of the Canadian public from coast to coast, regardless of their political leanings or beliefs, that the government in Ottawa-that "far away" government if you live in the east or the west, and even sometimes if you live close to Ottawa, geographically-is very far removed from the pulse of the people of Canada. This time it is the feeling of the people that capital punishment is not only symbolic of law and order and the punishment for heinous crimes, but an assurance that law and order will be applied more strictly so that people perhaps will be able to walk on the streets with a greater sense of security.
On this occasion, because of the circumstances in which the country finds itself, capital punishment has become the focal point of people's frustrations on a good number of issues. I will not name them all, but if you pick up the paper you read about air traffic controllers, the Olympics, the unemployment insurance fund, almost any other issue which makes headlines in the papers. There is a feeling among people that the government which they elected is so far out of the mainstream on an issue with which they can identify as much as the member they elected, namely, capital punishment, that, ipso facto, the government must be out of the mainstream and out of touch on other issues.
July 12, 1976

We have heard the views of members from both sides of this issue, but certainly those favouring abolition, justify their position by saying that this is a free vote, a matter of individual conscience. What has always bothered me about this type of reasoning-the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway certainly met head-on a couple of the specious arguments of the abolitionists against the retentionists, such as, "Will you pull the trap?" and in some cases which I know about, I think I could pull the trap-is that it is the same type as that which says, "Let the abolitionists go to prison or walk the streets at night with a policeman." What she said about legalized execution, if you believe in retention, was a good argument in rebuttal. If you believe that retention is legalized killing, then it can be said that if you arrest someone and put him in jail where he will be making baskets, you are in favour of legalized kidnapping and slavery. This is how ridiculous these arguments have become.
Let us come back to the individual conscience. I do not know whether the motion of the hon. member for Middle-sex-London-Lambton will pass and there will be a summer lull in the debate-the realities of numbers may prevent that happening-but I know members of parliament who over the July 1 long weekend deliberately did not go home to their ridings because they did not want to encounter, during the July festivities, a public which was not so favourably disposed to their vote in favour of abolition. Well, I went home.


Mr. Boulanger:: Name them.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am not going to name them.


Prosper Boulanger: I do not think what you say is the truth.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You are entitled to believe what you believe. I can tell you what I know.


Prosper Boulanger: Prove it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I know my hon. friend very well, and respect him. He has a conscience, and I have a conscience; but the constituents who sent us here also have consciences and I have been bemused, even though it is rather serious, by the fact that the individual conscience of hon. members dominates the collective conscience of their constituents. As hon. members who have spoken on this matter, certainly from the retentionist point of view, have said, rarely has there been an issue where the collective conscience, reasoning or verbal expression of constituents from coast to coast, regardless of whether they are Liberal, Conservative or NDP, has been as clear as on this issue. Never has it been as clear, although every hon. member will say something else. Instinctively, I do not think they are right, although I cannot prove my case from statistics or figures.
The abolitionists certainly cannot prove their case from statistics or figures, no matter how preconceived some of the studies have been on this issue. We should not try to confuse the Canadian public with statistics, facts and figures, legal reasoning or logic to which they could be exposed only if they came before the justice committee or heard some of the lucid arguments put forward on the floor
Capital Punishment
of this House. We all know that on this issue, that type of logical assessment of facts and figures just does not apply and it does come down to an individual conscience situation.
I said that it bemused me to hear hon. members, albeit sincerely, stand up for their individual consciences, and I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that this is not the day and age of Edmund Burke, who wrote a letter to the electors of Bristol to tell them that he stood, not just for the people of Bristol but for all the people of England. Hon. members who referred to that quotation failed to point out that he was not elected at the next election.
I agree that hon. members must lead on public issues, but it is a paradox, to me, that when in this House we say we have a free vote and there will not be pressure applied by the government to lead government members-and we had a good example today of two government members who spoke out for retention-we are nevertheless deliberately defying the larger context of the collective conscience of Canadians by voting for this bill. I just cannot rationalize that paradox. If it is good enough for hon. members to vote according to their individual consciences in a free vote, why are we ignoring the collective conscience as expressed in the polls and by the people who have written to us? I defy any hon. member, including my hon. friend, to say to me that his correspondence has been heavily in favour of abolition. I would say, conservatively, that it is the other way around. It certainly has been for me.
In any event, this will become a focal point of alienation and the people will feel more removed from the government. I say "government" in generic terms; I mean the government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). If things keep going this way, we will obviously have a government of another kind when we have another election. However, this issue has become a focal point of alienation, and if Bill C-84 carries by this type of vote, that alienation will be increased. It is a paradox that the individual conscience of hon. members reigns supreme because they are members, but they deny the collective conscience of their constituents who sent them here. Some of those hon. members who are abolitionists are my best friends, but I sincerely believe this will not be like the other capital punishment debates and the public will not forget, because it has become a focal point of alienation. I do not think the public will forget about this, because they will continue to feel alienated.
This is not the final time the question of abolition will be before us. It will be before us every time a policeman makes a raid on a house and a suspect is shot. That will bring the issue back through the newspapers and the question will be asked: Did the shooting occur because the policeman knew that if the suspect ended up with the protection of the judicial process, he would never pay the supreme penalty anyway? Thus the policeman may decide who should live and who should not live. That is a horrible thing, no matter how sincerely motivated the officer may be. A colleague of his might have been shot to death, but there is no way that type of thing should be substituted for the judicial process. If we have policemen and, more especially, prison guards in the next two years before an

July 12, 1976
Capital Punishment
election ending up dead in prisons or on the streets, that will reactivate this issue, and it will not go away if a one-time killer, as has been demonstrated here in debate- and I am not going to review all the cases-kills again.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway did not mention the case which switched me, but it happened in British Columbia. I refer to the case of the two-time killer who killed a third time, in that case a little girl. That finally switched me, because in my opinion the pendulum has swung too far in redress for the accused and not protection for society. I think that was the fundamental reason.
I can argue the sanctity of life philosophically, on either side of the coin, but other than in the Evans' case in England back in the 1950s, a known case in the Commonwealth of a man convicted of murder, put to death and then later proved to be innocent, hon. members cannot use the argument of wrongful execution. That may have happened in the judicial system before the Second World War or immediately afterward, but the sad thing which has happened is that abolitionists keep saying that we do not want to make a permanent mistake by putting to death someone who cannot afterwards be resurrected.
On the other side of the coin, since 1961 there have been four cases of one-time killers who have been let out of our prisons or who have not observed weekend passes and killed a second time. I think that for some of these reasons this issue will stay alive and hon. members will have to be prepared to live with it.
In conclusion, there is a funny paradox-not funny "ha, ha", but funny "sad, sad"-that while this House was voting on one of the amendments the other night as to whether there should be capital punishment for the murderers of prison guards or policemen, or whether there should be capital punishment for acts of terrorism or insurrection against the Queen, the Israeli cabinet, which is one of the most liberal in terms of small "1" governments in the world, and which created a country almost out of the ashes of many millions of their race, whilst still believing in the sanctity of life is seriously considering exacting capital punishment on convicted terrorists where lives have been lost. They are not necessarily arguing the sanctity of life; they have argued that and have lived through it.
The state of Israel was created after millions of Jews were hideously brutalized and had gone to gas chambers. They are not debating the sanctity of life, but they do not want to be put into a position which we have witnessed from afar. That is what makes it so easy for some of us to debate philosophically this issue; we really have not been confronted with some of the realities of the world. Nor do they want to be placed in the Uganda situation again, where 43 convicted terrorists were held within their jails. Whether they were all terrorists who had killed, or whether they were all crimes committed in Israel, I am not sure. They do not want to get into the position again of having hijackers keeping citizens of their country as hostages in exchange for the transfer and release of convicted terrorists who have killed citizens of that state. It is an interesting paradox that we, in the abstract, not having gone through the pain of birth that that state has and the agonies of so many of its citizens, can sit here and have this philosophical debate. That state which has lived through hell, and grew up through the smoke of hell, is
[Mr. Nowlan.J
thinking of bringing back capital punishment for that kind of crime.
Mr. Speaker, I have been on both sides of this issue, but this time when I vote against Bill C-84 it will be with more conviction than I have ever had before. I believe fundamentally in the potential of the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. It is not likely that any prime minister is going to sign the paper, figuratively speaking, for capital punishment on the first occasion, should the bill be defeated. In the mood of this country, it would have to be a heinous crime, with no extenuating circumstances, for the penalty of capital punishment to be exacted, but the fact that it was on the books might set a standard for a stricter administration of justice.
I do not want to digress, Mr. Speaker, and I should end right there, but I am confronted with a problem. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) mentioned that hon. members should be present on Wednesday for the vote on third reading, which I suspect may be a closer vote than some of the others would indicate. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday Her Majesty is going to be in my home town at two o'clock in the afternoon when the vote is to be taken. I may resolve the conflict if I can be paired with a fervent abolitionist who will also be away. But I might very well be here, because I am rather irritated and I believe that the people of Annapolis Valley have been insulted by some of the arrangements made for the royal tour. Due to sloppy planning at the least, or to petty politics at the most, on the part of those making the arrangements, which I believe to be the premier's office in Halifax, but they must have been advised by Ottawa-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member return to the terms of Bill C-84.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My remarks are relevant, Mr. Speaker. I am explaining why I might well not be here on Wednesday. On the other hand, the reason I may be here is that I am so irritated and the people of the Annapolis Valley are so insulted by the arrangements which may be due to sloppy planning or petty politics. According to protocol, a member of the House of Commons ranks ahead of even a provincial cabinet minister. Yet I have not been invited to one of the functions taking place on the day Her Majesty visits my riding. I have only been invited to a luncheon because I am a member of the board of governors of Acadia University. This is the fault of the provincial government in Halifax, unless I can move around from Greenwood to Wolfville to Windsor and be there when she visits the premier's home town. There is no reason why I, as the member for Annapolis Valley, who ranks ahead of an MLA, the mayors and other elected officials, should not have an opportunity to be present when Her Majesty visits, rather than to be at table No. 10 at a luncheon with several hundred other people.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta that this issue will not go away even though we are coming to what is supposed to be the final vote. Members of parliament are going to live with this vote and the issue will come back to the House of Commons on another day. I certainly believe that several mem-
July 12, 1976

bers, partly as a result of their votes, will not come back to this House one day.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in this debate as one of the few who has abstained from speaking on the bill so far and yet has listened to all the speeches given on the matter.


Miss Begin:: Poor you.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The abolitionists have not changed my mind with the weak arguments they have brought forward. I feel it is important to place on the record that on second reading and report stage I voted as a retentionist, as I shall vote again on third reading. I am prompted to speak by the remarks made by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) in his speech on June 15. As reported at page 14497 of Hansard, he said: Our constituents do not have the time to weigh the evidence and consider the arguments. They are preoccupied on a day-to-day basis with earning their livelihood. That is their serious, immediate and pressing concern. They do not have the opportunity that we in this chamber have to look at the evidence and listen to each other in order to formulate a final opinion. We, therefore, must make the decision. As elected members of parliament, we must take the consequences, not only on capital punishment but on all other issues.
I was rather surprised at that, Mr. Speaker. I would answer the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby that at least my constituents are human beings with souls, intelligence and compassion. They know what is going on in Ottawa and around the country, and they can make up their own minds. Surely to goodness, if any member of parliament assumes that constituents cannot make up their minds on matters as serious as the death penalty, or in fact any other matter, there is something wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The people of my constituency are good living, honest people. They are concerned with the subject of capital punishment. I feel they are as smart as any member of this House, and as capable of making a rational decision. The volume of correspondence that I have received indicates this very clearly. Yet they do not always necessarily vote along party lines.
To answer the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, let me tell him that I was committed to the retentionist cause before my election to this House. When I was mayor of my city and chairman of the police commission, I was convinced that capital punishment was a necessity. My decision at that time was not based on whether the majority of Canadian citizens wanted, or did not want, capital punishment. It was based on the experience I had gained in my particular position, and that is still my personal conviction. I was convinced then of the validity and effectiveness of capital punishment, and I have yet to be convinced that there is a better way to deal with certain types of crime.
Some say that the death penalty is immoral. Mr. Speaker, I honestly feel that we commit a greater immorality when we put people in cages for 25 years and treat them like dogs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Capital Punishment


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Nobody calls that immoral.


Mr. Dinsdale:: It is a living death.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Yes, it is a living death. It is even worse. We know what goes on in this country's penitentiaries. We hear about escapes, about orgies, sex scandals, and so on. Why do we tolerate it? Yet we are to imprison some people for 25 years. I am concerned about the ability of some people to obtain parole or to leave prison.
At least the death penalty has one effect; it protects society from the risk of a second offence committed by the same criminal who, if not executed, may subsequently be released or escape. The death penalty is thus based on the principle of self-defence. Since the death penalty is the only means of eliminating the offender altogether, this penalty is necessary, at least provisionally, when the public peace is endangered by certain particularly dangerous forms of crime.
I say that public opinion remains generally favourable to the retention of the death penalty. The public as a whole, particularly the police and prison officials, believe in its effectiveness. I say that this sincere belief should be respected in its own right, especially since it may be correct. It would be virtually impossible to find another penalty to replace capital punishment. Imprisonment, even for a long time, is inadequate and its effects are minimized by anticipated release. A man sent to jail for 25 years knows he has been given the maximum penalty and knows that he will not receive a greater penalty if he kills a prison guard. Even if he kills a prison guard and is given another 25 years, what is there to prevent his killing another prison guard, and yet another? How many could such a man kill?


Mr. Clarke:: One a day.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Has nobody thought of this? Mr. Speaker, I could say much more on the subject, but I will try to limit my remarks. I say that the death penalty would safeguard the police, because in the absence of the death penalty a criminal seeking to avoid arrest would have much less to fear from the consequence of the use of firearms or violence. The punishment inflicted for a grave crime should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens. The ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it deters, but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime. From this point of view, some murders demand the most emphatic denunciation of all, the death penalty. The law should not ignore the public demand for retribution which a heinous crime understandably provokes. Further, it would be dangerous to move too quickly, far in advance of public opinion.
Many abolitionist speakers have recited statistics to prove that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Mr. Speaker, statistics which ordinarily fail to demonstrate the deterrent effect of capital punishment are, for the most part, assembled by people who want to abolish the death penalty. In other words, such statistics are not compiled for the purpose of reaching a conclusion; rather, they are compiled to support a conclusion already reached morally, philosophically or intuitively. Statistics, as we know, are susceptible of different interpretations and are unreliable
15242

July 12, 1976
Capital Punishment
and misleading. It is almost impossible to draw valid comparisons between different countries, owing to differences in the legal definition of crimes, the practice of the prosecuting authorities and the courts, the methods of compiling criminal statistics, moral standards, customary behaviour and political, social and economic conditions. I submit that life imprisonment is not necessarily less inhumane than the death penalty. In any event, there is no longer any true life sentence in view of our practices regarding parole which I mentioned previously.
Let me draw to the attention of hon. members two instances of crime which occurred in my constituency. The first incident involved constable Shakespeare. He and his partner were patrolling in a police car and answered a call to investigate a break-in which had occurred in their patrol area. One constable ran out and the other stood beside the car and radioed for help. While he was summoning more help on the radio, a criminal who was lurking just around the corner leaned forward and shot him. Constable Shakespeare fell. He was not fatally wounded but was unconscious and bleeding. The other constable did not know this had happened. He ran to the river to try to head-off the other criminal who was running away. The criminal who had shot constable Shakespeare, knowing the other policeman was away from the scene and that the constable was by himself, came up to the police car, kicked the constable who was on the ground to see if he was still alive, looked him in the face, then shot him three times in the face and once in the heart. If that was not deliberate murder, I should like to know what is. As far as I am concerned, criminals like that should hang.
There was another incident in Winnipeg in which constable Houston was killed. He left a widow and family. Nobody now talks about what happened. There are several other crimes in my area which I could mention. We did not find the murderers in those cases. We do not even talk about those events any more. Somebody said we should reassure the police because the worst thing you could do is parole those convicted of murder. I say that abolishing the death penalty will do more harm to the morale of this country's police forces than almost anything you could do.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), a long-time member of this House, say the following:
I have always believed that when a member of parliament is made aware that a clear majority of those living in his riding hold a strong opinion on an important matter which is before parliament for decision, it is the duty of the member to express that opinion in parliament on behalf of those he represents, and to back up that opinion with his vote.
Mr. Speaker, I shall finish shortly. I say that we should have undertaken a much deeper and serious study with regard to our problems regarding penitentiaries and rehabilitation. This study has not been undertaken. I suggest that if all members of parliament were to vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents, capital punishment would be retained.
I remind all members of this House that the vote on third reading is to be held on Wednesday at two o'clock. I expect all members of this House to be present in order to vote. I feel that no excuse for absence ought to be tolerated. No member ought to say, "I will not be present in the House for the vote." The people of Canada expect us all to be present. No member should say, in any circumstance, that

he cannot be here to vote. No excuses should be accepted. I am sorry that I must say this, but the hon. member speaking before me said he had to meet the Queen and he suggested that as his reason for being absent. Mr. Speaker, the vote to be held next Wednesday is of paramount importance. It is more important to be present for the vote than to attend any ceremony. The vote we shall register will affect all the people of our community. It is on a most serious subject, and every member of parliament should discharge his responsibilities and vote. No member should accept any engagement save that of being here and voting in the manner he or she wishes on Wednesday at two o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I should like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek):
That this House voice its thanks to the delegation of the Republic of China at the Montreal Olympic Games for the dignity and generosity it has shown in the imbroglio which occurred between the Canadian government and the International Olympic Committee;
That this House deplore the fact that the Canadian government has interfered with the international rules of the International Olympic Committee thus introducing political considerations in the field of international Olympics and creating a dangerous precedent for the future of the games;
Finally, that this House extend its apologies to the International Olympic Committee for the way Canada has intervened in its internal administration and has compelled it to meet its requirements, thus jeopardizing the time-honoured principle of the non-political character of international Olympic events.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: 
ELECTIONS
[Stage Direction]
Trail

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the fact that the government will shortly appoint by order in council returning officers for the 282 constituencies that will exist as a result of redistribution of electoral boundaries in Canada. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
To ensure the conducting of federal elections on a strictly non-political basis that, with the few exceptions where impartial and experienced incumbents may be reappointed, all future appointments of returning officers for each constituency be made on the basis of merit as a result of advertising competitions held by the Public Service Commission of Canada and that the present system be ended where such appointments are again about to be made on a political basis by rewards to party faithful with generous scoops from the Liberal party's pork barrel.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that a great majority of Canadians are opposed to, if not outraged at, the outcome of the recent votes on capital punishment, largely because of the fact that a number of members were unable to, and indeed did not, vote as they would have liked-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Neither pursuant to Standing Order 43 nor in any other way is it ever in order to comment upon a vote in the House of Commons. If the hon. member has a motion which he wishes to put, he might put it.


Otto John Jelinek: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I say because of pressure tactics by members of the ministry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Del-ta (Mr. Reynolds):
That this House dispose with normal voting procedures on the third and final vote on Bill C-84 and that instead a secret ballot vote be applied in order to give all members the opportunity to vote pressure free on this most vital issue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Since this House has agreed to the principle of bilingualism and the fact that the Ottawa-Hull area or what is called the National Capital region has a francophone population of over 40 per cent; since the Ottawa airport serves all this region, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to set up bilingual air-to-ground communications at the National Capital airport.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CONGRATULATIONS TO CITY ON SEVENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in order to perhaps change the tone of the House I should like to inform the House that the city of Trail, which is the home of the world champion hockey team, the Trail Smoke Eaters, twice world champions, in 1939 and 1961, and also home of the largest silver-lead-zinc smelter in the world, whose workers have contributed much to our prosperity, is currently experiencing its 75th anniversary. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston):
That the House of Commons, representing all Canadians, extends congratulations and best wishes to the mayor, and municipal council, and to all the people of Trail, British Columbia, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the incorporation of this industrial and industrious community in south central British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the presentation of
95570-64)4

July 12, 1976
Oral Questions
the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard the terms of the motion, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arises from an answer he gave on July 6 to my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, in which he indicated that the present safeguard agreement between Argentina and Canada precludes the possibility of Canada taking steps to prevent Argentina from reprocessing spent fuel from the CANDU reactor into pure plutonium. In light of that assertion I should like to draw his attention to Article III paragraph 3 of the Argentina safeguard agreement which states in part:
Nuclear material referred to shall be reprocessed ... only as may be mutually agreed between the two Parties-
I ask specifically whether this gives Canada an interest and whether Argentina can produce plutonium from the CANDU reactor?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the quotation the hon. member read supports the answer I gave to that hon. member earlier. I will be happy to look at the text again, and if I have made a mistake I will be ready to acknowledge it.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question because I think the answer given on July 6 is far from clear. I would ask the minister specifically whether under the safeguard agreement Canada has the right to say to Argentina that it cannot in fact reprocess this, and that Canada is a participant in that decision-making process with the Argentina government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the words of the agreement justify that conclusion.


James McPhail Gillies: In view of press reports and so on which indicate that Argentina does not have that same interpretation, has Canada communicated and made it clear to the government of Argentina that in fact that government cannot reprocess plutonium from the CANDU reactor without the agreement of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this particular agreement was very closely negotiated over quite a period of time, and I am sure that the Canadian negotiators have made every term abundantly clear to the Argentina side. In respect of this point, which is a very important one, I will again read the agreement to make sure there is no confusion whatsoever. I will do so because it is a vital point.


INQUIRY WHETHER NOTICE RECEIVED ARGENTINA INTENDS TO ESTABLISH PLANT TO PRODUCE PLUTONIUM
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, has the government, this particular minister or his department received any notice as yet from Argentina that it intends to build a reprocessing plant for the reprocessing of pure plutonium in Argentina? Have you received that notice, have you received information, or have you not received it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not personally received any such information.


POSSIBLE OBLIGATION TO SUPPLY HEAVY WATER TO ARGENTINA-EFFECT ON DOMESTIC NUCLEAR GENERATING CAPACITY
Allan Frederick Lawrence: In
view of the impending shortages in the heavy water supply predicted by many authorative sources in the nuclear industry, including close advisers to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, can the minister tell the House whether the agreement with Argentina calls for Canada to supply heavy water for the Cordoba reactor and, if so, does it mean that there will have to be a curtailment of the Canadian domestic generating capacity simply because we will not have the capacity to produce heavy water for both Argentina and our own needs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no recollection that any such obligation is included in the safeguards agreement.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Did the minister and his advisers consider when the Cordoba agreement was being negotiated, just what the future situation of the heavy water supply will be because there may well be a supply going to Argentina from Canada for this purpose? Does it mean that Canada's own domestic requirement will have to be cut back?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will check on this factual point as to whether there is any obligation to provide heavy water to Argentina. I know of no such obligation included in the safeguards agreement. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, may have some other commercial arrangements upon which I would like to check before making a categorical disclaimer that there is any obligation whatsoever. I do not believe there is any such obligation, but I would like to recheck with the minister.
July 12, 1976


INQUIRY WHETHER SAFEGUARD AGREEMENT PROHIBITS ARGENTINA FROM ESTABLISHING PLANT TO PRODUCE PLUTONIUM
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When this matter was being discussed in the House some weeks ago, if I remember correctly the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Argentina already had a small experimental separation plant capable of extracting plutonium from the waste from a CANDU reactor. Has the minister specifically put into the safeguards a provision either that Argentina will dispose of this separation plant or, even further, that it will not purchase or operate one? Are there any specific commitments that there will be no separation equipment in operation in Argentina so as to produce plutonium from waste from the CANDU reactor?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, the safeguards agreement was not intended nor could it apply over the whole field of nuclear operations in Argentina.


REASON GOVERNMENT NOT MAKING ADHERENCE TO NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY CONDITION OF SALE OF CANDU REACTOR
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely, it is ridiculous to talk about this being the strongest safeguards agreement in the world if it does not deal with the important question of whether or not a country which has a CANDU reactor can produce plutonium from the radioactive waste, plutonium being the material from which explosives are made. I want to ask the minister, in view of the fact that most countries which are anxious to co-operate in order to stop the proliferation of nuclear arms have signed the non-proliferation treaty, why the government has not insisted that in the case of Argentina, South Korea and indeed Pakistan they must sign and ratify the non-proliferation treaty as one of the conditions for purchasing a CANDU reactor from this country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have not made membership in the non-proliferation treaty an absolute pre-condition.


Miss MacDonald:: Why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In the case of the Republic of Korea, with the assistance of other countries and with a good deal of persuasion, we have secured the ratification of the NPT. That has not been the case with countries like Pakistan, for example, which have taken the view that the NPT is a discriminatory instrument. It is, of course, a discriminatory instrument, and for that reason they regard it as objectionable from their point of view. They will not ratify the treaty, even though in our view it ought to be ratified, but we have not made it a pre-condition of doing business with any particular country. What we have done up to the present time is ensure the strongest possible safeguards upon Canadian supplied materials and technology. We have not been able to go beyond that and include the total coverage of nuclear materials in that country.
Oral Questions


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact that the government rests its whole case for selling nuclear reactors in some of the troubled spots of the world on the ground that the developing countries are entitled to this technology to meet their particular economic needs and if Canada is prepared to take the risk of selling CANDU reactors, surely these countries should be prepared to play their part in this deal by acceding to a request to sign the non-proliferation treaty and to give firm guarantees that they will not procure separation plants to produce plutonium. I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs why Canada should not insist on this, particularly in the case of Argentina, where we are going to lose over $25 million on the deal.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have made the situation quite clear already-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that we have not insisted nor do we intend at the present time to insist, as a precondition, on membership in the non-proliferation treaty because there are legitimate objections which can be taken to that treaty on the grounds of national sovereignty and the existence of discrimination, and the treaty is a discriminatory treaty.


BILINGUALISM
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Considering that the principle of bilingualism was adopted by the House a few years ago, that the National Capital Region has an airport which is not provided with bilingual air-ground communications, and that this is a bilingual region, since 40 per cent of its population is francophone, could the minister advise the House whether he is considering the development of a bilingual communication system at the Ottawa airport?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it has been our intention to proceed with first things first, and that includes the attempts to develop the appropriate procedures for bilingual air traffic services in the province of Quebec, including the Montreal region. We are anticipating doing that. We have no plans in terms of a schedule beyond that, but we have always indicated the distinct possibility that, as we proceed to a conclusion with those steps, we would be examining the Ottawa region to see whether similar service ought to be extended there, in view of its geographic location and also in view of its nature as the national capital. I repeat, however, that we do believe that first things must come first, and that this is a matter which does require a step by step implementation. Therefore, we have been concentrating on introducing bilingual air traffic services in the province of Quebec.

Oral Questions


REASON PAKISTAN EXEMPTED FROM DEADLINE FOR RENEGOTIATION OF NUCLEAR SAFEGUARD AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
July 12, 1976
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given that the government undertook in 1974, at the time it introduced its new safeguard proposals, to renegotiate within one, and now two, years all safeguard agreements with countries receiving Canadian nuclear supplies, can the minister explain why Pakistan was exempted from this deadline for the agreement on upgraded safeguards?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, Pakistan has not been exempted from the decision of the government to secure upgraded safeguards. However, the deadline has been extended because of a number of factors, particularly the question of Pakistan wishing to be considered in tandem with India. Pakistan was not prepared to enter into an upgraded safeguards agreement until our decision with respect to India had been taken. That decision having been taken, we are presently proposing a new series of negotiations with Pakistan this month, I believe including, we hope, an upgraded safeguards agreement with that country.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In view of the fact that this is beginning to look more and more like a two nuclear policy, and in view of the obvious reluctance of Pakistan to upgrade their nuclear safeguards agreements, can the minister say how long Canada is prepared to continue supplying nuclear material to Pakistan without having obtained an upgraded agreement?


Walter David Baker: As long as there is a buck in it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are presently providing materials to Pakistan under previously arranged agreements. At the present time Pakistan has not been in default of any agreement it had previously concluded with Canada. That ought to be made very clear. What we are seeking is an upgrading of agreements with Pakistan. The hon. lady should not insinuate in her question that in some way Pakistan has been in default. It may be that the stringent proposals we will put before Pakistan will prove to be too onerous for that government, and at that point we will have to consider what we will do by way of further co-operation with Pakistan.


POSITION OF PAKISTAN ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AGREEMENT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is more than four months since the Prime Minister stated in this House that he could not give the House any assurance that Pakistan would change its position on the NPT, can the minister report now if in the current negotiations with Pakistan they have indicated any willingness to change their position with regard to the NPT?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would say no, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Lang.)


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask whether his statements in conversation with CFCF were correctly reported this morning in the Montreal Gazette in the headline "Both Languages in Quebec air space by 1978". If so, can the minister explain what purpose he foresees for the commission or whether he was merely summarizing the obvious, as there are already six airports in Quebec offering the two languages?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the remarks and the report have to be put in the context of what our intentions are in relation to the volume of air traffic serviced in Quebec, assuming that we can indeed establish certified, secure procedures which assure safety. The conversation, in other words, related to the fact that at all times we recognize the need to certify procedures as safe before moving toward the implementation of the actual procedures. Of course, a lot of work has been done on that in our own ordinary departmental office and also with the commission. The conversation would continue with the question: assuming that that all works favourably and you get the procedures which are assured as safe, then what is the timetable? That is when I indicated that our timetable had been for progressive implementation throughout the province of Quebec through to the end of 1978. That is not a guaranteed time because there are implementation questions that arise as it moves forward but that is the target and that is the way it was described.


POSITION OF FRANCOPHONE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ON CO-OPERATION WITH COMMISSION ON BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for that explanation. I think it is most important that it be clarified. I should also like to ask whether the minister has had any indication of a change of attitude on the part of Les Gens de l'Air who to my latest knowledge made no suggestion whatsoever that they were prepared to co-operate with the commission. I think it is highly desirable that they should.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, some of the discussions we have been having with Les Gens de l'Air have been for assuring that co-operation with the commission. This is quite apart from the necessary involvement of Les Gens de l'Air with the simulator exercises and other activities. We have been making progress in that regard, but the discussions will no doubt be continued.


NEW AIR NAVIGATION ORDER ON USE OF LANGUAGE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport to do with the memorandum of agreement among the
July 12, 1976

controllers, pilots and the minister which stipulated that by July 1 there would be an air navigation order regarding the use of language and the enforcement thereof. I understand that this was complied with on June 30, under air navigation order Series 1, No. 1. Will the minister explain to this House, and confirm, that last Friday the air navigation order was repealed and a new order brought forth?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The actual reference in the memorandum of understanding was not that the air navigation order would necessarily be effective in its final form by July 1, but, rather, that a form to become effective would be put forward to the Privy Council office for the usual processing. We have since looked at the order from a text viewpoint and made a number of changes in it. We may make more changes, either before it becomes effective or shortly thereafter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister in a general way could clarify precisely what the second order contains? Is it now in effect, or has the second order been repealed? What is its status? I ask this particularly since we hope that by bringing about some harmony and understanding we may be able to improve the air situation in the Montreal air control region.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I understand that air navigation orders become effective upon or after publication in the Gazette. This has not yet taken place. Therefore, they are about to become effective orders.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are breaking your own
agreement.


Donald W. Munro: And creating
confusion.


PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT
Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Considering that CATCA is in process of expelling the only Quebec member from its board of directors and that the ostracism of the French-speaking minority by CATCA is now indisputable and obvious, is the President of the Treasury Board prepared to consider and amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act to enable Les Gens de l'Air du Quebec and French-speaking controllers who no longer find a place within CATCA, which will not defend them any more and even wishes to expel them, to negotiate with the government?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if a union member believes he is being discriminated against by his union bosses, he can apply to the Public Service Staff Relations Board and ask for an end to the discrimination. I hope that, if this discrimination does
Oral Questions
exist, the board will give a more favourable ruling concerning Les Gens de l'Air's claims. However, the right of appeal is provided for and I invite Les Gens de l'Air to avail themselves of it. If the law is unfair, we shall amend it later but I think the normal procedure should be followed under the circumstances.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister confirm that, given the loss of livelihood and the serious health problems suffered by the Indian people of the White Dog and Grassy Narrows reserves as a result of mercury pollution in the English-Wabigoon river system, rather than compensating the Indian people the government intends to expropriate their land and evict the people from their homes in order to create a national park?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the creation of a national park which I suppose the minister will call "mercury pollution national park" will in no way deal with the problem of loss of jobs and compensation for health as a result of mercury pollution, nor with the assessment of liability against the polluting company, I ask the minister how in heaven's name the creation of a national park in this polluted area will help the Indian people most directly affected?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has mixed up several matters. The prime thing the Indian people were interested in achieving was the closure of the park; the second was the question of compensation and the third was the question of the economic development of this area. We discussed these matters at some length and feel that with the vehicle of a national park we can best accomplish those three objectives.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister, in view of the unanimous opposition of the peoples of both affected reserves, still intend to proceed with this ridiculous scheme?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, if they continue with strong, unanimous opposition we shall certainly reconsider the scheme.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External

July 12, 1976
Oral Questions
Affairs. Has the Canadian government requested from the Vietnamese government any explanation as to why three Canadian missionaries have been expelled from Viet Nam, along with 23 other missionaries from other countries?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I must look into this question.


Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the minister is looking into these questions, will he also tell the House if the government of Canada intends to protest against the unwarranted expulsion of these Canadian citizens, and against this flagrant violation of the United Nations charter on freedom of movement of peaceful persons by the Vietnamese government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, once I have had an opportunity to examine the facts, I will make a judgment whether a protest is justified. If the action carries all the surrounding approbrium the hon. member alleges, of course we will make our views known to that government.


Claude Wagner: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise the House if the government is prepared to facilitate the return of those Canadian missionaries to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker; obviously.


DECLARATION OF 200-MILE FISHING ZONE-DISCUSSIONS WITH FRANCE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can reassure the House and country of the government's intention to proceed with the declaration of a 200-mile economic zone for Canada by the end of the year, notwithstanding French intentions in this regard? Perhaps the minister could also tell the House what progress has been made in talks with the French government regarding their intentions off Canada's east coast?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt but that the government will implement its decision to bring into effect Canadian jurisdiction not later than January 1, 1977. We have not had talks recently with the French government with regard to the implications of the extension of the 200-mile limit with respect to St. Pierre and Miquelon but we have made clear our views that the land mass of these islands when compared with the land mass of Newfoundland, justifies a more appropriate solution than that suggested by the French government.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask if Canada still holds to the position arrived at during talks at an earlier stage? Are we prepared to enter into some kind of reciprocal arrangement with France with regard to fishing rights off the east coast of Canada in those areas lying within the 200-mile limit off the French islands?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, our general policy has been to enter into bilateral discussions and reciprocal

arrangements where, in those arrangements, Canadian interests are fully protected and we would take that attitude with respect to the French.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister been privy to any rumour or report saying that three unauthorized military vehicles were recently discovered at the Olympic site, and that these vehicles contained explosives?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not heard that report, and am kept informed daily of the activities of the Canadian Armed Forces in support of the Olympics.


Robert Hylton Brisco: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the possibility that the report is accurate, I wonder if the minister will perhaps examine the circumstances and determine if these vehicles may have originated from a Montreal armoury and contained explosives which were in a deteriorated state and ready for disposal.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased if the hon. member would provide me with the source of his information; I will of course be ready to look into it. But I have no report of that kind.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last Friday night I had the opportunity to listen to the Prime Minister during a CBC broadcast, from 9:30 to 10:30 p.m. He was answering questions from French Canadian reporters. At least two of these reporters were block heads who could not and would not understand anything.
Does the Prime Minister feel he will have as much difficulty getting through to the air pilots and air traffic controllers as he experienced with these block heads during this Friday night interview?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has come to realize once more something of which we are all perfectly aware by now, namely, that there are block heads on both sides of the linguistic barrier.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary.
July 12, 1976

Has the government, in their meetings with the pilots or air controllers, managed to make them understand that the province of Quebec is an important province from the French point of view on an international basis in that it is, I believe, the third or fourth in rank among Francophone entities in the world? Do Anglophone pilots understand that they are not being kept from speaking English with the Quebec control towers? Far from it, they get their answers in English. But do they understand that two Francophone employees can discuss freely together, either from air to ground or ground to air, without anyone objecting to their use of French, just as we are not opposed to their using English in other Canadian provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member because, in the first part of his question, I believe, he states a fact which unfortunately has been distorted by adverse propaganda. The fact of the matter is that no one forces the pilots to speak French or to learn it so they can use it when they fly into Quebec. English remains the language they can use in Quebec as well as in Ottawa, Edmonton, Madrid or Rome. But they must be made to understand that, just as they accept to speak English and hear Spanish spoken when they get to Spain, they should be able to speak English while hearing French when they get to Quebec.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a final supplementary.
I fully share the Prime Minister's opinion on that matter, but how come he could not succeed and convince his former colleague and ex-minister, the hon. member for Langelier, of the reasonableness of what he has just stated in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit leader should know that it was not because he could not understand that that the Minister of Environment has resigned from the government, it is mostly because of his irritation at the systematic and voluntary inability to understand that by other Canadians.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbel:
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for St. John's East. The minister has confirmed on a number of occasions that the 200 mile limit will be implemented on January 1, 1977. As negotiations between Canada and France with regard to St. Pierre and Miquelon are hanging in the air, can the minister advise the House and the country when there will be a meeting with France on this important question? How many meetings have been held? Have any meetings been held with France since 1972 on this question?
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it will be necessary for the Canadian negotiators to have a meeting with the French
Oral Questions
authorities before the coming into effect of the extended jurisdiction. There are quite a number of meetings and quite a number of negotiations in play. We hope it will be possible to fit in a meeting with the French authorities before the coming into effect of the extended jurisdiction.


Mr. Marshall:: Has the minister been officially notified by the French government as to their intention to extend the 200 mile limit off St. Pierre and Miquelon?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had no official communication indicating the intention of the French government with regard to such an extension.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister inform the House of the government's reaction to the statement of the International Olympic Committee Board in the form of a direct appeal to the government "to review its attitude in keeping its word, and hold it entirely responsible for any harm which the Olympic movement may suffer"? That statement was made with regard to athletes from the Republic of China. What was the government's reaction to that statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the best answer to the Olympic committee and indeed to members of this House and the country who have shown concern, is that it is not our policy nor our practice to bar any athletes from the games. We welcome the athletes from Taiwan. We hope they will compete. We do not discriminate on the basis of sex, race or, indeed, national origin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All we are saying, and it seems to me this is a policy that would have the support of any member of this House regardless of his party provided he believes in a one China policy, is that we will not let athletes come into Canada under false representations and to pretend that they represent a country, China, that they do not represent. That is all we are saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Will the Prime Minister explain how his attitude has changed with regard to athletes from the Republic of China compared with delegates from the PLO who attended the Habitat Conference? He stated at that time that other people made the decision about who would be the delegates at international conferences. Why not in this particular instance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question was answered about two or three days ago.
Oral Questions FISHERIES

July 12, 1976


REASON FOR LACK OF PATROLS BY FISHERIES VESSELS ON THE WEST COAST
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fisheries). On June 14, page 14452 of Hansard, speaking of fishing patrols, the minister said:
I said in Montreal, and I say here, that we are doubling the level of boardings and inspections this year.
On the west coast the number of patrols by fisheries patrol vessels has dropped to zero. Can the minister give the House any assurance that he can find sufficient funds to resume the patrols that are required to maintain our sovereignty out to the 12 mile limit?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not want to mislead the House. I will of course take his question very seriously and look into the facts. I suspect what may have happened is that DND patrolling is taking place in some cases while Department of the Environment and Fisheries patrols are not. I will have to look at the facts. I suspect the hon. member is probably confusing the two.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I hope I am not confusing the minister. My question was about fisheries patrol vessels, not about DND vessels, with whose movements I am familiar. On the West Coast, the Laurier has been docked for over a month, the Tamu has been docked for over two weeks and the Howay has been laid up since April 20, all because of a 40 per cent cut in their annual operating budget which is keeping them from their periodic refits. Can the minister seriously contend that Canada is maintaining sufficient sovereignty under these conditions, that is, with all our fisheries patrol ships tied to the dock for lack of funds?


Roméo LeBlanc: The Tamu is under refit right now, which answers part of the hon. member's question. He obviously has not read the press release which indicates clearly that DND and Ministry of Transport vessels are undertaking patrol activities on our behalf and, as such, can be called fisheries patrol vessels since they are doing this job for us.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can he advise the House whether it is a practice of the Department of Public Works to agree in principle to lease buildings on which construction has not commenced and on land which the builder does not, at the time of the agreement, own?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: That would be a rather strange lease agreement.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It would, indeed, be a strange agreement. In the light of that answer could the hon. gentleman explain the minutes of the National Capital Commission Advisory Committee on Design of June 2, 1975, which state: "Campeau Corporation assembled the land for development before the NCC-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A question of that sort which relates to an event in June, 1975 ought surely to be raised another way.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Secretary of State has had an opportunity to travel to London to consult with his officials there regarding the activities of the London office, may I ask him whether he was correctly quoted in the London Free Press on Saturday as stating that his officials in London probably knew that two foreign students working on a government-funded project did not hold Canadian work permits and, if so, does he not feel they had a responsibility to bring this possible violation of the law to the attention of the proper authorities?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: What I pointed out to the reporter was that my officials had warned the two students involved that they were obliged to have work permits before they could work on a student community service project. I also pointed out that it was the responsibility of those administering the project, not only in London but right across the country, when they were hiring foreign students, to make sure they had work visas.


GIVING OF SECOND GRANT TO PERSON WHO HAD NOT COMPLETED FIRST PROJECT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Is the Secretary of State correctly quoted in the London Free Press to the effect that although the individual who last year received a government grant to prepare a film and a saleable book on the London Polish community by September, 1975 has so far completed nothing more than an essay for one of his professors, the fact that the church which helped him sponsor the project has not complained satisfies his concern? Or does he feel it was questionable for his department to give this individual a second grant this year in connection with another project?


James Hugh Faulkner: No,
Mr. Speaker. I spent some time talking to Father Peter who is the priest at the church concerned and who signed the submission. He pointed out to me that the submission was made to some 20 or 30 members of the Parish Council who debated the merits of the proposal, discussed whether the individual who applied was one they should support, who questioned whether or not he was too young, and so on. They satisfied themselves the project was all right and
July 12, 1976

went ahead. Incidentally, Father Peter is the only one who has seen the completed project. The critics have not seen it yet but that does not seem to have prevented their criticizing it in advance. Father Peter tells me he is quite satisfied with it as an independent history of the Polish community and is one which will probably serve the community well.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Considering that the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association instituted disciplinary procedures against their regional director in Quebec because he supported the establishment of bilingualism in air communications, and considering that section 8 of the agreement reached on June 28 between the minister, CATCA and CALPA amounts to depriving a controller who is being prosecuted for such an offence of the basic right of being defended by his union, can the Minister of Transport tell the House whether he proposes to suspend the application of section 8 until an appropriate defence procedure is established and to enable a controller being prosecuted to go on supporting the policy of bilingualism of the federal government? In addition, what measures does he intend to take to ensure that this situation does not recur?


Otto Emil Lang: It is our
intention that there should be a regulation which supports the rules which are in existence with regard to the flying and controlling of aircraft. It has always seemed to us to be extremely important that the rules be obeyed even while studies are going on to determine whether different rules should be put in place. It is true there is a difficulty in terms of union representation in present circumstances between CATCA and the controllers who are Francophone in obtaining the full services of the union on their behalf. I think this would only lead us to be very careful about the way in which proceedings against such a member would take place and perhaps to look for alternative procedures in which his defence could be full and adequate, notwithstanding his membership in CATCA.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the genial President of the Treasury Board. It relates to the decentralization of government services, a subject which I have raised on a number of occasions, in the light of the minister's most recent announcement involving Winnipeg, Moncton and St. John's bearing in mind that it would appear from the
Oral Questions
comments made in these announcements that high unemployment, indeed, continuing high unemployment, is part of the criteria taken into account when considering decentralization. Can the minister advise us whether he will soon be making another progressive statement in this regard involving Cape Breton Island where we have the qualified people and where we sure have continuing high unemployment?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I can tell the hon. member that we are thinking of it. We hope to make some further announcements on decentralization and I might add that in the case of Cape Breton I am receiving on a daily basis diplomatic notes from the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


HOUSING
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs but.in his absence today may I direct it to his parliamentary secretary? It concerns the recent announcement that some housing units are to be built in British Columbia under the rural remote areas housing plan. Does this plan fall within the government's rural and native housing policy and if so what process is being used to consult with local native people? Further, is this program available to residents of the Northwest Territories?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I shall have to take notice of that question. The minister is absent today but I am sure he will be able to answer it when he returns.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the hon. gentleman tell us when sports fishing will be banned on the English and Wabigoon rivers? Has he in his negotiations with provincial cabinet ministers from Ontario fixed a date when sports fishing on this river system will be stopped?


J. Judd Buchanan: At this juncture the federal and Ontario ministers present at the meeting must now take a proposal back to their respective governments. Both levels of government are very much aware of the urgency of the matter but we have to get approval from our respective governments before further action can be taken.

July 12, 1976
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH FRANCE ON STATUS OF ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind the right hon. gentleman's well known interest in the patria-tion of the constitution, may I ask whether, in any talks he might have had since he was Prime Minister with the French president or any authorities in France, there has been any discussion about the status of St. Pierre and Miquelon with a view to removing an anomaly of history which, while it does not greatly disturb Atlantic Canada, might well have considerable significance in the event of substantial oil discoveries and the implementation of a 200-mile fishing zone?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must humbly confess that I did not have the gall to raise that with the President. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition raised with the President of the United States the question of repatriating the panhandle either.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the Prime Minister's well known ability in gall- not Gaul but gall-I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would seriously consider the next time he or officials of the external affairs department, which seems to be more busy in travel than discussion, have the opportunity, raising the matter so this anomaly of history can be removed and we do not have to worry about balancing the interests of two small islands against the territorial mass of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in such important matters as this concerning Canadian territorial ambitions I would think it would be useful to have at least a bipartisan policy, so I will approach the Leader of the Opposition, when he is here, to see whether he is interested in forming a package in which we could claim a lot of land, including St. Pierre and Miquelon, the Alaskan panhandle and perhaps parts of Maine for New Brunswick. If I can get that support for a bipartisan policy we might also have a joint election campaign.


AIR CANADA
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to a question that I asked on June 25 which is reported at page 14840 of Hansard. Leaving out the portions that have nothing to do with the question, I said this:
Naturally, I am concerned over the revelations, to use the mildest term possible, as reported in the Toronto Sun yesterday's date and the Globe and Mail of today, concerning promiscuity in the issuance of passes. In the absence of the minister concerned-
I was referring, of course, to the Minister of Supply and Services.
-who apparently admitted everything contained in the statements, I will just ask one question: Has there been any change made by Air Canada concerning qualifications on the part of spouses for passes, and why is it that a pass was issued to one described as a common law wife, an expression which of course is non-existent except in the vocabulary of certain people?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would not speak of changes in policy but I would confirm that Air Canada does have a general policy of dealing with common law wives, which they know has a definition in connection with passes, for instance, for their employees and presumably by extention for other categories. Of course, the expression is also well known in the administration of other programs and is becoming better known all the time in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister in question made common law wives well known in the vocabulary of our country. My question arising out of his answer is this: Why did the corporation grant the request of the minister to issue a pass for which there is no justification to one whom he described quite frankly as his common law wife?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think that answer was given rather fully in the same case when the incident was raised, and quite frankly I regret the right hon. gentleman taking the time of this House to raise that specific point at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I now give the answer and I ask what portion of it the minister is referring to. I feel very sorry he is exasperated and I express my deep regret to him in that regard. The Minister of Transport replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is accurate to say that that was the description used in the past.
That is, a common law wife.
However, I will be glad to have a look at what is the current policy of Air Canada with regard to passes and to report more fully on whether there have been any changes since the time the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister.
The minister says today the answer was given on June 25. Why the cover-up, I would ask?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the right hon. gentleman taking this trouble to draw my attention in the House to the fact that the word "past" appears in the third line of the reply, whereas the word "pass" should appear. I will see whether that correction helps him.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege concerning a statement made some days ago by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and which, in my opinion, is detrimental to the privileges of

July 12, 1976

hon. members, particularly those representing the province of Quebec.
This is related to the vote on capital punishment held in the House last week. According to a press release, the hon. member said that during a reception I gave for all members from Quebec, certain undue pressures were exerted on them, and I quote the statement he is reported to have made:

He made them believe the government could fall if the bill was defeated. They were also told if they voted for abolition they would have more chance of advancement, possibly being appointed parliamentary assistants and get government trips.

Mr. Speaker, my first reaction after reading such a statement was to burst out laughing, as did a good many members. I do not think, however, that we should remain silent about it because I feel it affects the privileges of hon. members. It questions not only my own integrity concerning my relations with members but also the reputation of government members who represent the population of Quebec.
I positively and categorically deny that I, or anybody I know, have or has approached Quebec members to influence them about a free vote. I declare that all members from Quebec who were present in the House voted freely according to their own conscience. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe should withdraw this assertion from his statement:

It's silly, but it impressed some.

I believe that his statement is not only silly but scandalous and if the hon. member is a gentleman, he will apologize to hon. members of the House.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Outremont was rising on a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Speak French.


Claude Wagner: I hear people from the other side say to me again "in French". Did they not listen to the program in which the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) called upon Quebecers to support him in his bilingual program?


An hon. Member:: You may speak as much as you want, but at least be clear.


Claude Wagner: The hon. member could at least say "vous" to me instead of "tu".

I thought the minister and hon. member for Outremont was rising on a question of privilege to apologize to the majority of Canadians for the betrayal by the cabinet on the question of capital punishment.


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


Claude Wagner: However, I notice that he is more worried about his cocktail parties, about the timing of the cocktail party, about how much was drunk, whether or not it influenced some people, whether or not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: I think he should be allowed to finish.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: You let the minister go on, and he did not have a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not propose to stop the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe continuing to make an equal contribution to the question of privilege. However, I insist that he stay within the limits of the question of privilege that has been raised.


Claude Wagner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will do my best to abide by your ruling. I was suggesting that the minister was preoccupied with his cocktail party. I think it is the responsibility of the Speaker to decide if there is a well-founded question of privilege in this case. I may chide the hon. member for Outremont for relying on a press clipping emanating from the Globe and Mail whose correspondent secured the information-


An hon. Member:: From you.


Claude Wagner: No, not from me, but by listening at 8.15 in the morning to a seven-minute program on CKEC, Montreal, and who probably did not grasp all the nuances that were made in the declaration, which declaration followed immediately after the declaration by the hon. member for Outremont which was an attempt to extricate his government from the blunder of the Trudeau-Lang-Sauve approach to cabinet solidarity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Prime Minister is getting so annoyed. That is awful. Perhaps he will cool off for a few minutes and maybe he will get his money's-worth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: In order that you are able to appreciate the situation, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I did declare on that program that it was shameful and, I think, in very poor taste for the Quebec leader of the Liberal caucus to hold a potent cocktail party a few hours before the vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Wagner: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the celebrations had nothing to do with the vote, because the vote was on Tuesday night and usually these celebrations are on Wednesday night. Maybe it was designed to strengthen the grasp the Quebec leader has on the Liberal caucus, or maybe it was designed to show that he does rise above the

July 12, 1976
Oral Questions
ankle of the hon. member for Langelier as leader of the Quebec party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Wagner: I for one, declare that I do not believe the rumour that whoever arrived at the cocktail party arrived by a Seagram's jet. I do not believe that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Wagner: Now the Prime Minister is getting angry again. I am so sorry. I like the Prime Minister when he is smiling. What did occur, Mr. Speaker, is that eight Liberal MPs, avowed retentionists, changed their vote under pressure.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Claude Wagner: I am sure that this pressure did not include pressure by the hon. member for Outremont, because he is obviously above such cheap tactics.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Wagner: In any event, Mr. Speaker, that performance, added to the Prime Minister's verbal harangue in this House, succeeded in defeating the will of the majority of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Joe Clark had no effect on your party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What about Stanfield?


Claude Wagner: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would not only reiterate what I have just said, but add that I have nothing to retract from what I said, and I would even welcome wholeheartedly any motion by the hon. member for Outremont which would refer this matter to the committee on privileges and elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: I assure hon. members that the information submitted would require more than the presence of a doctor in the House to come to the aid of the Liberal backbenchers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Wagner: However, Mr. Speaker, I shall let the matter rest in your hands. I am convinced that when an election comes-and it will not be too soon-those hon. members will receive the verdict in their ridings that they should obtain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Try another one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The proposed question of privilege has not been followed by a motion. It implicated one other member of the House who has now responded

with equal time. No motion is attached to the alleged question of privilege and therefore, no action is required of the Chair. As far as the Chair is concerned, the matter is closed.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, on my supplementary to a carefully prepared question you called me out of order, apparently because I was referring to some specific minutes. The minutes I referred to contained actions that were very germane to the first question and, indeed, confirmed by answer given by the minister that the deal I was referring to was indeed strange. I am wondering if I might have a reason why I was cut off so quickly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to an attempt at an answer a few minutes ago by the Minister of Transport. I cannot complain that he has not answered in full. All I can say is that this manner in which he endeavoured to pretend he was answering indicates an attitude on the part of this government to cover up, conceal, and not reveal. It is the finest example I know of during the present session of a government that is forever hiding the truth.
I am surprised that the Minister of Supply and Services has not risen to explain the unexplainable, namely, his conduct, admitted in the press, of having got in touch with Air Canada to obtain a pass for what he describes as his common law wife. I cannot insist on an answer, but this is indicative of the manner in which the minister pretended to answer today, and knowing I was going to rise he coincidentally disappeared from the House as fast as he could.


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Speaker, I would like, first, to say that I did not use the words suggested by the right hon. member when I spoke to Air Canada. The words I used were that I had a personal and very stable relationship. Secondly, I asked for a courtesy ticket, and it was issued with the provision that the ruling would be made according to the normal practices of Air Canada in respect of its own employees. The ruling was not made, and I decided to reimburse the company, which I did. That's it.


John George Diefenbaker: After the investigation started.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of answers given to me by the Minister of Transport in connection with the questions I raised regarding the air navigation order and its status. I regret that the minister is not in the House at this time, but I feel compelled to rise because I believe the minister may have inadvertently misled the House. If he did not mislead the House, then to say the least he did leave a number of questions unanswered and in fact confused this very sensitive issue more than it is confused right now.
The minister left the impression that the air navigation order, series 1, No. 1, which was dated June 30, was not published in the Canada Gazette because it requires an amendment based upon technical grounds and the details were in fact being worked out in consultation with all parties to the agreement. Section 8 of the memorandum of
July 12, 1976

Native Claims Settlement Act



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
agreement provides as follows, and I will read it for the information of hon. members:
That Transport Canada will submit before July 1 a recommendation to the Privy Council which the government will process expeditiously-
I emphasize the word "expeditiously".
-and publish in the Canada Gazette at the earliest possible date as an air navigation order with regard to the use of language in the air, and Transport Canada undertakes to pursue the enforcement thereof.
I need not remind the House that today is July 12 and that the matter has not been fully complied with as yet. But what is most irritating is that we are informed now that the air navigation order, series 1, No. 1, file 75/519, which was brought forth on June 30 has now been revoked as of July 7. In my view, this has the effect of nullifying the terms of the agreement. In fact, it deviates from the very heart of the agreement and from the principal conditions of the memorandum. Second, the memorandum of agreement provides, as an inherent condition provided for consultation between all members of the air navigation industry-
['With a great deal of pleasure.']
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely, the hon. member realizes he is getting into an interpretation, or disagreement with the minister which, while it may be a valid point of disagreement, goes far beyond the question of whether the minister intentionally or otherwise misled the House in the answer he gave today. The hon. member has made his point more than adequately, and it seems to me that he should not be permitted to go into a debate at this time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presenting reports-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has received the ruling from the Chair in respect of an extension of the question period. If the hon. member has a new question to raise by way of a question of privilege, I will hear him. If it is simply to question the ruling that has been made, I do not think I can entertain his question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The minister left the impression that on technical grounds the air navigation order was being amended. The fact is that the air navigation order has been revoked, and the minister did not say that in the House. I believe that deliberately, or inadvertently, he has misled the House, and that is my question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. What I indicated to the hon. member for Vegreville was precisely that he was given the floor to register the fact that there was an interpretation of the circumstances which would lead to the conclusion that the minister may have inadvertently or otherwise misled the House. I thought the hon. member had made that point but was going into a debate.



[Stage Direction]
First report of Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members-Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies, in both official languages, of the report to the trustees of the King George V Silver Jubilee Cancer Fund for Canada, as required by section 4 of the King George V Cancer Fund Winding-Up Act.


SUPREME COURT ACT
John Douglas Reynolds: for leave to introduce Bill C-443, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Supreme Court Act and assure that British Columbia has permanent representation on the bench. In view of the political decisions being made by the court lately, the sooner this bill becomes law, the better.
Motion agreed, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


JAMES BAY AND NORTHERN QUEBEC NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT MEASURE TO APPROVE AND DECLARE CERTAIN AGREEMENTS BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC AND QUEBEC ORGANIZATIONS
J. Judd Buchanan: for leave to introduce Bill C-98, to approve, give affect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Societe d'Energie de la Baie James, la Societe de Developpement de la Baie James, la Commission Hydro-Electrique de Quebec and the Government of

July 12, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Canada and certain other related agreement to which the Government of Canada is a party.
Motion agreed, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,980, 5,112, and 5,687.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Has the Canadian International Development Agency ever made grants for the creation of projects in foreign countries and, if so, how many?
2.	For each such grant, what was the (a) name of the project (b) location of the project (c) year it was made (d) amount?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes, since it was established the Canadian International Development Agency has made many thousands of grants to developing countries to provide direct economic, technical and social development assistance to these countries. From 1968 to date, CIDA has made grants to developing countries in the following amounts:
Year	Amount
1968-69	$133,503,723.18
1969-70	156,593.396.05
1970-71	193,303,414.15
1971-72	197,454,117.93
1972-73	245,903,031.66
1973-74	262,192,803.90
1974-75	333,749,668.83
1975-76*	382,946,791.00
*Expenditures up to 31-1-76
2. The data required to answer this part of the question are not maintained for the years prior to 1969-70. Since 1970, there have been many thousands of grants made. To provide the information requested for each and every one of these grants would involve massive research which could be done only with the expenditure of large amounts of both time and resources, which during this period of financial restraint, are not available.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the government's best estimate of its dollar level contribution to the gross provincial product of Nova Scotia in each year for which figures are available since 1968?
2.	For each such year, what percentage of Nova Scotia's gross provincial product does the federal spending represent?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1 and 2. No official federal estimate exists of Nova Scotia's Gross Product, nor do official estimates exist of the total contribution of all federal government actions to economic activity in Nova Scotia. Estimates of Nova Scotia's gross provincial product are available from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, and estimates of expenditures in Nova Scotia under a number of major federal programs are available from Statistics Canada. These estimates are shown in the first panel below. The second panel shows the expenditure estimates expressed as percentages of estimated gross provincial product though this is only to provide a general indication of their importance relative to the size of the Nova Scotia economy. These percentage figures do not, in any way, represent estimates of contributions to gross provincial product. Apart from federal wages, the expenditure series shown are not actual components of gross provincial product. They are, however, major sources of financing for personal expenditures and for expenditures by the provincial and local government expenditures. Many other federal actions, expenditures, revenues and non-budgetary actions, both in and outside Nova Scotia, influence Nova Scotia's economy directly or indirectly.
Federal Payments to Persons and Governments in Nova Scotia
	Nova Scotia			Transfers to
	Gross			Provincial-
Provincial	Wages	Transfers	LocalProduct	and Salaries	to Persons	Governments(in $ millions)	1971	2,532	247	218	2361972	2,871	278	281	2791973	3,230	307	322	3461974	3,780	346	397	400(as per cent Nova Scotia Gross Provincial	Product)	1971	9.8	8.6	9.31972	9.7	9.8	9.71973	9.5	10.0	10.71974	9.2	10.5	10.6


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For what reason did the government decide to phase in the metric system at the present pace instead of implementing the change at the same time as the United States?
2.	Is the government prepared to make special financial assistance available to businesses and other organizations for whom the introduction of the metric system will create a heavy financial burden and, if so, what is the nature of such assistance and to whom should inquiries and applications be made?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Canadian sector plans and schedules to take into account the interdependency of conversion activities in Canada with those in other countries, particularly in the USA. Although Canada is slightly ahead of the USA with its Investigation and Planning, much progress has already been made in the USA. Each sector committee in Canada has developed or is still
July 12, 1976

developing a plan which takes into account the extent to which programs of conversion in Canadian industries require to be coordinated with similar programs in the United States.
2. A program of loans is available to small business; such loan assistance is available to business facing special financing difficulties resulting from metric conversion when such businesses are unable to obtain financing from commercial lending institutions. The loans and counselling services to small business are available through the facilities of the Federal Business Development Bank. There is no indication in Canada or in other countries that the introduction of the metric system will create a heavy financial burden. Refer to the following background information for further explanation.
Background Information:
1.	The U.S. Metric Conversion Act was signed by President Ford December 23, 1975. Despite previous delays in the passing of this legislation, U.S. industry, coordinated by the American National Metric Council (ANMC) has been proceeding with metric conversion for three years. The Metric Commission is keeping in close touch with developments in the United States in regard to the adoption of metric standards and measurements, and its sector committees maintain liaison with their opposite number ANMC sector committees which now number 34. Each sector committee in Canada has developed or is still developing a plan which takes into account the extent to which programs of conversion in Canadian industries require to be coordinated with similar programs in the United States. The Canadian Program of Guideline Dates for Metric Conversion is a four phase program. The first or Investigation Phase where sector and steering committees are formed and policies and strategies agreed upon is essentially complete. The second or Planning Phase is about 50 per cent complete, and the third or Scheduling Phase now underway. Canadian sector plans and schedules do take into account the interdependency of conversion activities in Canada with those in other countries, particularly in the USA. Although Canada is slightly ahead of the USA with its Investigation and Planning, much progress has already been made in the USA. It is anticipated that in many sectors, where close coordination is essential, that the fourth or Implementation Phase will proceed at about the same pace in both countries. The fact that the USA has not publicized very many sector plans or schedules so far, should not blind us to the very rapid progress they are making, nor to the ability of the US economy to implement change quickly now that the basic decision has been made.
2.	The policy of the government in regard to Metric conversion was outlined in the White Paper on Metric Conversion laid before the House in January 1970 and approved by the leaders of all parties. In the White Paper the overall policy is that the costs of conversion will be borne by those incurring them just as the benefits flowing from conversion will accrue to the individual organizations either directly or through the general health of the economy. The policy does not, however, preclude any adjustment of the incidence of costs that might be desirable to avoid unjust burden on any individual group or sector of the economy or to guide and stimulate the conversion process in particular sectors to the advantage of the country as a
Order Paper Questions
whole. To this effect three financial concessions are at present under consideration by government in addition to the program of loans which has now been worked out with the Federal Business Development Bank. The first concerns employed persons required to own measurement sensitive tools for the performance of their duties who, as a result of Metric conversion, are compelled to duplicate tools. As envisaged this concession would consist of a cash reimbursement amounting to 50 per cent of the cost of such duplicate tools and made retroactive to January 1, 1976. The second concerns the owners of retail scales. Under consideration is the provision that parts and units required for the conversion of scales or weighing devices from imperial measure to metric measure or for replacement of scales in imperial measures by scales in metric measure be allowed entry into Canada free of duty and be exempt from payment of Federal Sales Tax. The third concession would be that net capital expenses incurred by firms or undertakings in replacement of imperial scales or weighing devices by metric scales or weighing devices be allowed as an expense for purposes of corporate income tax in the year of installation. Such concessions would be in effect for the limited period of the conversion phase, anticipated, at present, to be five years for tradesmen's tools and two years, beginning in mid 1978, for scales and weighing devices.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 3,121 and 5,095 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were any aircraft purchased by the government from the T. Eaton Co. Ltd. and, if so (a) what type (b) on what date (c) at what cost (d) for what purpose (e) on what date and by whom were negotiations commenced for such purchase (f) for what reason was such purchase not listed in the answer to Question No. 344?
2.	How many times, for what occasions and on what dates was such aircraft used (a) by the Prime Minister or any member of his family (b) by any Cabinet Minister?
3.	What is the identity of all those involved in using such aircraft?
4.	Did the Prime Minister or any member of his family or anyone else in government fly in such aircraft prior to the government officially becoming the owner and, if so (a) on what dates (b) for what purpose (c) what is the identity of all such persons involved?
Return tabled.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	For 1974-75, what was the total value of agricultural exports, except cereals?
2.	What were the products exported?
3.	What was the number of pounds or tons of the products?

July 12, 1976
Order Paper Questions
4.	For the same period, did Canada import agricultural products and, if so (a) what were they (b) in what quantity in each case?
Return tabled.


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


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The answer to question No. 3121, until the parliamentary secretary mentioned that he was prepared to table it, had not been given, and I was about to ask why that was so simply because he had given us a guarantee shortly before the Christmas recess that all questions on the order paper prior to that date would be answered before the House adjourned, which is likely to be tomorrow or the next day. Now he has answered the question, but the answer has been tabled rather that included in Hansard.
In view of the fact that the question was whether a jet was purchased from the T. Eaton Company by the government, in view of the fact that this question was not answered when question No. 344 was answered, and in view of the fact that the question asks how many times the Prime Minister, his family and the cabinet ministers used this jet both after its purchase and before it was purchased from the T. Eaton Company, I feel that it is unacceptable for the answer to this question to be tabled. Whether it is an honest answer or the usual government cover-up answer, this answer should be not tabled, but inserted in Hansard.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary two questions which I have on the order paper. The first is question No. 3565 which I filed on the order paper last November 14 and has been on the order paper for the longest period of time. I am wondering whether the parliamentary secretary might be able either to expedite the answering of this question or give some reason as to the delay. I am a bit concerned that the government may not feel it is a very serious question because it asks whether it has given consideration to requiring that government documents be put into readable and understandable language so that the average citizen may understand them. I assure the parliamentary secretary that that is not a flippant question; I was very serious.
Another question I thought I might bring to his attention was placed on the order paper on May 28, with respect to the government's 1976 census. In view of the fact that we are about to adjourn for the summer recess, the current aspect of the question would be lost if it were allowed to be held over until the fall, and I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary will do whatever he can to expedite the answering of that question.


Jean-Jacques Blais: With a great deal of pleasure.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the third time and do pass, and the motion thereto of Mr. Condon.
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, we have now reached a point where we have one more vote in so far as determining whether Bill C-84 will become law. If it becomes law, the abolition of capital punishment will become a reality in this nation. One would have to assume, having examined the votes which took place both on second reading and during the report stage, that we have reached a point where it is likely that capital punishment will be abolished in Canada for all crimes, including high treason and skyjacking, as well as for the murder of police officers and prison employees.
I do not intend to take a great deal of time today, but I want to point out some facts which give me a great deal of concern both with regard to the coming events in Montreal in so far as terrorists and their activities are concerned and with regard to the situations which will develop both in law enforcement in the nation and in the work of employees in penitentiaries. We have to appreciate that the elimination of high treason as a capital offence could be an open invitation to many terrorists in the world and will take away some of the protection which might have been available to Olympic athletes who could face terrorist activity as was the case at the last Olympic Games in Munich.
This is a rather appropriate day upon which to discuss this matter because it is the anniversary of the murder of the Isreali athletes who were in Munich strictly as athletes participating and endeavouring to show the excellence of their sports ability and who died because they happened to come from a country which certain terrorists believed should see the degree of disrespect they felt for that country, for human life, for humanity in general and certainly for any aspect of international law. So it is an appropriate day for a member of parliament to consider the situation once again and to make a decision on whether capital punishment should continue for certain individuals.
In so far as law enforcement in this country is concerned, I am very fearful that as a result of the action of this parliament, which is certainly contrary to the view of almost every law enforcement officer in this nation, there will be a change in attitude on the part of law enforcement officers. If parliament will not react to the wishes of the great majority of the people of this nation and impose capital punishment on those who carry out the murder of police officers and penitentiary employees, I am fearful that in too many instances in the days ahead we will see police officers taking the law into their own hands and shooting first and asking questions later, rather than believing that the courts of the land will deal properly with individuals who embark upon the kind of crimes
July 12, 1976

which the law now says should call for the supreme penalty.
Canadians may well see law enforcement officers embarking upon an altogether different approach, not being willing to risk their lives in endeavouring to stop crime or to apprehend criminals in the way they did previously, because they now know that parliament has ignored their wishes that the death penalty be retained, has ignored the wishes of the great majority of the Canadian people, and has even ignored the attitude of the supreme court of the United States which recently indicated that it still believes, contrary to an earlier decision, that there are crimes which call for the forfeiting of one's life.
This parliament is ignoring the will of the people. We are saying to the people that we are superior to them and that we know better than they do what the law of the land should be. In other words, once elected we are disregarding their views, and every time we do that we drive another nail into the coffin of democracy because there is just no way people can continue to respect this institution if it has no respect for the institution's point of view.
There can be no doubt in the mind of the public that this parliament has indicated, by the votes which have been taken up to now, that it has no respect for the great majority of the public as far as capital punishment is concerned. I regret this deeply. I do not believe that parliament and parliamentarians today are highly regarded, because all too often we ignore the wishes of the Canadian people on crucial issues which they really believe in; and the more often we do that, the less likely it is that we can raise the standard of parliament and improve its relationship with the people. If we do not do that, all the talk about participatory democracy, people's politics, and so forth, are just hollow words. They are words politicians can say, but when it comes to the crunch politicians really do not believe in them. If politicians do not believe in them, before very long, if it is not happening now, the public will be so sour about parliament and parliamentarians that it will say that parliament is just incidental and is not really important.
The public will say that what we really have in this country is a benevolent dictatorship under which every four years the people are given the opportunity to elect members to carry out their wishes, but it turns out that those wishes are ignored or superseded when it comes to really important matters of the day.
The one amendment that was passed provided that capital punishment will be retained for individuals who commit murder a second time. That is some small benefit to employees of penal institutions, but is of no major benefit to prison employees and law enforcement officers. It will be of benefit to prison employees if the government carries out the sentence, but nothing in the history of this government shows that such punishment will be carried out even when it is written in the statute. That concerns me, as it does many Canadians, and I am sure it is the reason so many people believe there should be capital punishment. As the murder statistics grow, an increasing number of policemen and employees in penitentiaries have
Capital Punishment
been killed, so the public want to see the death penalty carried out.
In the end, Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this House will be sorry that parliament did not react the way the public has indicated it should act. A growing number of crimes that were at one time punishable by death will become statistics in the days ahead as a result of the stand we have taken.
I feel sorry for the people who have assumed the responsibility of working in our penitentiaries. Some have been there for many years and would like to leave, but because they must have security for their families cannot leave now and start all over again. Inmates who have not committed murder will be forced to stay longer in penal institutions when in some instances it would be more realistic to shorten their period of imprisonment. Indeed, I believe that about one third of all inmates should not even be in institutions. Surely there are other methods just as appropriate for rehabilitating criminals who are not guilty of vicious crimes. The government felt it would have to be harsh on all criminals in order to secure agreement for abolition of the death penalty, so now they are all to suffer and become charges on the state. We should be moving toward releasing them on parole, with proper supervision, to prepare them to become contributing members to the community.
The whole matter is very sad, Mr. Speaker, because it ignores the rights and views of Canadian citizens who pay the bills. It is sad because we adopt a hard line when we should be moving toward greater rehabilitation, and inmates who are not hardened criminals will become so if they remain in our institutions for a longer period of time. It is sad because parliament is going to mean less to the Canadian public: it really is not an institution that mirrors the view of the people who sent us here. As a result of the voting on this legislation that has taken place up to now, we have become very unrepresentative and this damages the faith and respect that people have for the institution. It is a sad day for parliament and Canada, and I am sorry that parliament has acted this way with the legislation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet must take a great deal of the responsibility for parliament's action. There is no other way that as many individuals as are in the cabinet could have voted one after the other in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, especially if a member voted a different way when he was not a member of cabinet. It is an indication that freedom of vote does not exist in the cabinet. That being the case, it reflects on parliament. That is probably the saddest thing of all, Mr. Speaker.
One area of this parliament that should be most reflective of the view of the general public is the executive branch, the cabinet. After all, they make the laws of this nation, and if they do not appreciate what the public wants, God help them and God help parliament. There will be less respect for parliament and the public will not want to participate to such a great extent, in days ahead, in the democratic process.
After all, a person's vote will not mean much if after a general election the representative pays no heed to the

July 12, 1976
Capital Punishment
views of his constituents. We can say all we want about following our conscience, about being leaders and not followers, and all the other things. We can quote Edmund Burke to our heart's content. Yet if we want parliament to reflect the point of view of the nation, parliament must listen to the nation. That parliament is not listening is clear if one looks at the bill before the House. It is also clear, if one examines other legislation which this parliament has passed. In the end, parliament, democracy and every person in this country will suffer. As far as I am concerned, these remarks apply especially to this peace of legislation.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-84 is coming to an end. A great many members have taken the opportunity to express their views, but seldom those of their constituents, because I still maintain that 85 or 90 per cent of the population favour retention of capital punishment in specific cases, where there is absolutely no doubt about guilt.
Several members have spoken about a free vote. I also dit it recently and I even stated to the press that the free vote seemed to me rather like a lot of eyewash, a manouver to allow the government, the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand), to have Bill C-84 passed, a bill nobody wants in Canada. Once more, I ask the Solicitor general, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government: who requested from the government the introduction of such a piece of legislation, when it has absolute authority to commute all death sentences to life imprisonment? What organization used its influence so that the government introduce Bill C-84?
A short while ago, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) replied to the question of privilege raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to the effect that it was a free vote and there was no coercion, no strong pressures applied on members. However, I talked with two Liberal members whose names I shall not mention who told me that the ministers were twisting their arms to make them vote the way the government wanted, that is for Bill C-84. They threatened them, for example, to have a convention in their ridings before the next election or they told them that if they did not agree with the government they would not have access to electoral funds if an election were called within one or two years.
And I congratulate the member for Saint-Hyacinthe for having upheld his views this afternoon. But what surprised me in his case is that he blamed the government for disregarding the wishes of 90 per cent of voters. He was applauded by the Progressive Conservatives while he should have started by persuading his own leader (Mr. Clark) who voted for abolition and the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Stanfield) who, two years ago, voted also for the abolition of capital punishment.
It is all very nice to throw stones into a neighbour's garden, but the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe should try to change the mind of his own leader who voted with the government on the capital punishment issue. I understand that this is a free vote, that the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party may vote in favour of the aboli-

tion of capital punishment, but is he thus respecting the will of the vast majority of the voters? Is he taking into account the pressures exerted upon him and the government by various chiefs of police, chiefs of firemen, prison guards and various organizations, these pressures aiming at maintaining law and order in a country such as Canada? What are their reaction to these pressures? What are they saying? Not a word.
We have received a document from policemen of the City of Calgary, in Alberta, the home province of the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. How does he react to the opinion of these people who are blaming the government for not respecting the greater majority of the Canadian public? Is he aware of the hoax being committed by some Liberal and Progressive Conservative members? I feel that the Liberals who are in power are responsible for the introduction of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I was listening to three inmates who answered questions at Temps Present, on CBC. Some inmates supported the death penalty rather than 25-year imprisonment, others said that it was more dangerous, among others a newsman named Claude Poirier who stated that the new legislation would make it more dangerous than before for policemen.
Mr. Speaker, even the Solicitor General does not give a hoot about public opinion, the Prime Minister does not give a hoot about public opinion, those people in the government do not care about organized groups, about the policemen we pay. What will policemen have in the future to defend themselves against criminals, usually against hardened criminals? At the present time, a policeman running after bandits to arrest them will fire one shot in the air to warn them that he is firing at them. In the future, the policeman will fire at the criminal first and he will fire the second shot in the air instead of the first one. So the Solicitor General will blame policemen and say that they were too quick, that they did not take the trouble to examine or to question the criminal before firing at him.
As I said recently, an individual came at my door in Hull with a revolver. Was his revolver registered at the office of the RCMP? I doubt it.
Can we assume that police officers will come and go with the assurance that their life will be respected in the name of humanism? What humanism?
Since the vote on second reading, we have received communications, we have received letters, and I have one here from the Province of Quebec Police and Fire Chiefs Association, law and order people, an association which dates back to 1926. They wrote and I quote:
Mr. Real Caouette, M.P.
House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Caouette:
We just learned with consternation that Bill C-84 dealing with the abolition of capital punishment in Canada has just been given second reading in the House. It is difficult to restrain our deep deception and the deception of millions of Canadians at this unfortunate setback, an open door onto a dubious future. Acting on the authority of public opinion to which we are consistently listening, we send you herewith this brief.
July 12, 1976

A 35-page brief which has been submitted to the Solicitor General as well as to the federal cabinet. I go on with the quotation:
The latter, far more than the right alone of the association will bring, we are convinced of it, new and decisive arguments to strengthen the open and frank position of those who oppose the bill, and to win over the dissidents.
The stakes are high, namely our institutions, the security of each and every Canadian citizen, law and order in our land.
Sincerely,
J. P. Pelletier, President
In addition, I have a letter from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, 116 Albert St., Ottawa. I quote: Comments addressed to members of the House of Commons and addendum to the CACP brief on capital punishment
In view of the possibility that Bill C-84 on capital punishment may not be referred to the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Justice and Legal Affairs, we wish to draw your attention to the following observations:
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is studying with keen interest the debate now in progress on capital punishment and we wish to assure each and everyone that we respect all opinions expressed, as well by those who want abolition as those who would keep the death penalty.
Through the briefs we have already presented on that matter, we have clearly indicated our position in favour of retention and any further discussion would only bore you. However we wish to point out that in none of the speeches delivered so far is there any of our recommendation . ..
They will now have the assurance that someone did mention their recommendation in the House of Commons. I go on with the quotation:
. . . that a committee be set up with people representing the executive, the legislative and the judiciary to examine carefully the permanent banishment of an offender and its alternatives. The alternative proposed in Bill C-84 does not stem from careful consideration but can be considered as a deceptive replacement so that capital punishment will be deleted from our legislation. This assertion is based largely on the comments made by the hon. Warren Allmand to the John Howard Society in Ottawa, on April 8 last, when asked that question, that of course a 25-years term was too harsh but that first we had to get rid of capital punishment and then we could all work together to reduce this imprisonment period.
Do you realize the sincerity and frankness of the Solicitor General of Canada? He is an hypocrit and a liar, in my opinion, nothing else, by moving bill to abolish capital punishment, just so he can later reduce the number of years from 25 to 5, 10, 7 or 8 years. The Solicitor General has it in mind, but he is not frank enough to say so here in the House.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police goes on, and I quote:
Such a philosophy deeply concerns us because even if the period proposed under Bill C-84 remains in force, it includes a threat and a much graver danger to our society and more particularly to our prison guards.
In view of this philosophy, we submit that the minimum sentence of 25 years as provided in Bill C-84 is a false flashy representation because, in practice, an individual would have the right to ask, after serving 15 years, a reduction of his sentence.
We also believe that a minimum sentence of 10 years in some murder cases is much too severe compared with that of the odious individual who thinks only of killing for money.
No matter where those contract murderers operate, be it in Quebec or elsewhere, they belong to the same kind, to
Capital Punishment
the same rapacious gang, ready to take the life of anyone as long that they get money to do it. I resume the quotation:
What is the protection given to those whose duties are to keep this vicious mafia? A'prison sentence merely means that the person who deserves capital punishment will be able to kill at will. Even with retention of capital punishment, the traditional commuting would have the same effect.
Since we, as representatives of police forces throughout Canada, have a knowledge of criminal life accessible to very few people outside our profession, we feel duty bound to express our deepest concern directly to you, our legislator. Furthermore, the police community and even all our society remains certainly perplex after hearing coming from the same breath a plea for the a survival of a political party and the abolition of capital punishment. The conscience of the legislator should not be troubled the least bit concerning capital punishment, since the public itself has expressed time and time again its desire to retain it.
The ministers are well aware of that, even hon. members, particularly those I know well and who are from the province of Quebec. Yesterday, speaking on CJMS radio in Montreal, I said so plainly. I took a riding as an example, that of Montreal-Mercier, where 95 per cent of the population is in favour of retaining capital punishment. How can the member who represents them in this House say: "When the free vote is taken, freely and conscientiously, I vote against 95 per cent of my constituents".
Mr. Speaker, this also applies to the hon. member forBo-naventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine. I challenge the hon. member-


Mr. Bechard:: Yes!


David Réal Caouette: -to accompany me in his constituency to conduct a poll-


Albert Béchard: I made one.


David Réal Caouette: -and find out that the majority favour retention.


Albert Béchard: I voted four times for abolition.


David Réal Caouette: -for abolition. What made him change his mind? Are the pressures of the government compelling him to vote for the abolition of the death penalty?


Albert Béchard: Speak for yourself!


David Réal Caouette: He is the undecided type who always follows the party.
Mr. Speaker, I go on with my quote:
If we are convinced, beyond any doubt, that the death penalty has a deterrent effect,...


Albert Béchard: Nonsense.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine says that it is nonsense. I offer to send a letter to his riding-


Albert Béchard: I already made a poll.


David Réal Caouette: -and so to prove to him that the majority of the people in his riding favour the death penalty in Canada. The hon. member rises to tell me

July 12, 1976
Capital Punishment
that I lied, if I lied. He knows that I am right, because what I say is right.
The whole population of Canada thinks that way. Not only the constituents of the hon. member's riding, everybody has the same feeling.


Albert Béchard: Speak for yourself.


David Réal Caouette: No, I also speak for Canadians. I am the leader of a national party, I speak for the guidance of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police goes on:
... and we challenge anyone to prove to us the contrary ...
-to show us that this has become a frightening danger.
... the legislator should maybe have on his conscience the killings of police officers and prison guards because of the absence of appropriate protection.
Each member of our association eagerly awaits the day when no punishment will be necessary.
And so do I. Mr. Speaker, nobody likes hanging, not even those who favour the death penalty.
Hanging is for the real and known killer who will never be brought back to a normal or a reasonable way of life, and, Mr. Speaker, we tell them: The killers have been warned and if they kill they know what to expect. But no, the government prefers to protect criminals, even to the detriment of society, and to the detriment of its people. The police officers write on:
Unfortunately, the nature of man is such that there will always be some people who will be hostile to their neighbour and who will be led to commit crimes. The only way to prevent it is by way of punishment. No one would like to see someone condemned for a single mistake and, to this effect, we believe that the arguments voiced by both abolitionists and retentionists could meet in a middle path, mainly that, in the absence of the execution, whether by commutation of the sentence or otherwise, the repetition of a first act of violence such as those now punished by capital punishment, would lead automatically to banishment for life from our society.
We are confident that the democratic principles with which we all want to indentify will come first when you make your decision.
Respectfully yours,
Bernard E. Poirier, LL.L, Executive Director.
Mr. Speaker, Wednesday we shall vote on third reading, that is on the final stage of Bill C-84. As we are about to vote on this bill, all of my colleagues have spoken, and you will note that with no influence on my part or on the part of anyone else, each one was truly free to express his opinion, and to take a position, and that 11 out of 11 members have voted against Bill C-84, not out of a wish for revenge, but to say to those who might propose to commit crimes or murders: Gentlemen, watch out! Do not take someone else's life or else you will have to give up your own life to pay for the one that you have removed from society. Then, Mr. Speaker, the individual is truly free: It he wants to hang, he can act consequently, and we, the Parliament or the government, shall apply the law so that this individual will be punished exactly like he could expect to be because of his actions. As the Canadian Par-

liament is preparing to abolish the death penalty we can read in American newspapers, and recently in the La Presse newspaper of July 3, 1976:
The Supreme Court maintains the death penalty in the U.S.A.
This means throughout the United States. There are states where the death sentence is commuted to life imprisonnment. There are others, like Florida, Georgia, Texas where the death penalty is still in force. There are rather highly organized mouvements in Great Britain seeking the reestablishment of the death penalty. There are other countries where no thought has been given to abolishing it, for instance in most African countries. The death penalty is still in existence in France, and when the French Minister of Foreign Affairs came to Canada recently, he said: I am in favour of the death penalty in extreme cases. This is what we are asking. We are not asking the Solicitor General to hang all criminals for any reason whatsoever, we are asking him, in extreme cases, in the case of murders committed for gain, to take the criminal and hang him or put him in the electric chair or to use any other means to eliminate him to protect society.
I have often heard the Solicitor General say: There are other means than the death penalty to protect society. I have often asked him: Give us those means, tell us that they are. Mr. Speaker, no means have ever been suggested. The Solicitor General is always saying that there are better means than the death penalty to stop crime, and Montreal has now had murder number 53 or 54 for 1976. That represents an average of over 100 a year and it seems like the Solicitor General does not see or does not pay attention to what is going on around him.
Mr. Speaker, if the United States sees fit to maintain that penalty, if England is talking about reinstating it, if in other countries of the world there is renewed talk of returning to capital punishment that is so because indeed there are criminals for whom there is absolutely no hope. There is hope for some, yes. Murders are committed for which the death penalty should not be applied, yes. But we say that in cases of premeditated, planned, loathsome murders where the guy has his gun fully loaded those people are not going to the St. Joseph Oratory to pray St. Joseph or Brother Andrew. No, sir. They go into a small grocery to kill the guy if he resists. It is going to cost us $15,000 to $20,000 a year to keep those people in jail during 25 years. And that would be reasoning? Mr. Speaker, that is not reasoning. I think the general public reasons better than this government. And I would like to know once more what organization or organizations asked this government to introduce Bill C-84, for all practical purposes an act to abolish the death penalty in Canada.
In concluding, I say we are going to vote conscientiously against Bill C-84, and I ask the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) to convince his leader, before he starts convincing the Liberals, to vote against Bill C-84 and also convince his former leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), to vote against this bill. Then, he may try to convince the Liberals, ministers or others, to vote against Bill C-84 that I consider to be a terrible calamity against society, against the honest citizen of Canada.
July 12, 1976


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on third reading of Bill C-84. I have spoken before on this subject, and rather forcefully, so I certainly do not intend to pursue the matter now at any great length.
I am well aware that this is an absolutely free vote and that it is up to the conscience of each and every member as to how he or she should vote on Wednesday afternoon. I am also aware that the votes of some members of the House are freer than those of others. But we shall wait and see what happens on Wednesday afternoon. I might add that I am not too optimistic of the outcome. Nevertheless, I want to put on record a few points which I believe to be important.
Most of us went back to our ridings over the weekend. I did so myself and I attended four or five different functions. Among them were two funerals. Believe it or not, I was cornered even at the funerals. Notwithstanding the sadness of the occasion, people found it necessary to express their views loud and clear with regard to Bill C-84. I stated my position, in turn, and needless to say it agreed with what a great many of my constituents were saying.
I believe capital punishment should be imposed in cases where the jury has made no recommendations for mercy and when the cabinet, in its wisdom, declines to commute the death sentence. Especially do I think the death penalty is appropriate in the following cases: First, the murder of prison guards in the execution of their duty or while off-duty if the murder is related to their duty; second, the murder of police officers in the execution of their duty or while off-duty if the murder is related to their duty; third, murder committed by persons whose records include one or more convictions for violent acts; fourth, pre-meditated murder or contract murder. I am thinking here of mafia-type murders committed by a "hit man" who knows what he is doing; he is a gangster, he shows no mercy, he probably does not even know who he is killing, but does so because there is a $5,000 or $10,000 payment for his services. Then fifth, where death is directly attributable to a crime of violence where the possibility of death occurring is great and where, in fact, death does occur.
I might say, with regard to that last category, that I am thinking of armed hold-ups where the hold-up men go in with machine-guns and automatic weapons, well knowing what they intend to do. In my opinion, the death penalty should be applicable in such cases.
Let me repeat what I have said earlier. I believe hanging to be a brutal and barbarous way of taking life. I believe executions should be carried out in the most humane way possible. I have suggested that a drug be injected so that the criminal could be painlessly removed from society with as little fuss as possible and as humanely as possible. Those who favour abolition usually talk about hanging, the scaffold, the horror of the rope, and so on. This comes from the press and from the media generally. Most of the news media seem to be abolitionist, bleeding hearts that worry more about the criminal than the victim. I have been surprised to read in editorial pages a great number of letters from citizens of Canada. If the media have received the same number that I have received, I am sure they
Capital Punishment
would agree that the writers favour by ten to one the retention of some form of capital punishment.

When we vote on Wednesday, let us remember that there are 11 men on death row awaiting the outcome of the vote. On that basis I would say we should start afresh following the vote. These men who have gone through terrible agonies wondering whether their lives will be taken or not should have their sentences commuted, and if the bill is defeated capital punishment should be retained from there on for the crimes I have outlined, as well as for high treason. A good many members who are abolitionists at heart, I am sure feel that 15 years in prison-not 25 years- is an inadequate penalty for the crime of high treason, especially in view of the fact that this sentence may be further reduced on the unanimous decision of three judges. The same is true of hijacking or piracy. In my view, the hijackers of aircraft who cold-bloodedly kill the unfortunate passengers who are taken as hostages should also receive the ultimate penalty.
I hope a good many of my colleagues who voted for the bill will seriously reconsider their position when the final, third reading vote is taken. I should like to read into the record a letter I received from a friend of mine who I met a month or so ago. He wrote me a personal letter and and also sent me a copy of a letter that he addressed to the editor of the Globe and Mail under date June 24. He writes: Dear Sir:
Geoffrey Stevens' article "A Day of High Drama" is an example of the hyperbole of which he is capable and further represents the ''bleeding heart" socialist that he is.
Yesterday was not a great day for parliament as the vote registered did not represent a "free vote" as publicized but rather the imperious will of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Yesterday was the beginning of the end of any semblance to a democratic state. There may have been free votes to a degree in the opposition parties but within the Liberal party enough coercion was exercised by the Prime Minister who by his "supreme power" can and does reward with position and favour those who agree with him and remove those who do not.
Stevens is wrong constitutionally, ethically and morally. An elected member of parliament is duty bound to present the views of his constituents who did or did not elect him. To indicate that the fundamental duty of an elected member is to make "his own best decision" and ignore the people is also fatuous and without credence. It suggests a feudal state of primitive nature where only the elected have intellectual capacity and, therefore, will think, decide and dictate to an ignorant compliant mass.
The reference to Edmund Burke circa 1765 and his famous or infamous Bristol statement, which along with stating that elected members should make their own decisions (and inferred "to hell with the people"-Stevens) neglected to point out that Burke also stated that "he should be representative not delegate. He should attend to their interest but he must address himself to the general good of the whole community" etc.
It is also a matter of record that Burke made this statement while the elected member of parliament for Bristol but failed to retain the confidence of his constituents and lost his seat. His further re-entrance to parliament was in a "pocket borough" controlled by Lord Rockingham one of the Whig (Liberal) leaders of the time.
I would suggest that all members of parliament who are voting for the "abolition of capital punishment" and by so doing ignored the intelligent wishes of over 80 per cent of all unfettered Canadians be soundly defeated at the polls, whenever the next election is called. I would also suggest that the issue of capital punishment be put to the Canadian public at the same time.
Yours truly,
J. Douglas Wilson

July 12, 1976
Capital Punishment
That is one of a great many letters that have gone to the press and to various members of parliament. I appreciate that it is a free vote and that it is up to each of us to decide how to vote and then answer to our constituents. I am hoping that members of parliament will look at it in this way. Needless to say, I am rather cynical as to the outcome, but I hope I shall be surprised on Wednesday and that Bill C-84 will be defeated.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, we are on the threshold of the passage of this bill and I do not intend to hold up the House for very long. I have a few words I should like to say since I have not spoken in the debate on this bill. There are some things, that have been said throughout this debate, and repeated again today, that I think should be challenged.
First of all, we do have a free vote in the House on this bill and it is a question of personal conscience. For some members of the press and even some members of the House continually to suggest that it is not a free vote I think is degrading and certainly an insult to the members of the House. There is no such thing as coercion or anything else exercised on anyone, to my knowledge, and it seems to me that if that sort of thing were going on on this side of the House I would be one of those approached to change my stand, just as would any other abolitionist. That is certainly not the case.
The point is that in our system the member of parliament is the representative of the people in his constituency. We have a representative kind of government. We come here to represent our constituents who have elected us, each with his own general make-up and morality and everything else that goes to make him or her a human being. They have voted for us because they like everything about us in general. They do not accept everything we say. Perhaps they do not agree with every word we utter or every idea we propose, but in general they accept us as men and women whom they send here to represent them. This does not mean to say that they are telling us we had better vote exactly the way they say we should vote in every instance.
To say that the majority of the people are retentionists and that we should be following the will of the majority oversimplifies this question. In the first place, who says that the majority of the people are retentionists? Gallup polls and the rest. Since when have Gallup polls been the last word on what is the will of the people? In the first place, I suspect the retentionists are far more vocal than abolitionists on this question, and therefore that would throw the poll out immediately. I do not think the majority of the people of this country are retentionists. In my constituency there are a lot of people who have written to me and made representations who are retentionists, but there are also many others who are abolitionists and who made their point of view known.
One group in particular, consisting of the major Christian churches, have officially come out against the retention of the death penalty. This is a very sizeable group, Mr. Speaker. I am not suggesting that everyone who belongs to a church in Canada follows everything that their church says, necessarily, but the majority of the people in my constituency are God-fearing and believe in the religion they pratice. Generally speaking, they follow the ideas put

forth by the morality of their particular religion. I feel that those who have expressed their point of view on a religious basis in my constituency are sincere in so doing. Certainly, they believe it is not right to take a life. In my view, no human being or group of human beings has the right to take the life of another human being. That is the principle upon which I stand, and neither pressure nor anything else would make me sell my soul.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is, therefore, on the amendment by the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to the order passed on Friday last relating to the deferral of votes until Wednesday there has been a discussion with House leaders, with an agreement that the vote on the amendment be deferred until two o'clock on Wednesday of this week.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has been no understanding that the amendment would be voted on Wednesday only. We would like to have it now, and if the bill is not negatived today the final vote on abolition will take place on Wednesday.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, and before the question is put on the amendment to the third reading, motion, I would indicate that the leader of the Social Credit Party suggested the proceedings were pursuant to the understanding. It is on that basis that I allowed the third reading motion amendment to be introduced pursuant to standing order.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, we discussed among House leaders Wednesday last, and the agreement was that if amendments appeared on the order paper at that time, votes on them would be deferred until Wednesday or simply cancelled.
The sponsors withdrew them. Namely the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and the Conservative member that introduced them. But this amendment to defer to three months time the third reading of Bill C-84 was not discussed at the time the House leaders were consulting.
July 12, 1976


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the order-and I am not referring to discussions among House leaders-as agreed to was that all questions would be deferred until Wednesday next. It seems to me that the amendment indeed is a question that would be included in that category.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, obviously there has to be a ruling in respect of the interpretation of the order so we should have all matters before us in respect of this extremely important legislation. We ought to have all possible interpretations before the House in order that Your Honour can consider the matter. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has put forward one possible interpretation. I should like the House to look at Votes and Proceedings for July 9, 1976, distributed this morning, and page 1419 which states:
That, if the debate on all stages of Bill C-84 is concluded not later than Tuesday, July 13, 1976, any division or divisions required to dispose of the third reading-
I gather from this that a division of this nature would not constitute the completion of the debate at all stages. I think that is a proper interpretation of the words. The debate at all stages has not been completed. Whatever that may mean in terms of this argument, I think we must realize that the agreement which was worked out by unanimous consent must be dealt with on that basis. I do not think we can slur over this fact and assume that all stages have been completed. I do not believe that is the case. That is my respectful submission to the Chair on this matter.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, references have been made to the order passed on Friday. It is true that one person might interpret it one way, and another person in another way. But, I certainly understood that any votes at the third reading stage would be put off until Wednesday.
May I also remind Your Honour and the House that there was a previous order. I have been trying to locate it, but have not yet turned it up. I refer to the one that was passed by an overwhelming vote and which said that at the report stage and at third reading any divisions called for would not be taken immediately, but would be held at a time to be determined, by recommendation of the House leaders, not more than five days later. I submit that order still holds and that because of that order, if we cannot agree on what Friday's order says in respect of votes on Wednesday, we cannot take the vote now but, rather, that the House leaders have to meet and decide when the vote on the three months' hoist amendment will be taken.
It seems to me that if there is any doubt about what was meant by Friday's order, the previous order was very clear. I am sure I speak for both sides in this debate when I say that we agreed that this debate was so important there should not be a snap vote with the possibility of many members not being here. I submit, therefore, that if there is not unanimous consent that the debate be regarded as concluded at this point, with all votes to be taken on Wednesday, then by virtue of the previous order the House leaders will now have to meet and fix a time within the next five days.
Capital Punishment


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I think the logic of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Center (Mr. Knowles) is impeccable, except for one flaw. That is, of course, that the House order passed on Friday, I suggest to you, sir, would certainly supersede the motion passed on June 27, I think it was-either June 27 or June 29.


Walter David Baker: June 29.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am sure the House order passed last Friday would therefore supersede and make completely redundant the previous order. There is ample precedent for that. I would draw to your attention once more, sir, the actual order passed unanimously by the House on Friday last which states, in part:
That, if the debate on all stages of Bill C-84 is concluded not later than Tuesday, July 13, 1976, any division or divisions required to dispose of the third reading... shall be taken on Wednesday, July 14, 1976-
I remind you, sir, of the point made by the opposition House leader that all stages have not been concluded. This is not a motion that concludes the third reading stage of the bill. If the third reading stage is not concluded, then that order does not apply to the requirement for the vote to take place on Wednesday next. Therefore, there is no House order which would require the stacking of this motion, and therefore the vote should be taken right now in the House. I know of no authority which would permit the chair to postpone the taking of the vote. Certainly, the motion passed last Friday would not be the basis for that authority, in any event.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the House that the motion introduced last Friday, pursuant to the agreement between the House leaders and the government leader reads as follows:
That if the debate on all stages of Bill C-84 is concluded not later than Tuesday, July 13, any division or divisions required to dispose of the third reading and passage stage of the said bill shall be taken on Wednesday, July 14, 1976,.. .
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this means that the amendment moved this afternoon on third reading has nothing to do with the vote on third reading which has been deferred until 2:15 p.m., next Wednesday. Therefore, under our rules, that motion should be put this afternoon.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that somewhat disappoints me.

The comments of the House leader of the Conservative Party disappoint me. When I discussed with him the procedure which we intend to follow, as I did with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), it was understood that the debate had been completed to all intents and purposes at the amendment stage of third reading and the third reading stage, and in effect everyone had agreed that the vote would be taken on the amendment and subsequently the division would be called on third reading and then the vote deferred. That is why I am most disappointed at this turn of events.
15266
July 12, 1976

Capital Punishment
Evidently we must turn now, not to the understanding among hon. members but to the strict legal interpretation of the motions we have before us. I agree fully that an interpretation of the Friday motion could be that recorded divisions would only be delayed until the debate had been completed. It was my understanding, from the indication received from the House leaders, that indeed that was the case. Had it not been for the subsequent declaration by the House leader of the Conservative Party, that would still be my understanding.
In adopting the legal interpretation perhaps I would not be successful in arguing that indeed the vote cannot be deferred until the debate has been completed and that, in fact, the debate may not be completed. But having said that, if that is the interpretation to be placed on Friday's motion, then there is a void. What is to take place in the event that a vote is taken prior to the debate having been completed? If the interpretation of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is correct, that the debate has not been completed on third reading, that situation is not covered by the order approved on Friday. That being the case, we must now go to the other order to be found in Votes and Proceedings of June 29, which reads:
That any recorded division requested during the consideration of the report stage or the third reading stage of Bill C-84 .. . shall be held at a lime to be fixed by the House leaders, provided that that time shall be not more than one week after the request for the division.
A division has been requested and the request is now before the House. Therefore, we should have a House leaders' meeting to determine at what time the vote on third reading should be held.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate on Bill C-84 there was a general understanding in the House that there should be no votes by surprise or by trickery. It was felt that this question was so important that all votes should be set at a time which would be known to all members well in advance. It was for that reason that we fixed the date of the vote on second reading; it was for that reason we fixed the date of the votes on report stage; and it was for that reason we fixed the date of the vote on third reading. It was the general understanding of the House, and it was one with which I agreed, that we should run out this debate this afternoon. If it was not known to be on that basis, hon. members would have continued to speak because nobody wanted a surprise vote or a vote by trickery this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: If this motion is to be interpreted as meaning that we are to have a vote, without notice, this afternoon-and I do not know who might win that vote because no count was taken, since nobody expected there would be voting today or tomorrow-I would point out that from the speeches made this morning by hon. members it is evident they expected the vote to be on Wednesday, because they were encouraging every hon. member to be here on that day. The hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mor.d-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) and many other hon. members stressed that all members should be here for the vote. They could not be here for a vote if a surprise vote were taken this afternoon.
I would then refer hon. members to the motion, and ask them what other reason would there be for having any division or divisions if there can only be one vote, that is, the vote on third reading? The intention must have been to include any votes that would wind up this debate.


Mr. Mprk MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, this appears to be a difficult question because it encompasses a number of elements, but if the elements are taken one by one it really is not such a difficult question at all. Governing the whole debate is the order of June 29, which provides that all votes are to be deferred, with no exception. The next element in this equation is the order of July 9. That order does not, as the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) would suggest, contradict the earlier order. It specifies it; it provides that certain kinds of votes are to be taken at a certain time. In other words, it is the application of the general order, and in no way contravenes the order of June 29 which still governs the orders before the House for dealing with all stages and all votes on Bill C-84.
Taking both these elements as understood, we come to the fact that I believe the Chair should put the question on this amendment, and the vote on it will be deferred. Then the Chair should resume debate on Bill C-84, at which time we shall ascertain whether there are further speakers on this bill, apart from the amendment. I believe that is the procedure that should be followed. At the time the Chair puts the amendment there can be no agreement as to the date because it is not provided in the order of July 9. But that is not necessary. All that is necessary is that it be deferred and that the time either be established by the House leaders or, if the debate is finished by tomorrow night, that we revert to the order of July 9 which automatically establishes the time for the vote as being on Wednesday at two o'clock.
If you look at these elements one by one, your Honour will find that there is no problem here at all. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has given us the key to this whole thing by referring us back to the order of June 29.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When I was on my feet earlier I had not turned up the wording of the motion of June 29, so I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, your letting me have the floor for a few minutes again. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) was kind enough to refer to my logic as impeccable, but then he tried to set it aside. May I point out to him that there was nothing in the order of last Friday that sets aside the order of June 29, which states quite clearly-and it was decided by a vote of the House-that any recorded division requested during the consideration of the report stage or third reading of Bill C-84 shall be held at a time to be fixed by the House leaders, and not more than a week later.
This motion for a three months hoist is either one of two things. One choice is that it is one of the divisions required to dispose of the third reading and passage stage of the bill. That is the language of Friday's order; any division or divisions required to dispose of the third reading and passage stage, by Friday's order, shall be taken this Wednesday at two o'clock. If Your Honour rules that this
(Mr Blais.]
July 12, 1976

three months' hoist motion is one of those divisions, it seems to me that you should order that the vote be taken on Wednesday at two o'clock.
The other choice open to you is to rule that it is not specifically covered in Friday's motion but that it is covered in the motion of June 29 in this language: any recorded division requested during the third reading stage. I think the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) and I might have trouble trying to apply the language of Friday's order to achieve what we thought we agreed upon. I certainly was in on that agreement.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You goofed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If we cannot achieve that by arguing the point, then certainly, so far as the order of June 29 is concerned, there cannot be a vote today until there has been a meeting of the House leaders to recommend a time for that vote.
I appreciate the suggestion of the hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) that we go on with the debate, but I do not see how we can go on with debate on third reading until we find out whether the bill has been given a three months' hoist. We have to have that vote. This is not like the report stage, where the votes can be stored up. It seems to me we cannot go on with third reading debate until we have made a decision on this three months' hoist amendment. But I appeal to you very strongly, sir, that you have two choices: either you rule that it is covered by the wording of Friday's motion, and therefore it is to be voted on Wednesday at two o'clock or if it is not covered there, it is certainly covered in the motion of June 29 and be taken now; it can be taken only after there has been a meeting of the House leaders to recommend the time for that vote.
Though I happen to be known to be on one side of this whole question, in the discussions we have had and when we meet as House leaders we are divided two and two. We have all taken the view, right through the piece, that a surprise vote would be no way to deal with this important issue. It was our understanding that if the debate collapsed on Friday, we were prepared to call it five o'clock. It was our understanding that if the debate collapsed today, we would be prepared to call it ten o'clock and not sit tomorrow.
I think it is unfortunate that this misunderstanding seems to have developed. But if it comes down to a case of the Chair having to rule, I submit very strongly the argument I am making, that Your Honour has to make one choice or the other: either it is covered by Friday's motion, and therefore it can be voted upon on Wednesday-


An hon. Member:: A third choice would be to ring the bells.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the third choice?


An hon. Member:: Ring the bells.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the choice Your Honour does not have. There are two
Capital Punishment
orders, and this situation comes under one or the other. There is no possibility of Your Honour calling in the members at this time. It is either covered by Friday's order that it may take place Wednesday, or it is covered by the order of June 29, in which case the House leaders have to meet and recommend the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) said earlier that there was an agreement to prevent an unexpected or a snap vote. Then, so as not to be accused or have my colleagues accused of a such an intent, I shall say that we have nothing to do with the motion before us calling for a three-month hoist. So there is no bad faith on our part.
Now, as concerns the amendments considered recently, it was not at all at the same stage. We were then in committee and at that time we had moved the amendments which were disposed of only a few days ago. This morning, it is an amendment that is in order and is designed to defer third reading until three months from now. Mr. Speaker, you asked for the "yeas" and "nays". We said "yea" and the others said "nay". Your Honour had decided that the "nays" had it and you said: Call in the members.
Then, the agreements made earlier between the House leaders have nothing to do with the amendment now before us. The amendments that were at an earlier stage were discussed and it was agreed that a vote should not be taken before Wednesday at 2:15 p.m., like on third reading. But this amendment has only one purpose, and it is to defer to three months from now the vote which was to be taken Wednesday. That is why we do not change our position. You asked that the members be called in, and I think we should vote on this amendment immediately.


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Speaker, you have heard a great deal of learned advice, some not so learned and some partisan. I would just like to make a plea that on the question of the abolition of the death penalty it has been long understood that there would be a free vote for every member of the House, and when we left last weekend, the date was set for next Wednesday. At that time everybody will be here and will be given a chance to have his or her vote recorded. In my opinion, that would be the only wise thing for Your Honour to accept. It must be a vote on all motions, deletions and amendments, on Wednesday after debate is finished. Everybody has been counting on that. Why should we change it now? I think Your Honour has the welfare of the House and the people of Canada at heart, and the members of this House want their votes recorded.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a principle that this House should apply from now on, and that is consistency. Now, on June 29, we passed a resolution precisely to avoid this type of discussion. And that motion provided that no vote, at any stage should take place, and I quote:
That any recorded division requested during the consideration of the report stage or the third reading . . .
95570-6SH
July 12, 1976

Capital Punishment
-which goes against the arguments of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette)-
... shall be held at a time to be fixed by the House leaders, provided that that time shall be not more than one week after the request for the division.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything in last Friday's motion which cancels the motion of June 29. Therefore, I do not see how it can now be decided to hold a vote. The House leaders should meet and hold discussions. If they agree and if the vote is held within 10 minutes, that is fine, but I still think we should go by the June 29 resolution which has not been cancelled. This House actually passed it, and I do not really see the purpose of the present discussion.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Mr. Speaker, I seem to have caused a little consternation with the motion which I put, which was seconded by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), this morning. I assure the House that it was not my intention to embarrass either the House leaders or any hon. member of this House. My motion was prompted by the way I feel, and I felt it was necessary because of the concern I have for the constituency of Middlesex-London-Lambton. It was my assumption that the vote would be taken on Wednesday as outlined in a previous order. I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to present this position. When the vote comes, I would prefer-and I am sure the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand would agree-to have all hon. members in the House to express their opinions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak because I cautioned the House about the question of postponing all votes until a specified day. I thought it was wrong then, and the hon. member, whether his intentions were correctly received by the House or not, pointed out clearly how wrong it is. This House has to debate and its members have to stand and be counted at the end of a debate.
As I understand it, the end of the debate on the amendment has come but not the end of the debate on the bill. The debate on third reading can continue. I have not spoken on third reading and I am sure there are other members who intend to speak, but the order laid down on July 9 suggests if-and "if" is a big word-the debate is not concluded the vote will be taken on Wednesday. I suggest to you, Sir, that you have three options: to call it six o'clock and allow the House leaders to meet; to have a vote on the amendment on Wednesday; and the third option is to have the vote on the amendment taken right now.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: As the seconder of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I should like it perfectly understood that there was no trickery in our minds when it was moved. We felt Bill C-84 should be postponed until after the Olympics-that the capital punishment legislation should be in force during that time, and that point was stressed during the debate many, many times.
Having said that, and without having listened to all the argument just now, I assumed that the vote would be

taken on Wednesday afternoon as set forth in the order before the House now. I just want to make myself clear. I have no strong feelings one way or the other as to when it is taken, but in fairness to everybody I think it should be Wednesday.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, all we need to know is whether the last motion moved last Friday can change anything to the motion moved by the government House leader on June 29. If that motion, which reflected the views of the House leaders, is still valid, we must wait until Wednesday to hold the vote. But if the June 29 motion drafted by the House leaders is no longer valid because it is cancelled, so to speak, by last Friday's motion, it is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on this matter and decide whether the vote shall take place Wednesday or today. If that motion is valid, because each motion to amend has to be voted on and the date of the vote agreed upon by the House leaders, then, it is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think I have received some very valuable contributions from hon. members, although I must say that did not help solve the problem. The House is in a difficult situation at this time. The motion of the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon), which was seconded by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), has come to a vote, and although both members declared it was not their intention to bring about this complication, the Chair cannot rule on their intention, and I have to consider the situation the motion is putting the House in at this time.

As far as I am concerned, in answer to the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), I, for one, have no difficulty with the two orders that were passed by this House on June 29 and July 9.
My interpretation of the order of July 9 deals with a specific matter and is merely a notice given to those hon. members who were to return to their respective ridings, so that they would know when the vote would be taken. It could have simply been announced in the House that an agreement had been reached between the House leaders, but it was decided to introduce a supplementary order. Initially, it was decided as a general principle that all the votes on the report and third reading stages of Bill C-84 would be taken only after an agreement was reached and the time decided upon by all the House leaders.
The order was put last Friday by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) in order to make it quite clear, the report stage having been disposed of, that the vote or votes on third reading would be taken on Wednesday, July 14, immediately after the prayers. There is no inconsistency whatsoever in that.
The only difficulty lies in the fact that an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon) and that the debate was concluded on the amendment which proposed that third reading of the bill be deferred for three months. Therefore, the House now finds itself in a dead end. I think that the point made by the Solicitor General-



-to the effect that there has been a general understanding that no snap vote will be taken, is well understood. As far as I am concerned I agree with that principale, but that does not solve the difficulty. I agree with the principle that no snap vote should be called, and on that point I think the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) was well taken. [Translation]
Although the hon. member for Temiscamingue mentioned earlier that the Chair had said to call in the members, this does not mean that a member cannot rise on a point of order. Thanks to this point of order, I was able to review the general principles set forth in the previous orders passed on June 29 and July 9.
I see no problem in deferring the vote on the amendment until next Wednesday, since the House cannot, according to all precedents, proceed with the debate on third reading without ruling on the amendment now before us. We must therefore look for a way out of this dead end.

I know the minister is trying to stand up, and I shall welcome his suggestion at the end of my remarks.
Now that the question has been put on the amendment, we are facing a dead-end difficulty for a different reason. Members who are not here and who have the right to participate in a vote, if my interpretation is correct, according to the order, cannot be blamed for not being here and would have the right to blame the House for any vote taken in their absence without notice. Any member who was planning to speak on third reading tomorrow might be prevented from speaking if we postpone the vote until next Wednesday.
The fact that the vote is postponed or would be postponed on the amendment, might prevent other hon. members from bringing in amendments to the third reading motion. To delay that vote until next Wednesday, and if at that time the House felt that a third reading vote should be taken immediately, because some members might have planned to go to their ridings or have other engagements, would also cause confusion. But at this time my immediate conclusion is that no vote can be taken immediately if I interpret the two orders correctly.

The vote cannot be held right now. Accordingly, it must be deferred until next Wednesday, unless the House unanimously decides to amend the previous orders.
The House is master of its own rules and of its own decisions. Unless hon. members after consultation can bring some definite proposal to the Chair which could be put to the members so that, with the unanimous consent of all hon. members, there might be some modification as to the set time of the vote on the amendment, we cannot proceed any longer and I would have to call it either six o'clock or ten o'clock. We could call it six o'clock so that the House leaders could discuss the question during supper time and, when we reconvene at eight o'clock, suggest a solution. I invite the minister to speak at this time.
Capital Punishment


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances, in order to enable those further conversations to which you referred to take place, I move, seconded by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand):
That the House do now adjourn.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I know the motion is not debatable; therefore I rise on a point of order. I wonder, before Your Honour, puts the question, if there is not some possibility of our agreeing now, with unanimous consent, to adjourn until eight o'clock this evening to allow House leaders to meet. This motion could certainly be put at eight o'clock. I do not know if that would be contrary to what the minister had in mind. Frankly, I do not know what the minister had in mind, but I think there would be agreement for the suggestion I have made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) will agree that the rules are strict with regard to motions such as the one moved. They are not debatable. I must put the question immediately, unless the minister decides to withdraw the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Its adoption will mean that the House will be called to sit at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)) which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 151)
	YEAS Messrs.	
Allmand	Campagnolo (Mrs.)	FaulknerAndras	Clermont	Firth(Port Arthur)	Condon	FlemingAppolloni (Mrs.)	Corriveau	FlynnBaldwin	Cyr	FosterBechard	Daudlin	FoxBegin (Miss)	De Bane	FrancisBenjamin	Demers	GauthierBlais	Douglas	(Ottawa-Blouin	(Bruce-Grey)	GillespieBreau	Douglas	GoodaieBuchanan	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	GuayCaccia	The Islands)	(St. BoniCafik	Dupras	Herbert
July 12, 1976
Capital Punishment
Messrs.
Messrs.
Holt (Mrs.)	Lefebvre	PearsallHopkins	Lessard	PelletierIsabelle	Loiselle	PennerJamieson	(Chambly)	Phil brookJohnston	Macdonald	Prud'hommeJoyal	(Rosedale)	RailtonKnowles	MacFarlane	Reid(Winnipeg	MacGuigan	RichardsonNorth Centre)	McRae	RooneyLachance	Milne	Sauve (Mrs.)Lajoie	Munro	StanburyLalonde	(Hamilton East)	StewartLang	Nystrom	(Cochrane)Leblanc	O'Connell	Symes(Laurier)	Orlikow	TurnerLeBlanc	Parent	Watson-77
(Westmorland-Kent)
Mitges
Muir
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Oberle Reynolds Ritchie Skoreyko Stanfield Towers Wagner-43
Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek) Hnatyshyn Horner Huntington Jarvis Jelinek Kempling Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand) [DOT]
Lambert
(Edmonton West) La Salle Lawrence Malone Marshall Matte
Mazankowski
McCain
McGrath
McKinnon
++NAYS
Messrs.
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Beatty
Beaudoin
Brisco
Caouette
(Villeneuve)
Caouette
(Temiscamingue)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cossitt Darling
Dinsdale
Ellis
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock in the morning.
On motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) the House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.

Tuesday, July 13, 1976