1976-07-13

CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Orders:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Solicitor General,-That Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be now read a third time.
Deferred division on the motion in amendment thereto of Mr. Condon, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand),-That Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day three months hence.
Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, when I left the House yesterday to attend the commemoration service for the eleven Israeli athletes who were killed in Munich, I remarked to my parliamentary secretary that I hoped I would not see him again until Wednesday, and he smiled reassuringly.


An hon. Member:: Change secretaries.


Mitchell William Sharp: However, some rather unforeseen difficulties seem to have arisen partly because, if I may say, the French version of the House order which had been approved did not accord with the English version. This is a point which perhaps ought to be looked into, but be that as it may, the House leaders met this morning to see what might be the best way of proceeding with the continuation of the debate on Bill C-84. The House leaders are agreed on all points, particularly that we do not in any way want to hamper the debate on Bill C-84. Indeed, our wish is to facilitate it and to bring it to an eventual conclusion.
Our unanimous recommendation, therefore, is that with the consent of the House we proceed now with the debate on the main motion for the third reading of Bill C-84.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the government House leader has said, and he has put the proposition precisely. As one of the House leaders I certainly consent, and I commend that arrangement to all members of the House.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is an arrangement to which we also agree.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I think the government House leader forgot to mention one little thing which we also discussed this morning, namely that if the discussion on third reading ends before one o'clock this afternoon, there should be an oral questions period this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it understood, therefore, after discussion this morning, that the House will consider it one o'clock if the debate terminates so that there will in fact be certain to be a two o'clock proceeding this afternoon, including a question period and routine proceedings? The recommendation before the House is that, notwithstanding the practices and precedents of the House which would preclude discussion of Bill C-84 as long as the amendment motion remains outstanding, the House give unanimous consent to proceed to use the time today to discuss the main motion for third reading of Bill C-84. Does the House consent to that?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
Was the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, I was not apprised of the actual consent for this Procedure until a few moments ago. I wonder if the government House leader would have the courtesy to at least advise me. One of the House leaders did, but I should like to hear it from the one who has to announce it to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) is not on this occasion withholding his consent but is establishing a plan for the future and a very valid one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, July 12, 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 amendment thereto of Mr. Condon.
[Stage Direction]
July 13, 1976
Capital Punishment
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit there are times in the House when we have the impression it is absolutely useless to make a speech. As regards the discussion on abolition of capital punishment, I think we can state, if we consider the position of the cabinet, that it would be pointless to extend this debate. However, as the majority of Canadians have already showed that they do not agree with the position of the federal government, we should try once again to give them a little common sense, a little logic and to inform the leader of the government and his staff that the protection of Canadian society is more important than the personal principles of any member of the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to Mr. Clark.


Claude Wagner: I already did.

Mr. Speaker, I think before continuing with this debate on capital punishment, and without intending to prolong it needlessly nor to repeat arguments that others have already advanced, I should like to congratulate those members of the House who courageously and persistently have fought so hard both in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and at report stage in this House for the cause of social order and common sense in advocating the death penalty for premeditated murders. Without discriminating against anyone may I with your permission, Mr. Speaker, single out the determination and the resourcefulness with which the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) has led the fight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: He has been an inspiration to everyone, and he has sincerely believed in the necessity of keeping capital punishment in order to check and prevent the numerous activities of organized crime.
After a conscious examination of the views expressed in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, I must admit that I remain unshaken in my opinion that, especially because of the existence of organized crime and in order to protect the lives of innocent people and to secure a greater degree of safety for our policemen and prison guards, Bill C-84 must be defeated on third reading.
During this debate I have been particularly impressed with what a convinced abolitionist like the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said about the necessity of retaining capital punishment for such odious crimes as high treason or espionage in wartime. His experience as prime minister during a difficult period of the cold war and his lifelong devotion to the cause of fundamental freedom and penal reform should have been enough to convince the government to amend this bill on this point at least. It should also incite some members who voted for the bill on second reading to reflect further and, hopefully, to reverse their position and join the ranks of the retentionists.

It is no mere coincidence, but the result of a vast experience and constant devotion to the cause of law and order that another abolitionist of international fame, Mr. Jean

Imbert, whose book entitled La peine de mort is authoritative in this field, also comes to the conclusion that the state must maintain capital punishment for crimes of high treason and those of spying in times of war.
Is it not terrifying, Mr. Speaker, to think that the adoption of this bill would leave Canada without any real punishment for those who would conspire against the security of the state or the lives of its leader and other officials?

As discussion progressed in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs members of the House discovered a series of serious omissions, shortcomings and deficiencies in the legislation, giving the bill all the appearance of having been unduly improvised and rushed to this House. For instance, there is no provision for a more severe penalty-which could be death-for the commission of a second or even a third murder, yet it is not using scare tactics to suggest that the possibility of escape accompanied by murder by hardened criminals, is very real. Nobody can deny that. But under this bill the worst punishment such murderers can expect is to be condemned, for a second time, to life imprisonment. Mr. Speaker, there must be an end to softness or, as we say in French: il y a une limite a la bonasserie.
Had the government been sensible enough to accept amendments providing death sentences for high treason and second murder, I am sure some of the retentionists would have been more inclined to vote for this legislation. But as it stands now I, for one, cannot in conscience accept that the security of the state or the safety of prison guards and policemen should be put in jeopardy by the adoption of Bill C-84.
While I disagree with him, I do respect the views expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the course of this debate. I know that he is sincerely convinced of the rectitude of his position, as I am of my own. But I less than admire one argument brought forward by the Prime Minister when he spoke on second reading. Making his appeal to the House on June 15, as reported in Hansard, page 14499 the Prime Minister said:
It is not open to anyone among us to take refuge in the comforting illusion that we are debating nothing more than an abstract theory of criminal justice, and that it will be the Cabinet's sole responsibility to decide the actual fate of individual murderers if this bill is defeated. I want to make it very clear that, if a majority of hon. members vote against abolition, some people are going to be hanged. Their death would be a direct consequence of the negative decision made by this House on this bill.
Some people have held this statement from the Prime Minister as showing strong leadership. I personally regard it, on the contrary, as an attempt to scare and even to blackmail the opponents of Bill C-84 into voting against their own convictions for fear of being regarded as executioners.
There is something frightening in the Prime Minister's tactics; for members of parliament, while open to compassion, should nevertheless remain above such personal considerations as the ones the right hon. gentleman mentioned. Be it for murder, rape, theft or even a minor offence, we are here to determine the law of the land and
July 13, 1976

the penalties for misbehaviour. We are in no way responsible for the way citizens respond to legitimate decisions of this parliament; nor should we be influenced in the knowledge that in their disobedience of the law such persons will be imprisoned or put to death. The argument advanced by the Prime Minister in this regard is tantamount to undue pressure, impeding the freedom of thought for those who are about to take a very serious decision.

Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the allegations of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that, should Bill C-84 be defeated, those who vote against it will be responsible for the death of the murderers. None of us, including members of the cabinet, ought to feel guilty for action according to his conscience and enacting legislation to uphold social order and deterring the most hardened criminals from making attempts on the lives of others, especially policemen and prison guards. The first and only ones to be responsible for their own deaths would be those who have cold bloodedly slain their victims in defiance of a law which clearly and plainly stated the death penalty would be imposed for their crimes. Moreover, those criminals, during their trials and through appeals, had every chance to clear themselves and prove they deserved commutation.
The fact that the Prime Minister has thus attempted to personalize the debate, by pointing out to 11 prisoners awaiting the gallows, proves how desperate is the situation in which he has placed himself by trying to impose his own wishes on Parliament and the Canadian people.
However, it is the very same Prime Minister who has created this problem by systematically refusing, since 1968, to implement a legislation which has been twice ruled out by Parliament, during the time he has been a member of the cabinet. Only the Prime Minister is responsible for the situation in which he willingly placed himself and from which he is trying to extricate by setting up a detestable scarecrow to urge us to vote against our deepest convictions.

The Prime Minister knows very well that no member of parliament is asking for a mass execution of those waiting in the death rows. Every one of us, I dare say, would be satisfied to see the government exercise the royal prerogative of mercy in every case where it is warranted. As for the others, they knew the law when they committed their crimes. Moreover, they had been warned in no uncertain terms-


Walter David Baker: By the Prime Minister.


Claude Wagner: -by the Prime Minister himself on May 16, 1973, when his government proposed Bill C-2. I quote what the Prime Minister said on that day, as reported in Hansard, page 3843:
Those who mock the desire of Canadians for an orderly, law-abiding community, those who hold in contempt those restraints on human conduct that enable us to live as free men and women, will be shown that society is not only resilient but that it is capable of protecting itself and of meting out whatever punishment is required.
That is the end of the quotation from the Prime Minister. You remember, Mr. Speaker, during the October crisis how
Capital Punishment
the Prime Minister derided those weak-kneed bleeding hearts who, he said, were afraid to take the necessary measures to protect Canadians against a handful of FLQ members. You remember that, Mr. Speaker.

We also remember, Mr. Speaker, in what anguished terms the Prime Minister at that time-


Mr. Bechard:: It sounds like a sermon!


Claude Wagner: As the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) says, the Prime Minister's speech did sound like a sermon.


Albert Béchard: Yours.


Claude Wagner: That is right. It sounded like a sermon when he was then warning people that the next FLQ victims might be either a bank or credit union manager, or the corner grocer or even an innocent child.
Without echoing the melodramatic tone of the Prime Minister, would I not be even more justified in resorting to the same argument the head of the government used during the October crisis, because bank robbers and hired assassins have given us ample proof that they will never hesitate to kill to reach their ends.
Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of this text, I wish to repeat the warning given on May 16, 1973 by the very distinguished right hon. Prime Minister of Canada to potential murderers of policemen and prison guards, and I quote:
Those who mock the desire of Canadians for an orderly, lawabiding community, those who hold in contempt those restraints on human conduct that enable us to live as free men and women, will be shown that society is not only resilient but that it is capable of protecting itself and of meting out whatever punishment is required.
Now then, what was the punishment advocated by the Prime Minister, what was it? It was the death penalty for the murder of policemen killed on duty. The Prime Minister cannot deny it today because, on October 24, 1973, he voted for Bill C-2 on second reading. Mr. Speaker, either the Prime Minister was convinced in 1973 of the necessity to maintain capital punishment in some specific circumstances, and if so nothing can explain the automatic commutations of death sentences made since then, or-and Bill C-84 confirms it eloquently-the head of the government was resorting to subterfuges to hide his real intentions from Parliament, and in that case I leave it to the public to judge his actions. As it happens, Mr. Speaker, the great majority of this public want Bill C-84 defeated. We will soon know, in a few days probably, whether the will of the public or the will of Parliament, under the direction of the Prime Minister, under the direction of his majority government, will prevail.

I hope we will not hear any further tales from the government side about the so-called free vote on Bill C-84.


An hon. Member:: Yes, you will.
Mi. Wagner: If we do, we shall respond. By moving this bill as a government bill, the Prime Minister has prevented his own colleagues in the cabinet-some of whom in the past have expressed contrary views-from now expressing
15274

July 13, 1976
Capital Punishment
their personal views or, to use the words of the Prime Minister, to vote according to their own conscience. Had the Prime Minister wanted a truly free vote, he would have asked a private member to bring in this bill, even on his own terms, and every member of this House could have voted as he wished, whether the member were a backbencher, a member of the cabinet or a member of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: As regards government backbenchers, had this been a private member's bill, they would not have been exposed to ever possible undue pressure not directly related to the capital punishment issue.
Mr. Speaker, I know that if Bill C-84 is accepted the morale of our policemen and especially of our prison guards will be greatly shaken. Yet I am sure that as law-abiding citizens those peace officers will accept, despite their reservations, their apprehensions and their fears, the will of a parliamentary majority. I hope at last there will not be massive resignations among them, which would jeopardize security in our penitentiary institutions.
But peace officers are men like everybody else. They are not inmune from errors or unpredictable reactions. Thus it is essential that in the performance of their duties they can enjoy the greatest possible serenity of mind. Will it be the case if Bill C-84 is accepted? I doubt it.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall what the right hon. Prime Minister himself stated, for it is strange, Mr. Speaker, how sometimes their own statements come back to haunt politicians. Might I remind you that the Prime Minister himself declared in this House on May 16, 1973, when Bill C-2 was under study, and I quote:
Out of fear for his safety, and the safety of his loved ones, even the most merciful of men becomes unwilling to assist the wayward.
Because of the importance of that statement, I want to read in English the warning expressed by the Prime Minister only three years ago:
Out of fear for his safety and the safety of his loved ones, even the most merciful of men will become unwilling to assist the wayward and the feckless.
I pray God, Mr. Speaker, that this warning of the Prime Minister will never become a prophecy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, if I take part in the debate on third reading of Bill C-84, I do so not to delay the work of the House but rather to point out, once again, that if the government has reached the point where it introduces a bill to abolish capital punishment, it does so because of its many commutations in the last few years. To my mind, the government, through this bill, wants Parliament to approve what cabinet has done in recent years.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length at this stage because the leader of the Social Credit Party of

Canada dealt with the matter yesterday in some detail, and I share his point of view. That is why it would be useless to repeat the logical arguments that can be invoked to oppose passage of this bill.
I also listened very closely to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who made a very sensible speech and recalled the words of the Prime Minister, at the time when discussions were echoed by the press throughout Canada, and to a certain extent I support the views expressed by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) on Bill C-84 concerning capital punishment.
I would have appreciated it, however, if the hon. member had been successful in convincing the leader of the official opposition to reconsider his position and go along courageously with those who oppose Bill C-84 for reasons as valid as those advocated by abolitionists. Having said that,
I still believe however, that if we could have a really free vote in this House, the leader of the opposition would also enjoy that choice. I do agree on that. But as I said earlier I am not yet convinced that a genuine free vote can be held in the House on that issue. Members of some parties are so used to following the party line that even if the government allows members to express themselves freely, they will not take this opportunity to vote according to the will of the population.
Mr. Speaker, I submit what I indicated a number of times, namely that on the occasion of such an important legislation, the people of Canada should have been consulted through a referendum. Not that kind of plebiscite that was held in 1941, when the Liberal government wanted to get released from their commitment that there would be no conscription across the country. Not a kind of referendum where members of parliament and ministers would appear one after the other before television, to try and convince the people to vote this or that way, but a true referendum, a really democratic one decreed by this House and held without TV debate.
When the people are consulted, they should be trusted to take their own responsibilities. Such a consultation would have given an opportunity for democracy to go through this difficult stage. More trust would have been shown toward the younger Canadians, and they would have realized that our parliamentary system, one of the best in the world, is capable of respecting the people's will and giving them an opportunity to express it when important decisions have to be taken.
The holding of such a referendum was flatly denied for a number of reasons. However, some groups held consultations, and I would take this opportunity to commend the Canadian Police Association for holding such a referendum on this subject. And I refer to the brief dated May 3, 1976 that was submitted to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. May I quote the following excerpt from that document:
Our association recently circulated through various newspapers a questionnaire on capital punishment. Here is the response of the public to the following questions. Question No. 1: Should capital punishment be retained only for the murder of police officers on duty, or prison guards?
Reply of the public: Yes, 4,855; no, 55,425.
This is a significant reply obtained after free consultation.
July 13, 1976

Question No. 2: For the murder of anyone while carrying out a premeditated crime? Reply of the public: Yes, 55,374; no, 8,516. Question No. 3: Should the capital punishment issue be decided by a Canadian referendum? Reply of the public: Yes, 55,282; no, 3,444. Question No. 4: Are you against the death penalty because of the means of execution (hanging)? Reply of the public: Yes, 9,954; no, 44,258.
This is significant. The word "hanging" is not at issue, but the whole basis of the question is truly analyzed. People truly went to the bottom of things.
Question No. 5: If yes to question No. 4, what means of execution would you favour? Reply of the public: Electric chair: 2,822. Gas chamber: 2,486. Drugs: 2,911. Firing squad: 856. Any public means: 693. The means used by the murderer: 37.
I will come back to this question later.
Question No. 6: If you are against the death penalty by any method whatsoever, what penalty would you favour? Reply of the public: Psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation: 168. No parole: 11,712. Parole-194.
The number of respondents represents 87 per cent of the total population. It is therefore with good reason that members of Parliament oppose the passage of Bill C-84. They argue that te majority of the population favour retention of the death penalty. The population is absolutely right if we consider this consultation made by the Toronto Police Association.
Mr. Speaker, we have also received many letters from the public. I shall certainly not read even one of them because they all express approximately the same opinion. But I still insist that this is a very serious situation. We are all Christians. We all need some light and I believe that it would not be improper for the House to ask the Holy Ghost to enlighten us so that we may receive the enlightenment that we need before the vote and be truly able to take an action that will be in accordance with the wishes of the people. A proverb says Vox populi, vox Dei, which means that the voice of the people is the voice of God. As Christians, we must therefore have the humility to ask the enlightenment that we need to do what the people wish for the greater good of Canada.
I would like that between now and tomorrow, when we have the opportunity to ponder some more over the seriousness of the choice we have to make, we can so express ourselves that people will rest assured that all members voted conscientiously. That is the important thing to do if we are to restore credibility in the minds of Canadians about the role of members of parliament.
It is current practice for bills introduced in the House, after being dealt with at the second reading stage, to be sent to a committee. Bill C-84 was sent to the justice and legal affairs committee but, unfortunately, I believe the purpose of that committee was distorted because I have always believed that the referral of a bill to a committee of the House aims at giving the public a chance to be heard, to present briefs, to express verbally their approval or disapproval of the bill.
Unfortunately I deplore the fact that the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs proceeded so fast that it was not possible to call witnesses for or against capital punishment so that we might have had the widest consultation possible and be in a position to present amendments that would have made this bill better understood by the public.
Capital Punishment
Canadians could have hoped for the future of our country to have the best possible law and the closest to their expectations.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we depreciated the actual value of committees as the public has been deprived of that benefit. I know that the committee sat but it did so rapidly that it was impossible for the citizens concerned to come to Ottawa and make representations that would have surely been well received by every member of the committee as it is their role to entertain representations from the public.
I am sorry but I think that that kind of procedure is an attempt against democracy and, in the future, I am afraid that the public will not have too much confidence in those committees and that they will neglect to express their point of view in other circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, no need to say that my position has not changed because I am more convinced than ever that we should give to those responsible for the protection of the individual, the protection of our property and the public. I regret that the majority did not agree to offer that protection to which the public is entitled. I am afraid that henceforth the people will not have enough confidence in the protection we can give them and will take the law into their own hands. This would lead to a society of disorder, a society of violence. However, as I said last week, God knows we are well on the path of the society of violence that we accept as a normal evolution. We talk about evolution but what is it? We can have forward evolution but we can also have retrograde evolution. So the word evolution does not mean in our society that we are wiser than our fathers and our great-grandfathers. Fair enough, there must be evolution but if we really want that it be in the right direction, we should take measures to avoid the situations of violence, we should suppress all the causes that lead us to violence. Whether these causes are political, social or economic, as parliamentarians we have the duty to open our eyes, to be well aware of the glaring facts and to take the necessary measures so that there can be more justice in our country and so that we can prevent that idea from springing up in the minds of those who suffer from persecution before justice, I mean that of wanting to take the law into their own hands. Moreover, we should repress those criminals who have the regrettable tendency to attack their fellow-beings, even though they are deterred by the courageous attitude of society and by the parliaments which adopt laws to protect them against themselves.
I think that was our ancestors' aim; to provide that punishment for the criminals in the Criminal Code. We must protect society against those who have this tendency, against those who are prepared to go to any end to seize the property of others by violence, at the point of a gun.
Mr. Speaker, I think we could have found a form of execution for criminals without talking about hanging. I still hope it will be possible to find a humane way of applying death sentences, likely to make those who will be ayare of it understand that society is sorry for having to execute the guilty, to deprive him of the great gift of life, but doing so in a human way, society will understand that such action is prompted by a sense of duty, a spirit of justice and at the same time a respect for the great value of human life.
15276

July 13, 1976
Capital Punishment
Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude on these words, asking my colleagues to think again about the seriousness of the situation and to trust those who are responsible for administrating and enforcing our laws, for promoting as well the justice we are asking for. These people must have confidence in us. Within a few days, the Olympic Games will take place in Montreal. There will be 16,000 members of the Armed Forces, thousands of policemen who will risk their lives and will be the advanced guard; those people will be there to protect society against those who might wish to take advantage of the situation to cause trouble and disturbances or to take barbaric action. We rely on them to protect us, to ensure public protection. But for God's sake, tomorrow, let us give them the necessary tools to enable them to carry out their duty, which will hopefully prevent us from going through unpleasant events that would damage the reputation of our country, our province and the city of Montreal. Thus, policemen will be able to carry out their duty while feeling protected, and should potential murderers plan to do something, they would act very carefully to avoid being sentenced to death.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that I do not fear capital punishment at all because I do not intend to murder anyone. Now, if the present act is amended, capital punishment will apply only to those convicted of murder. With Bill C-84, all these provisions are removed, there will be life sentencing, and God knows how many life sentences, in the past, have been commuted to a few years in prison only. Then, life sentence is changed again; they speak of 15, 20 or 25 years. This is not even a life sentence, but a specified period in prison.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly vote against Bill C-84 on third reading and I hope that meanwhile, the government will review its position and introduce a better legislation.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend hon. members who spoke today and yesterday at this stage of the proceedings. I have been extraordinarily concerned with the turn of events in this particular debate. First of all, this bill was advanced, not because there was a demand by the government caucus, nor because there was a demand from the public, but merely as a cabinet relief bill. It was introduced merely to relieve the cabinet of a decision that it has assumed over the years, a practice which I have deprecated, placing itself in the position of the final court of appeal on capital sentences.
As a body, the cabinet is totally unsuited for that position. Nowhere else do we have questions of justice or legal decisions taken by a civil body as a final decision. This is a practice that grew up in the 1960s. Certainly it was the practice when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was leader of the government. It is a practice that I protested then and during the years following under Mr. Pearson. We know there were political considerations in the determination of whether the sentence against this or that condemned person, whose rights had been fully protected by the courts all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and in respect of whom the

courts had decreed the penalty according to law, should be exacted. There has been this 14 years of practice.
I can understand that the cabinet, having backed itself into a corner as a result of the illogical law of 1967-that is, the limitations on capital punishment at the time, renewed in 1972-is now facing some cases where it actually would have to carry out the law. As a result, the cabinet brought forward this bill under the guise of a free vote.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), and others in this House demonstrated-and I will not repeat the arguments-just how free the vote really was. This is the biggest hoax on the public in years and, goodness knows, there have been real hoaxes perpetrated on the public in the last few years. The very circumstances surrounding the introduction of the bill, under the principle of cabinet solidarity, ties up the cabinet. The cabinet had no free vote in this regard. There will be pious confidence that as a result of a free debate and a free vote, this House adopted on second reading the principle of abolition of capital punishment. I will speak about the second reading vote in a moment. The suggestion that there was a free vote is the laugh of the century.
Government supporters found themselves, for one reason or another, under various pressures-which were not applicable to members on this side of the House-in spite of the so-called right to exercise a free vote. I could even go to the extent of suggesting that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was restricted in his role as Conservative House leader in negotiating certain aspects of this debate because members of the Conservative caucus said this was not a party position, and if there were to be arrangements made with regard to the debate they would be made between supporters and opponents of the bill. That was not apparent on the government side.
Yesterday, during discussion on a question of privilege, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe indicated quite conclusively that there were pressures put on certain members, as did the hon. member for Temiscamingue, and no one would dare controvert their positions.
It is now said by some pundits that parliament seems irrelevant to the public scene. Well, I do not agree with that, but certainly this debate can be used as an example. There is no public demand for the abolition of capital punishment. To the contrary. Those hon. members who are honest enough to speak about the reaction among their constituents, either through polls or otherwise, know that there is only a small fraction of the Canadian public which advocates the abolition of capital punishment. Therefore, this long debate on Bill C-84 is not as a result of public demand. The situation is to the contrary.
There is another point on which I should like to comment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If junior hon. members of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
July 13, 1976


Mr. Collenette:: Notwithstanding what we say on either side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I resent the suggestion that there may be some inequality amoung members. We are all hon. members.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is obvious that my words struck home in that I am taken back to the point which I started making, that certain people like to read many of the speeches that are made. I would say that usually when I refer to hon. junior members of the House, I mean to refer to inexperience. Other than that, we all stand equal.


An hon. Member:: Innuendo.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I should like to point out to the hon. member that we are here to debate Bill C-84, and I suggest that he keep to the subject matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is the noisemakers who interrupted me. If they are to be permitted the opportunity to make irrelevant interruptions, I have the right to reply.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: We are all equal when it comes to irrelevancy.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are also equal when it comes to conforming to the practices of the House so far as reading speeches is concerned. The point to which I wish to come back concerns the so-called principle of the bill. Some hon. members felt at some point in the report stage of this bill that if they were to support certain amendments they would be voting against what had been adopted as the principle of the bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is a fact that in the preparation of the amendments to the rules, or the changes in the procedures in 1969, second reading ceased to be the adoption in principle of a bill. The rules that have been quoted in the House go back to British practice, which also predates changes in their rules. There is nothing like using wrong authorities to support a poor case, and that is what has happened. For instance, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) put out in the debate that there had been adoption of the bill in principle. Occasionally these things are reported in the press and then someone keeps insisting that second reading is adoption in principle. But there is nothing in our rules, as they were changed, to say so.
Second reading is passage of a stage and reference to committee. How many times over the past seven years have bills been brought forward by the government which were controversial, but which were given second reading by the opposition with the reservation that certain amendments would be adopted. This is so the House can proceed to the next stage. Here, again, I should like to make reference to hon. members whose experience is relatively limited. Prior to the time I mentioned, if hon. members wish to go back to the debates they will see what happened when there was a total block on second reading because it
Capital Punishment
was deemed to be adoption in principle of the bill. But to get away from that, to make the proceedings more flexible, it was changed to mean reference to a committee.
We are now at the most important stage of the bill.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: It is important all the way.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But the most important stage, if I may say so, is the stage after which there have been amendments. The minister in charge of Bill C-84 has accepted some amendments and there have been others put forward by members of the House and adopted by the House. Let us look at Bill C-83 to which some 60 amendments were made, if not more. It is the stage at which the House will vote on the bill and either accept or reject it. At that stage we see the embodiment of the law which will be applied in future to govern the actions of the Canadian public. It is not that which is there as a framework on second reading.
There is another point which I should like to make. I challenge the common belief that in an amending bill there is any other principle than that a certain law shall be amended. Bill C-84 contains many provisions which may indirectly have to do with changing the nature of the penalty, and it is merely a bill like others such as Bill C-83, a bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada. Can anyone tell me that Bill C-83 is a gun control bill, when there are important sections in it dealing with wiretapping and other matters?
This is merely a bill to amend the Criminal Code. If there is to be a principle, it is merely that. The distinction must be made with, for instance, Bill C-79 which set up the whole framework of the Anti-Inflation Board. It started out with the title and proceeded in detail. This bill has no title. If there is a total bill, one can find the principle such as in Bill C-79. What was it? It was an act to create the Anti-Inflation Board and give it certain powers. That is not so with this particular bill. Therefore, I say that the debate on principle is at this stage, and that a vote at the report stage which is contrary in part to the vote at second reading stage is not a vote against the principle of a bill previously adopted by this House. To me it is a fallacious argument to say that on an amending bill there can be a vote against the principle of the bill. The only vote which would be against the principle of this bill would be one which would refuse to amend the Criminal Code.
This subject was brought forward, as I said, by way of a government bill. There recently came to my study a paper prepared by Sir David Stephens, the former Clerk of the House of Lords in Britain. It is available to the procedure committee, particularly to a subcommittee headed by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane). It deals with private members' initiatives and with private members' legislation. There are classic examples of how, in the British House, subjects which are highly arguable from a moral point of view-abortion, divorce, capital punishment, homosexuality, and some others-always come through a private member so that there is a true free vote. The government there recognizes that there is a very deep and fundamental difference among its supporters.

July 13, 1976
Capital Punishment
That is how this bill should have come forward. I am sure the government could have found any number of its supporters who would have been the proudest people on earth to act as sponsors of this bill, and possibly the seconder could even have come from somewhere in the opposition. But it would have been a private member's bill and then we would have a true free vote. However, there are other people in this House who decide how things shall be done.
All I can say is that this has been a grievous lost opportunity for actually giving private members in this House the opportunity of expressing themselves and voting according to how they see it, rather than merely being caught up in the party machinery, the caucus machinery and in some other areas where it is said there are powers which have even greater influence on a particular party and its members. I am quoting from a British document which refers to the Trade Union Council, The TUC, which in many instances has to be directly consulted by the British Labour Party and the Labour government in order to determine what legislation shall come forward and what shall be contained in the legislation. I hope we do not have that practice and that we will not turn back the clock in so far as the influence of the private member is concerned.
Rule changes are proposed for this House always under a banner of so-called efficiency. All they do is make it easier for the cabinet. All they do is hack away at the few remaining controls there are; and this is supposed to be a responsible government! Whatever powers there are of examination, of questioning and control of the cabinet by the House go out under the expediency of efficiency.
Then we get the pundits outside complaining about parliament. Parliament itself, under the influence of very overpowering cabinet power, has fashioned its own hair-shirt and has sown the seeds of its own destruction in many ways. To use another simile, perhaps the way has been prepared for the charge that parliament is irrelevant because what is the point of discussion? Government backbenchers sit impatiently because they are precluded from participating in debate-and I have sat on the government side-because cabinet ministers want their legislation to go forward. People are asked blindly to support legislation, not to criticize publicly and not to rock the boat. But that is not parliament. I must say that in this particular debate I was glad to see some hon. members on the government side break those chains and speak independently with regard to this bill.
I and many hon. members have made reference to public opinion. To be subjective, this past weekend I was in Edmonton. I must say that I would not dare put down in Hansard, for fear of offending some souls, the nature of the language of the criticism of this bill and of the government which was expressed to me. Only one person, a lady friend of our family, called me and said she was glad that the vote went as it did. I expected that; I have known her as a lifelong abolitionist. I respect her opinion; but she is one of few, and her rights were not being trampled on. Certainly, the government, in insisting on going forward with this bill, is flying in the face of public opinion.
With regard to an entirely different subject, I was rather amused last Thursday when the Prime Minister tried to justify the incomprehensible stand of the government on

Taiwan within the context of the Olympics. He asserted to the right hon. member for Prince Albert that because the government felt there was a strong majority of the people of Canada supporting its "one China" policy, it was correct in going forward as it was regarding Taiwan and the Olympic controversy. The government said, "Public opinion is with us, and therefore we are right". But what about this particular bill, Mr. Speaker? Public opinion is against the government so if the other argument was correct, this one is equally correct and the government is wrong. If in one case public opinion is used as an argument in support of the government's position, then the government must, logically, rely upon public opinion with regard to this matter.
There cannot be a law for one's friends and a law for one's foes.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: There is only one China.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misunderstood my argument. The argument was used that strong public opinion supports the government. If the hon. member will bide his time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a retentionist and I appreciate the speech the hon. member is making. With regard to the policy on China, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said many times that we recognize only one China, so let us not mix the cards here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a point of order; it is an argument which can be made at another time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will start back at square one, Mr. Speaker. The question is whether there shall be reliance upon public opinion to justify the government's stand. On Friday last the Prime Minister used the support of public opinion to buttress his case with regard to Taiwan in the Olympic context. To be logical, the government must have regard to public opinion on Bill C-84; but in this particular case public opinion is to be disregarded.
We have seen the reaction of the police and prison guards to this bill, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to have recourse to, nor would I repeat the worst threats that have been made. I think policemen and prison guards are reasonable people and they have a very difficult job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They have been doing a very difficult job with a law that specifically singled them out for protection, but in effect the law was set aside. Now there is being substituted a longer penalty of 25 years'
July 13, 1976

imprisonment. We are saying to the prison guard that the only way we are going to protect him from being fatally attacked by prisoners is to keep them under his care for many more years. We are going to incarcerate murderers longer, and if they kill one, two, three, four-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: They can kill one very day, if they want to.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -all they will get is 25 years. There is nothing to lose.


Mr. Darling:: Fifteen years.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then there is the question of parole. I do not suppose anybody who killed a second time or killed in a prison would get much sympathy with respect to parole. But it is ludicrous to think that long-term sentences of this kind will provide protection for prison guards. Society has a responsibility for the protection of fellow prisoners as well. The fact that a man is sentenced to jail, for whatever crime he may have been found guilty of, certainly is not to be taken to mean that he is being sentenced to exposure of being killed by someone within the prison system. In practice, one might be so cynical as to say that is what some of the abolitionists may hope. It is a very harsh form of attrition, but I honestly think that some people hope that will happen. What a penal system we would have if we were to substitute the lawful executioner and put in his place the unlawful executioner within the prison system!
As the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) detailed the other day, many sections within the National Defence Act still provide for the death penalty. That act says that every person-not merely a serviceman or servicewoman-who commits an offence under certain sections is subject to the death penalty.
What about all the bleeding hearts in regard to the elimination of the death penalty by the cabinet and those who support them? Why were no amendments brought forward in this bill to remove those sections from the National Defence Act? It would have been very simple, if the principle had been to eliminate capital punishment. But certain sections of the Criminal Code are amended to change certain categories of crime, parole is arranged differently, and the death sentence is left in a very important statute of this country to cover certain circumstances. I suppose it would be ironical to say it would be rather strange to see an event happen within the next few months which would bring the perpetrator of a certain crime under those provisions of the National Defence Act. That would be a really interesting situation.
As I said on second reading, the burden of proving that the change is for the better is on those who advocate support for this bill. It is not up to the so-called retention-ists to prove their case; it is for the abolitionists to prove it. I will not go so far as to say that they must prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt, but it is their responsibility to prove that the abolition of capital punishment will be a change for the better and that our system of justice and protection of the public will be improved. I submit that the arguments put forward by the supporters of this bill are
Capital Punishment
inadequate. They have not proved their case. They have failed to discharge the burden put upon them by logical debate. For this reason, any in this House who doubt that the abolition 6f capital punishment will be an improvement in our system of justice ought to reject this bill. I invite my colleagues in this House to do so.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of this debate which I find most deplorable arose when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) virtually accused all retentionist members of parliament and Canadians of being seekers of vengeance who were not interested in justice. I suggest that was a false imputation and a harsh accusation. I submit there was no justification for so accusing those who in this House and elsewhere favour the retention of capital punishment.
I abhor the fact that some hon. members debated this whole question, as epitomized by the Prime Minister's speech, on the basis of what is a deterrent to murder. Arguments were put forward to show that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. I suggest that this debate should not have been conducted in those terms. Certainly, the Prime Minister should not have put the matter in that light. We are considering the imposition of capital punishment only in for a small category of serious crimes.
I agree that not every case in which a human being loses his life as a consequence of another human being's action should be considered as murder punishable by death. That is not the subject matter of this debate, notwithstanding all efforts to make some people believe it is. Mr. Speaker, in essence we are considering capital punishment only in relation to a few serious crimes against mankind and the state. Hon. members who proposed amendments to the bill felt that the offences which warranted capital punishment should include treason, piracy, hijacking and murder by hired killers, by the "kill for pay" people.
I think that most proponents of abolition would find themselves in an uncomfortable position if they were members of cabinet. I acknowledge that if I were in cabinet and had to consider the commutation of the death penalty, I should face a most heart-rending decision. Nevertheless, such decisions fall within the responsibilities of elected members. When seeking election, members know that they may be called on to face such hard decisions. The members of the cabinet must make hard decisions on behalf of all society. Abolitionists would face hard decisions: Any one of us, if we were in the cabinet, would face hard decisions in this regard. They would not be easy; they would be disturbing. Nevertheless, when we were elected we agreed to shoulder our burden of responsibility on behalf of all members of society.
I am concerned about the lives of individuals, and I am absolutely convinced that the abolition of capital punishment will not save lives in Canada. I submit that, on the contrary, it will cost lives in Canada. Perhaps lives will be taken within prison walls, as the previous speaker suggested. Perhaps lives will be taken on the streets. If capital murder were punishable by death, a criminal might think twice before shooting someone during an armed robbery. A criminal would think twice before shooting to kill. The retention of capital punishment would, I submit, save the lives of prison guards and police officers. Whether we shall

July 13, 1976
Capital Punishment
save lives is the decision we must make as we vote on the bill.
Another question which must be considered is: Would capital punishment be a deterrent to serious crimes committed in a fit of passion? I suggest that it would not. An individual in the grip of passion acts abnormally. When in the grip of passion, an individual may be driven to commit a crime for which capital punishment is no deterrent. But I submit that capital punishment would deter premeditated acts of murder. The death penalty would save the lives of innocent people on the streets and would be a fit punishment for criminals who murder deliberately. Therefore, those who, like the Prime Minister, suggest retentionists are only seeking vengeance are no longer entitled to the respect of their fellow man. That was a harsh, unfair and improper basis on which to conduct this debate.
There are no statistics to show how well we have rehabilitated those who have been in prison. We know that harsh treatment can sometimes change the mind of a man. Such harsh treatment has been described as brainwashing. We have heard of instances in which brainwashing has been cruel. But, as we know, minds have not been changed. There is no evidence to show that psychology or other forms of treatment can change the minds of hardened criminals who have no inclination to change. There are no records to substantiate success, as might be the case in the scientific world. We cannot measure success in this field with the accuracy with which a mathematician might define a problem. In this field we cannot be guided by laws of nature which work steadfastly and continually in other fields.
In short, one cannot say that men have been induced to change their minds by psychiatrists. I suppose the best example of what I am talking about is to be found in the treatment of those who indiscriminately and unwisely have resorted to the use of drugs. Alcoholics Anonymous have assumed that there is little use trying to correct the behaviour of an alcoholic unless that person really and truly wants to change. The same is true of other psychiatric treatment. When the mind wants to change, it can accept help and benefit from it. However, when the mind of man is determined to remain on course, it is difficult, if not impossible, to treat that mind so that it again fits into the rank and file of society. We are assuming that we can correct a mind that does not want to be corrected. That is an unwise and dangerous assumption. In the long run, it will be proven that it is one that costs lives in this country, not one which saves them. It will be difficult to prove, but I believe that it is the way the mind of man works, particularly that of the hard-core criminal.
I know I am being repetitive and that this has been said by speaker after speaker. However, I am deeply concerned about the lack of concern for the safety of our peace officers in this country. We are being traitors to them when we behave as we are presently doing, and traitors to ourselves and the rank and file of society as a whole. I submit that when knowledge of capital punishment being inevitable is in the mind of a man who premeditates a crime, it is, and must be, a deterrent.

This so-called free vote is one of the most capricious things that has been perpetrated upon the people of any country in the name of democratic government. The behaviour of the government and its influential people as this subject has been brought before the House in a pseudo free vote situation is deceitful at best. I believe the people of Canada recognize that there is a free vote only within the limits in which that vote will safely follow the policy of the government. When the safety of the policy of this bill which has been introduced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is in danger, freedom of behaviour will come to an end.
Suggestions are made as to what it might mean to certain individuals in this House if this bill fails to pass. That is a most regrettable thing. While the Conservative party has not been united in its stand on this matter, and its members voted as they chose, at no time has any prominent member of this party asked any individual, by persuasion, force or other means, to change his vote.


Mitchell William Sharp: Nor has ours.


Fred Alward McCain: I submit that the evidence at hand indicates that anybody who makes a comparable claim and sits on Your Honour's right is oblivious of the facts as they are known to the public of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allmand:: Tell some more lies.


Fred Alward McCain: There are some people in this House who knew a great deal more about the professions they practised before coming here than they have learned about the profession they have practised since coming here. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) indicates that he has learned little. He has not listened and has no awareness of what is going on around him in this situation. Possibly he wishes to be oblivious of the efforts being made to compromise the free vote which has been so vigorously promoted as being the will of parliament.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to remind the hon. member that the whip and myself voted on different sides in this situation. I think the hon. member should refrain from references to a free vote.


Mr. Blais:: You should not reflect on a vote in any event.


Fred Alward McCain: I do not remember asking the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain to rise. I do not remember mentioning the whip.


Mitchell William Sharp: Whom did you mention?


Fred Alward McCain: I mentioned that the government exerted pressure.


William Warren Allmand: On whom?


Fred Alward McCain: You know.


William Warren Allmand: No I do not. On whom? Let us have some names.


Mr. Stevens:: How about the Lalonde party?


William Warren Allmand: Were you there?
July 13, 1976


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: It must have been the same person who gave you the letter out of my files.


Fred Alward McCain: Let us reflect for about 15 seconds. With regard to whether it was the intention of the government that this was to be a perfectly free vote, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who preceded me in this debate outlined the method by which that could be done without reflection on the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member completed his remarks?


Fred Alward McCain: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Rulings have previously been made by the Chair on comments similar to those just made by the hon. member for Carle-ton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain). According to my recollection, the Chair has held that it is not proper for any hon. member to reflect upon a vote. I think that principle is eminently acceptable. Each and every member of this House is free to exercise his judgment in accordance with his conscience and volition. To indicate that any member could be influenced to vote contrary to his conscience is a direct attack on the privileges of members of this House. I suggest that the hon. member's remarks ought not to have been made.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the rules of this House provide that an individual should not in any way reflect upon another individual personally. I reflected purely and simply upon the pressure of the government to obtain as many votes as it could for its position in respect of this legislation, and I said that pressure was such that the government could no longer claim that it was a free vote. I did not reflect upon an individual. There were individuals who took offence at my reflection against the government.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here the whole morning and I think the remarks which were made with respect to the matter, if they constitute a point of order at all, arose out of what was said by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). The hon. member for Edmonton West said that traditionally in parliament, when a matter was to be proposed upon which the whips would not be applied, it was always dealt with through private members' business. I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) said, and it was clear to me that he was leading up to that point, a point a finally made which was in line with what the hon. member for Edmonton West had said immediately before him.
There might be some sensitivity among members of the House with respect to what occurred-and I have no idea what occurred-but surely we have not reached the stage at which discussion of the various methods by which debates are conducted and questions taken and put to members is to be deemed a reflection on a vote such as
The Queen
might be contrary to the rules. If this is a point of order at all, and there is some doubt about that, it is not a point well taken. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte and the hon. member for Edmonton West stand in exactly the same position; both were speaking from the point in view of methodology. There was no reflection on a vote of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must say my first reaction to part of the remarks made by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) was to question their relevance. As to the point of order suggesting there might have been a reflection on the vote, I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte implied that pressure was brought to bear, but he did not reflect on the decision reached by the House. This was more or less confirmed by what the hon. member himself just said.
Parliament, after all, is an institution in which debate takes place and in which hon. members seek to convince others by speeches both inside and outside the House. I do not think that to say so is passing judgment on a vote or on the freedom of a vote cast by a member. It is a natural fact of life and the rules of the House permit it. So I do not agree with the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary. I do not think that, strictly speaking, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte was reflecting on a vote.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provision of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of rather urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has begun her official visit to Canada and is now in Nova Scotia I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the members of the House of Commons-
Through Your Honour.
-send best wishes to Her Majesty, et bienvenue au Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Prud'homme:: In both official languages.

July 13, 1976
Bilingualism


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Moved by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the members of the House of Commons, through The Speaker, send to Her Majesty best wishes from his House, et bienvenue au Canada.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the delay and procrastination which has extended over several years in resolving the question of ownership of offshore mineral resources adjacent to the Maritime provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, or some minister on his behalf, report to the House on motions later today on recent discussions with Premier Regan on this vital issue which could, with the co-operation of the federal government in resolving this dispute, do so much to change the attitude and economic situation prevailing in Atlantic Canada at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter or urgent and pressing necessity concerning the proposal under consideration that the St. Catharines area in Ontario be classified as a bilingual district, despite the fact that 97 per cent of the population is not French-speaking. I would, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
In view of the fact that a copy of minutes, reportedly labelled confidential, of a secret meeting held on this subject at the Constellation Hotel in Toronto by the bilingual districts' advisory board has recently been given to the member for Lincoln on instructions of the President of the Treasury Board, and also in view of the fact that a copy
[Mr. Prud'homme.J
of these confidential minutes are reportedly to be in the hands of a reporter from the Globe and Mail, that the President of the Treasury Board is requested to make public the contents of these documents and at the same time that he assure the House that no action will be taken creating the St. Catharines area part of a bilingual district while parliament is not in session this summer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, cannot be presented to the House without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras):
That this House requests the governments of Tanzania and Mauritius, fellow members of the Commonwealth, to reverse their stand and participate in the Olympics in Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires that before "the presentation of such a motion the House give its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM SOVIET UNION
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may, with your leave, ask hon. members to acknowledge the presence in your gallery of a distinguished visitor in the person of Mr. Patolichev, Minister of Trade for the Soviet Union and delegate here engaged with Canada to continue the very good relationships we have in this field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigra-

tion I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance, who is one of the few ministers in the House at the present time. Since April, when university students finished their studies, there have been 94,000 fewer young people employed in Canada. It is also apparent that the sole reason youth unemployment is remaining relatively stable is that students simply are not entering the labour market; in short they are giving up. Given this situation, is the minister willing to recommend to the government re-evaluation of the student summer employment program so that students will be encouraged to enter the labour market and thereby accumulate the savings required to return to school next year?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the minister answered with his usual arrogance, as demonstrated last night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to ask the minister a question. In view of the fact that Statistics Canada noted today the continually declining participation rates among young women in Canada which is now around 3.1 per cent, does the minister not realize that lack of savings among this group and any accompanying deferment of education among them can only lead to social inequities in access to higher education, and, if he realizes this situation, is he not willing to concede that this government's student employment strategy requires a complete and immediate review?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should point out to the hon. gentleman that with regard at least to those young people who will be reentering university in the fall their student summer employment earnings, as well as other financial means, are taken into account. If it happens that a student has not been able to augment his earnings sufficiently during the summer, he will be entitled to supplemental assistance under the Canada Student Loan Program.


PROPOSAL TO CHANGE BASIS ON WHICH LOANS AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS TO ACTUAL EARNINGS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On July 8 the minister was asked, with respect to the provisions of the Canada student loan plan which bases the loans available not on the actual earnings but on the length of time students are available for work, if he will take steps to have the basis of the plan changed to actual earnings as defined under the Income Tax Act. In view of the fact that he has now had some notice and the opportunity to look into the matter, can he now report to the House if he is prepared to take steps recommended at the time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated that the present provisions of the Canada Student Loan Program take recognition of the problem.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO LESSEN BURDEN OF STUDENTS UNABLE TO FIND SUMMER EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Recent reports of Statistics Canada have revealed that we are now experiencing the worst record of youth unemployment since statistics were accumulated in 1953, and furthermore, the national and Ontario union of students fears that student unemployment this summer is already running at 20 per cent to 25 per cent and that this could increase. Does the minister have any indication if student unemployment is as high as the national union of students suspects and, if it is, is the minister prepared to introduce emergency legislation to lessen the burden of students who will be unable to find work this summer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: will be glad to make inquiries to see whether those figures are soundly based.


Paul Wyatt Dick: As the Minister of Finance does not seem to know what the unemployment situation is, perhaps I might ask him a supplementary question. A cut-back in the student summer unemployment program was introduced under the guise of restraint. A high level of student unemployment this summer will undoubtedly result in either the deferment of post-secondary enrollment for some individuals or an increased demand for Canada student loans for others, which is not a saving to the federal government. On June 16, the national union of students-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, would he put it.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I would ask the minister whether he could confirm in unambiguous terms to the national union of students that he is willing to remove the requirement of summer savings in order that students will be able to get Canada student loans to continue their education?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have just responded to that question in my reply to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You did not respond at all.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that the Supreme Court has decided that the federal government has constitutional authority to deal with inflation on a national basis,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: -foolish as the particular program may be, can the minister say whether the government will consider the development of a national program to deal

July 13, 1976
Oral Questions
with unemployment, and, more specifically, would the minister ensure that unemployment is put on the agenda for the meeting scheduled for this fall of the finance ministers of the provinces along with the federal Minister of Finance, and at that meeting would the federal government submit a national program dealing with unemployment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The
question was much discussed in the context of the budget and I do not have any further proposals to put before the House at this time. I think it is fair to say that the question was not extensively discussed at the last meeting of finance ministers, and while there is scope for general economic discussion at these meetings, the question was not extensively canvassed. I would be prepared, if provincial ministers wished to discuss it during the course of the meeting.


John Edward Broadbent: I am asking the Minister of Finance to make that specific suggestion himself. I would like to ask him a second question. Since there are still more than
700,000	Canadians without jobs, which in percentage terms represents a year over year increase from the same month of last year, would the minister tell us if the federal government now has any specific programs to expand job opportunities in the country, or will we have to rely simply on the program which was announced earlier by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, which will not come into effect until January, 1977?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated, I do not propose to announce any further proposal at this time.


John Edward Broadbent: I will ask my final question, probably with no better results. Given the fact that in Atlantic Canada, the four provinces considered together, there is an unemployment average running at between 10 per cent at the bottom end to something in excess of 12 per cent at the top, in every case exceeding the national average substantially, could the minister tell us if the government will be presenting to the House any specific proposals to deal with this persistent unemployment in Atlantic Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I just indicated to the hon. gentleman that I have no proposals I intend to put forward at this time.


HOUSING
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
As The Conference Board in Canada has indicated that there will be a marked increase in unemployment in the fall because of lower housing construction in Canada, which is considerably lower in Canada even now, can the minister tell us what he intends to do to stimulate housing or encourage people to become homeowners?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member asked this question. I think he would be interested in the housing starts for June, which are at the rate of 275,000 per year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: That is substantially higher than the rate of
235,000	starts which we targetted, and it is 7,000 more than the rate for May, so we are doing a great deal at the present time. The industry is holding up extremely well. The housing starts are for the right people at the right price, and we expect that this level of activity will continue throughout the year and that employment will be maintained at a very high level.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
The minister seems very optimistic but unfortunately he is unaware of what is going on in the province of Quebec where, according to the information from that province, housing construction is slowing down. I do not know whether the minister goes to Quebec from time to time, or whether he knows what goes on there, but that is the case.
I therefore ask the minister whether he can tell the House what he intends to do to stimulate construction, especially in the poor provinces or those where development is slower. Would he say that, in the next few months, the interest rate can be lowered, or that subsidies can be given new owners with regard to interest rates, to a greater extent that is being done now, and so encourage people to own their own homes?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First of all, with regard to Quebec, the starts for June alone are up to 6,900 compared to 4,000 last year, so there is an increase there. We have programs with regard to interest reduction, grants for moderate priced housing and programs to make it possible for people of moderate incomes to purchase housing which is of good quality. These programs will continue. In addition, we have extensive rehabilitation programs going on in the province of Quebec, including rural areas.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. I note that the principal reason for the improvement of the unemployment rate over the second quarter of the year stems from a decline of the labour force in the past quarter, down some 63,000, rather than an increase in employment, which in turn is down 72,000 in the last quarter. Can the minister indicate when he expects the economy to be producing jobs at a rate which would conform to the prediction that he
July 13, 1976

included in his budget of 250,000 new jobs this year and would he indicate what sector he expects will produce these jobs?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, these are questions that were very fully canvassed in the course of the budget debate. It does not seem useful to repeat them at this point. Of course, it will be difficult to say within the context of any monthly period when they will change or indeed in what aspect of industry. I would just remind the hon. gentleman that we have set out our expectations for the year in a rather comprehensive way.


LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT PREDICTED BY CONFERENCE BOARD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further supplementary to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Noting that the minister has already stated today that he has no new programs that he cares to announce today for job creation, and in view of the fact that the Conference Board of Canada has predicted steadily rising unemployment rates throughout 1976-77, can he identify any factors which in his opinion indicate why the current economic situation would not lead this House and himself to view the forecast put out by the conference board as being inaccurate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct the hon. gentleman. The conference board substantially agreed with our analysis for the year 1976. Its prediction with regard to unemployment was an unemployment increase with respect to 1977.1 think as the year goes on we will want to review the facts as they turn up to see whether or not that seems to be a substantially founded expectation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister stick by the budget forecast of 250,000 new jobs for 1976 and would he explain if he means average 1976 figures over average 1975 or January to January figures?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we consider all the statements set out in the context of the budget still to be those guidelines governing the development of the economy.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture of which I have given him notice, with respect to the important meeting last week with representatives of the potato industry from five of six of the eastern Canadian provinces, at Fredericton. Considering the fact that just prior to the meeting one of the officials of the New Brunswick government indicated that they hoped to have a plan in place for marketing by mid-September for this marketing year, could the minister
Oral Questions
indicate what progress was made at the meeting, when producers will have an opportunity to study the new revised plans and to vote on representation for a regional potato marketing council?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the meeting that took place. This is an ongoing thing. These meetings of potato producers have been taking place between the provinces for well over a year. They have been trying to formulate a plan for marketing potatoes. I understand that they should soon be able to make recommendations to producers and I understand it will be further discussed at a meeting of provincial ministers of agriculture if they can work it into their schedule at the end of this month in Quebec City. I understand representations are being made by ministers from other potato producing provinces in which it appears the producers are going to be in dire straits again this year.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the importance of these measures to the potato industry in the six eastern provinces and the importance of there being adequate funds and personnel to establish an effective secretariat, can the minister indicate whether a commitment was made by the federal government at this meeting to supply funds and appoint personnel so that the decisions taken by producers and the representative ministers can be put into effect for this marketing year?


Eugene Whelan: We would hope so, Mr. Speaker. It would need the utmost co-operation of all parties concerned so that some kind of plan could be put into operation for the coming crop year. The hon. member will recall that two years ago we spent approximately $16 million during the crop season because of the depressed prices. At that time we said that would be the last time we would put that kind of money into such a program and that they had better find a more orderly marketing system. That is what these meetings have been concerned with. It appears that the provinces and the potato producers, who are represented on the committees, are close to a plan at the present time but I am not in a position to say what it will be. I have not gone over anything since the meeting in Fredericton, not having had the time. I have received verbal reports about the meetings. They realize the seriousness of this matter and I believe they are serious about doing something about it.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Public Works is with reference to the Terrasse de la Chaudiere lease-purchase agreement. I wonder if the minister can tell the House why his department apparently agreed in principle to lease a building on which construction had not commenced, to be built on land which the lessor at the time did not own, in light of the fact that the minister said yesterday that this would be a rather strange lease arrangement.

July 13, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that to enter into such a lease arrangement would be a strange procedure. The fact of the matter is there have been negotiations-


Mr. Horner:: He was a good Liberal.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -leading up to the lease-purchase, which is distinct from an ordinary lease, of the building which is to be designed to meet the specific needs of the federal government.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works? In view of the multiplier involved as between the cost of the building and the lease price of the building, a multiplier of about three, does the government have any supervision rights over the construction costs of this building?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement if entered into, and it has not yet been, would provide what by extrapolation and calculation would appear to be the most economical method from the government's point of view of acquiring use and eventual ownership of the property.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House if the reported $54 million option to purchase Terrasse de la Chaudiere covers the entire project or just that portion of the project to be built on government-owned land?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the part of Terrasse de la Chaudiere in which we are interested is merely that portion related to the office accommodation which the government would occupy.


REASON FOR VARIATION IN PRICE OF LAND PURCHASED IN HULL
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works? Has the minister reviewed the situation whereby the National Capital Commission, as agents for the Department of Public Works, paid $86 per square foot last month for the Quebec Hydro property in Hull, when Campeau had been buying adjacent land six to ten months previously at an average cost of $30 per square foot? Can he tell the House why this was done?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He was a good Liberal.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I think the House is aware, the National Capital Commission in Ottawa is a semi-autonomous body which operates to acquire and control the bulk of the government holdings of land within the national capital area.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister aware of any over-riding directives which were issued to the staff at NCC to use a specific appraisal company for the evaluation of the Quebec Hydro properties on Rue Principale, Hull, Quebec, which were to be purchased by the National Capital Commission for the Department of Public Works? If so, from which level did these directives come; if not will the minister make inquiries?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation is that the purchaser and vendor indicate one appraiser each; a third one is mutually agreed upon so that comparisons can be made and the most satisfactory solution is achieved.


Stan Darling: That is not an answer.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the minister in response to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemount confirmed that there should be a regulation supporting the existing rules with regard to the flying and controlling of aircraft, as outlined in section 8 of the memorandum of understanding reached by the minister and the parties to the contract. At the same time the minister stated, in answer to my question, that he would be making changes to the air navigation order of June 30 from a technical point of view. I ask the minister to confirm that the air navigation order which was filed with the registrar of statutory instruments on June 30 has been revoked rather than amended.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the ordinary procedure for amending orders like this is to revoke them and substitute a new text. That has been done in this case.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister explain to the House precisely what are the technical difficulties to which he referred in his answer yesterday, and will he confirm whether the parties to the agreement, CATCA and CALPA, were consulted before the revocation order was given? If they were not consulted, will he advise the House why they were not so consulted?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no, they were not consulted. If the hon. member will refer to the memorandum of understanding, he will see that there was an agreement about proceeding with an air navigation order, but no agreement

about its exact content. At that time we were indeed aware that while we would move forward quickly with a draft, a good deal of further work would have to be done on the ideal form of that order. The general purpose of the order was understood between us as enforcing the existing rules in relation to language. We proceeded immediately with a first draft of the order and have now substituted a second for it. As I indicated yesterday, while the second draft is the one that may come into effect, we are looking at further possible changes prior to its effective date.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister confirm that last Thursday when he met Les Gens de L'Air he gave to them an amended version of the air navigation order or did he discuss the revocation order with them? If so, what form of consultation has taken place with Les Gens de L'Air or what form of consultation does he anticipate? In view of the fact the minister is not consulting with the other parties to the agreement, why is he in fact consulting with the Gens de L'Air?


Otto Emil Lang: 
PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF GROUP OF REPRESENTATIVES OF ITALIAN OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer greetings to a group of officials from the Italian Olympic Committee who are visiting the House of Commons under the guidance of its head of mission, Mr. Mario Pescante.


OLYMPICS
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to urge the governments of Tanzania and Mauritius to reverse their decisions and to take part in the 21th Olympiads?
Oral Questions


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we regret deeply the decision of a number of countries and Olympic teams not to participate in the games. There is nothing we can do, however, for Canada has no voice in the policies of the International Olympic Committee. However, we wish indeed that everybody would participate.


RESEARCH
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question can be directed to either the Minister of State for Science and Technology or to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the absence of the latter minister, I hope the former one has a favourable answer. In view of the statement of concern that was presented last week to the Minister of State for Science and Technolgy and the Minister of National Health and Welfare by the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges urging the government to change its stance with regard to medical research funding, may I ask the minister, who is looking at me rather hopefully, whether favourable consideration will be given to this request so that there will not be a deterioration in health research, in health education or in the Canadian health care system?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I am looking at him hopefully. I was hoping that he was not going to be unreasonable. The hon. member is perhaps aware that following the initial allocation of funds to university research through the Medical Research Council, as a consequence of representations made, the Minister of National Health and Welfare was able to find some $2 million of additional funds from within the departmental estimates to transfer to this purpose. In the view of the Department of National Health and Welfare, this should suffice to ensure there is no retrogression in medical research. In so far as the future is concerned, I tried my best to convey to the representatives who came to see me the other day that we really would have to wait for next year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the statement of concern presented to the ministers last week was made after that $2 million adjustment, will the minister at least consider the request of the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges that an attempt be made to establish an adequate base level of research support with a view to maintaining that level in future years?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I heartily agree with the representation that we should endeavour to establish, and agree on, a base level, not only with respect to medical research but in a number of other scientific areas. It is in default of agreement on what is an appropriate base level that some of our current difficulties have arisen.

July 13, 1976
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Canadian National, by withdrawing its road cruiser passenger service in Newfoundland last night, violated an order of the Canadian Transport Commission in 1968, broke the law of Canada, notwithstanding any dispute they may have with the Newfoundland Regulatory Commission. As minister responsible for the National Transportation Act, does he intend to order CN to resume this service immediately?


Otto Emil Lang: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, Canadian National only discontinued this bus service when, in the particular legal dispute it had with Newfoundland, its drivers were beginning to be charged by Newfoundland for continuing to operate its buses in that province. That made it as impossible to continue as though barricades had been erected. Those barricades had been erected by the government of the province of Newfoundland. I am hoping that in the almost immediate future some arrangement can be arrived at whereby the legal issue can be resolved for all time. In the meantime, the buses can continue to operate without that barricade in place. I know there are discussions going on between CN and the province of Newfoundland to that end. I trust they will resolve the issue. If not, I will have to reconsider the position I may have to take to ensure that service is given to the people of Newfoundland.


James Aloysius McGrath: Since the CN has a monopoly on ground passenger service in the province and by withdrawing the sefvice has deprived the people of Newfoundland at a critical time of year of this essential service, in direct violation of the order made by the CTC, may I ask the minister whether he intends to order the buses back into service immediately or whether he intends to provide some alternative service until the dispute has been resolved?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will appreciate that ordering the bus service back into operation, as long as the drivers are being charged for continuing that service, would hardly be an acceptable action. The hon. member will also appreciate that the government of Newfoundland, and its highway traffic board, has jurisdiction in this situation only as a delegate from the federal government. I could obviously take some action by withdrawing that delegation but such a course would have some serious implications in principle not only for Newfoundland but for bus and trucking services across this country. I would want to do that only with great care. My first reaction, therefore, is to suggest that the barriers which I have described and which have been erected by the government of Newfoundland be removed by the government of Newfoundland. The buses would then continue to operate.


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE IN NEWFOUNDLAND IN VIEW OF WITHDRAWAL OF BUS SERVICE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: My question is to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. In view

of the fact that CNR are not abiding by order No. 2673, as indicated by the hon. member for St. John's East, but are taking a very unfair attitude by denying the public the only transportation available, and since the bus drivers are not being denied the right to drive the buses, apart from which the company's action prompts dissatisfaction toward the bus service, would the minister now consider reviving the Newfoundland passenger rail service to correct the piracy which occurred back in 1969?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, any move to reinstitute the rail service would require some planning and I am not sure the people of Newfoundland would see it as an immediate solution in view of the fact that passenger cars are simply not available in adequate numbers to provide the service. Other problems have arisen affecting the railway system configuration since the Bullet was discontinued, which would probably mean even slower service than was the case at that time. I think the only really sensible solution-and I would really urge the hon. member to join me in asking for this solution-is for the government of Newfoundland to make it possible for the bus system to operate. I assure the hon. member that CN is quite pleased to continue to operate the service but does not see how it can do so if its bus drivers are being charged under Newfoundland statutes for doing so.


Jack Marshall: Under the order of 1969 the CNR was supposed to maintain a railway line between central and western Newfoundland to provide service in an emergency. This service is deteriorating and since it is very obvious that the reason for this deterioration is that the public service commission asked the company to reduce its rate increase from 150 per cent to 30 per cent, would the minister look into this matter in the national interest?


Otto Emil Lang: I would inform the hon. member that, in effect, the CNR was not objecting to the reduction in its rate increase to 30 per cent by the Newfoundland Traffic Board. It was quite prepared to live with that ruling but there were other conditions attached which made it impossible for the CN to submit voluntarily to what it did not consider to be appropriate or binding upon it. The simple fact is that the Newfoundland Traffic Board seems to have wanted to take advantage of the best of both situations- on the one hand to exercise jurisdiction as though the bus system were provincial and on the other to explicitly ignore the provincial law itself which requires that the rates which are set by transportation systems be compensatory. If they had followed their own law about compensatory rates they would have allowed even more than the increase permitted but, as I say, even with those qualifications CN was prepared to ride with that increase but was not prepared to abide by the other conditions.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Considering that three months ago today the minister announced the dairy policy for the current year which was based on the fact that there was overproduction, may I ask the minister whether he can say to the House if he has valid information that production has sufficiently decreased to enable him to cancel the penalty of $8.60 a hundredweight?


Hon.  E. F.@: Mr. Speaker, the marketing supply management committee from all the provinces is meeting this week in Ottawa. We know that some of the provinces have done a good job in curtailing production. But we also know, for instance, that La Belle Province has not done such a good job.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In view of the fact that the National Housing Act and the National Building Code make no provision in their construction standards for the safety or health of home occupants with respect to the use of asbestos in insulation and other processes, and in view of the fact that a federal-provincial task force has urged a wide range of safety and health measures to prevent the irreversible disease of asbestosis associated with asbestos use, will the minister ensure that the National Research Council undertakes research into the health hazards arising from the use of asbestos in federally-assisted housing with a view to introducing safe standards in the National Housing Act and the National Building Code?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for having drawn attention to this problem. The National Research Council has for some time been working at making structures safer for the inhabitants or occupants through the National Building Code. The accent to date has been principally on structural safety and fire precaution. Increasingly, however, the question of the use of materials having toxic properties is arising and research into limiting their use and establishing proper precautions is already under way.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell us anything new about the progress of negotiations for the Canadian acquisition of Leopard tanks which was announced, of all people, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Can he also tell us whether he
Oral Questions
has yet made up his mind on the question whether any of our surplus CF-5's will be stationed in Europe?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations for the purchase of Leopard tanks are proceeding very satisfactorily with the Kraus-Mafei Company, the manufacturer. Discussions with the German government are proceeding satisfactorily for the use of Leopard tanks in the interim while ours are being manufactured. These negotiations are all on schedule.


REASON FOR BOOKING PRESS CONFERENCE ROOM FOR JULY
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Perhaps the minister will tell me later about the CF-5's. My supplementary question is to the same minister. Is it true the minister has booked the press conference room in the press building for a press conference for this Thursday, at 4 p.m.? Would the minister tell the House of Commons if he booked the room for that specific time and date or did he merely book it for use 24 hours after parliament recesses, thus attaining a new level in contempt of parliament?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet meets on Thursday as a normal practice and the Lockheed decision is before that cabinet, and possibly future cabinet meetings. I do not know what arrangements may have been made by information services concerning a possible requirement for an announcement. In reply to the earlier question on the CF-5's, we have no plans to move any of the CF-5's permanently to Europe.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for York-Simcoe relating to the creation of 250,000 new jobs in 1976 over 1975, the Minister of Finance referred the hon. member to his budget speech to see how these jobs would be created and the increases calculated. I reiterate the question: how will the job increase from 1975 to 1976 be calculated, average to average, for the years in question or from December 31, 1975 to December 31, 1976?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Even on the hon. member's own description that is a repetition of an earlier question.


COMMUNICATIONS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. I

Oral Questions
should like to ask whether the minister can bring us up to date on the strike at Teleglobe; and if it is still continuing, what does she personally intend to do to avoid a further black eye that Canada may get over this whole Olympic situation?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the strike, which was to have lasted for a period of 24 hours, is going on and the impression is that it will continue for an indefinite length of time. Through consultations with the president of Teleglobe, I am doing what is necessary to resume negotiations. It is extremely regrettable that these negotiations must be made under pressure because the Olympics are to be held shortly. It is always very difficult to negotiate a solution under such conditions. In any case, I can reassure the hon. member by saying that measures are being taken to ensure essential services for retransmission of the Olympic Games in Europe. Essential services will be maintained. Extremely strict measures have now been taken against any attempt at wilfully damaging the equipment; our main effort, however, is directed at resuming the negotiations.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Environment.
Could he tell the House if he is aware of recent complaints made by residents along the St. Lawrence River at Pointe-aux-Trembles about a renewed outbreak of pollution from oil? If so, what does he intend to do to correct the situation? Moreover, has the minister held or does he intend to hold with the qualified authorities in Quebec talks aimed at exercising continued and more efficient supervision to protect the environment in that part of the St. Lawrence River, next to the Montreal urban area?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Acting Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I tried to read most of the files, but I have not become acquainted with this one. I will do so and try to give an answer to the hon. member tomorrow.


FISHERIES
Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I offer some more information to the hon. member for Victoria on the question of offshore surveillance in the Pacific. I said yesterday that the Tanu, one of our modern vessels, was in refit. That was misinformation; it is under repair because of an unexpected engine failure. The Laurier is also under refit. We are using other vessels for surveillance and DND is also

giving us a hand. In fact, for this year there will be 495 sea days of fishery surveillance compared to 180 for 1975, this being made possible through the excellent co-operation of the DND and the Ministry of Transport.


FINANCE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the President of the Treasury Board but in his absence I think the Minister of Finance could handle it very adequately, I am sure.


Mr. Hees:: You don't know Donald.


Bruce Halliday: I will try anyway. Now that the government of Canada :s rated second highest spender in 1975 for space and time advertising among all businesses and corporations in Canada, according to figures released recently by Elliott Research of Toronto, would the minister tell the House what, if any, money is budgeted to obtain evidence by independent research workers as to the efficacy and success of the $11 million spent by the federal government in 1975?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that involves a statistical response beyond an answer that I can give today, but I will yet be glad to dig it out and write to the hon. member.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Is serious consideration being given to a proposal to remove the Canadian Wheat Board's import licensing powers on grains over which they have jurisdiction with a view to having these powers transferred to the import permits branch of industry, trade and commerce?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the general notion of the transfer of power over import control to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was included in our broad feed grains policy statement in 1973 and 1974, has been repeated since, and it is our intention to do that at some convenient time. We do not consider it either a major change or an urgent matter, because as a practical matter the permit system operates as though the power were residing there. However, it is seen rather as a presentational matter better to have what appears to be a neutral agency in charge of the permits.
July 13, 1976

Oral Questions TRANSPORT


PROPOSAL TO USE ELECTRICITY PRODUCED IN LABRADOR IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of his recent visit to the Atlantic area and particularly to Churchill Falls, Labrador, is the minister now optimistic that hydro resources in Labrador can be developed for the benefit of the Atlantic area, and will he ensure that the full force of his office and indeed of the government of Canada is used to bring this about?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. What was the justification of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for accusing President Ford of being political when he encouraged the U.S. Olympic Committee to protest the exclusion of Taiwan, when Canada's action in its handling of the situation is regarded by many nations around the world as being the most political act in the history of the Olympics?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that we have brought no pressure to bear upon Canadian participation on the IOC.


PENITENTIARIES
Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Would the minister please be good enough to advise the House what steps, if any, are being taken or have been taken to increase security measures and staff, including the authority of the staff, at maximum security penitentiaries, particularly in respect to greater security measures for the hardened criminals there?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am still trying to work out something and I hope to make an announcement later today.


DATE OF INCREASE IN FUNDS TO ALLOW AUXILIARY COAST GUARD ON WEST COAST TO OPERATE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is a follow up to the question asked the other day about the coast guard auxiliary. Would the minister advise the House when we can expect a decision by cabinet regarding the coast guard auxiliary in view of the urgent situation on the west coast right now?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the establishment of the coast guard auxiliary is ongoing and has already begun. The current questions which are before cabinet are rather with regard to the total equipment available for the coast guard itself. The auxiliary role of a variety of vessels not directly associated with the government will always be of extreme importance. On the west coast, the auxiliary organization is now in an important phase of its introduction.


John Douglas Reynolds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the coast guard auxiliary, which was started in Delta and Richmond in my riding, has been stopped now due to lack of funds, can the minister say when there will be a decision of cabinet to put these funds in place so that they can continue to do the excellent work that both he and I agree they do?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it will be perhaps within a matter of days, certainly within a matter of weeks.


BILINGUALISM
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister arising from the consideration being given by the government as to whether St. Catharines and the general area should be classified as a bilingual district. In view of the fact that a confidential document containing minutes of a meeting sponsored by the bilingual districts advisory board in the Constellation Hotel in Toronto has been given to the hon. member for Lincoln and also reportedly, given to the Globe and Mail, would the government agree to make this document public so as to enable everybody concerned to learn what happened at this meeting?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it would be my understanding that the body to which the hon. member refers is an automous body that is advisory to the government, and I do not think it would be appropriate for us to put any pressure on them.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister probably misinterpreted my question since it was the President of the Treasury Board and his staff who gave out these documents. That is why I directed the question to the

July 13, 1976
Oral Questions
government. Will the Acting Prime Minister at least assure the House that no action will be taken to create St. Catharines and its immediate area a bilingual district during the summer months while parliament is not in session, with the result that the matter cannot be debated?


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State, I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary arising out of the continued notoriety and problems of the London, Ontario, office of the Secretary of State dealing with multicultural-ism grants. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether the Secretary of State is aware of the recent statement by the president of the London Folk Arts Council that the investigation being conducted by the Department of the Secretary of State into the activities of its own London office is "a farce" and "an insult to Londoners"? Is he satisfied that the inquiry can be complete and impartial when one of the officials involved in the inquiry has been appointed the next head of the London office of the Secretary of State and other officials involved in the investigation have spent little time if any in London but are content to investigate from their Toronto office?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had occasion to speak to the Secretary of State since his return from London, but I will certainly bring the hon. member's representations to his attention.



ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which relates to the fact that the Atomic Energy Control Board has ordered Eldorado Nuclear Limited to stop disposing of its radioactive residue from its refining operations at a site near Port Granby, Ontario.
In view of the fact that this dumping has been going on for years and that Eldorado Nuclear Limited has had two extensions despite the growing concern about possible seepage of toxic material into Lake Ontario, I should like to ask the minister whether he has ordered Eldorado Nuclear Limited, a Crown corporation, to comply with the order of the Atomic Energy Control Board in order that it may be clear to all that public corporations are subject to the same controls of any regulatory body as are private companies?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I did not order Eldorado to comply for one very good reason. I believe the authority vested in the Atomic Energy Control Board is quite sufficient to force it to comply. Indeed, I think it might be most inappropriate if I as minister were to superimpose myself between the agency and Eldorado Nuclear Limited. I am quite confident that the powers of the Atomic Energy Control Board are sufficient to force compliance by Eldorado Nuclear Limited.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that both the Atomic Energy Control Board and Eldorado Nuclear Limited come under the minister's administrative responsibilities, I would ask the minister first of all why it has taken the control board so long to become aware of a situation that has been public knowledge for a long time and, secondly, why he has allowed Eldorado Nuclear Limited to stall on taking action to stop dumping the radioactive waste into a site close to Lake Ontario? The minister surely has some responsibility to see that these agencies under his responsibility act in accordance with public safety for the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Atomic Energy Control Board has acted with expedition. I think it has moved quickly. If the hon. member were to read the release dated July 7 and see the terms that have been set forth by the Atomic Energy Control Board in respect of Eldorado Nuclear Limited I think he would fully agree that this is not just a simple question of saying that Eldorado should clean up its act. There is very much more involved in terms of permanent storage, future storage and the cleaning up of the city as well. I believe the Atomic Energy Control Board has acted expeditiously.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second Report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in both official languages-Mr. Blaker.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both
July 13, 1976

official languages, the report of the commission of inquiry into events at the B.C. Penitentiary from June 9 to June 11, 1975. This commission was under the chairmanship of Chief Justice John L. Farris.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, pursuant to section 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, a document entitled "Agreement between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association and the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada", dated November 11, 1975, with the amendments dated December 12, 1975. Since the documents are rather bulky, they have already been forwarded to the table.


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-444, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (passive restraint crash protection devices).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to substantially reduce the number of injuries and deaths in highway accidents. It requires the installation of a passive restraint system, specifically instantly-inflatable air bags, in all cars manufactured in or imported into Canada after 1980.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-445, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act limits the insurance. industry to investing in government securities only of the countries listed in the act. Presently on the list are such countries as Southern Ireland, Southern Rhodesia, the United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago, and so on. The purpose of this amendment is to add to that list the state of Israel so that the industry could also invest in state of Israel bonds
Order Paper Questions
which, unlike the bonds of some other countries, have never defaulted or been compromised.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[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: 4,151, 4,168, 4,399, 4,426, 4,539, 4,541, 4,574, 4,766, 5,146, 5,160, 5,216, 5,217, 5,300, 5,359, 5,410- which is a corrected reply-5,494, 5,495, 5,498, 5,513, 5,514, 5,520, 5,529, 5,547, 5,549, 5,558, 5,565, 5,640, 5,641, 5,655 to 5,683, inclusive, 5,697, 5,711, 5,712, 5,720, 5,741, 5,746, 5,749, 5,800, 5,803, 5,811 and 5,820.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	Were blazers, shirts and ties provided to postal clerks and, if so, who made the decision?
2.	(a) In each case, how many were purchased (b) what was the cost?
3.	Were tenders called for the supply of such uniforms and, if not, was the contract awarded by the Postmaster General?
4.	(a) How long will the clothing issue last (b) what is the estimated renewal period?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. Blazers, shirts or blouses, and ties or scarves were provided to postal clerks who regularly serve the public at postal counters. Under the labour agreement with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, wicket clerks are to be provided with a clothing entitlement. To enhance the image of the department, management proposed and Treasury Board approved a change in the issue to the style recently introduced.
2.	The quantities ordered are as follows:
	(a)	(b) Average Cost
Male Jackets	13,400	$28.97Female Jackets	8,800	35.50Shirts	41,900	3.90Blouses	28,100	3.45Ties	29,400	1.47Scarves	20,000	1.56Identification Tags	15,000	0.333.	Tenders were called for their provision.4.	(a) and (b) The costs include some reserve stock and the uniforms are expected to last two years.
July 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: (a) 1970 and 1971-Nil. (i) to (iii) N/A. 1972, 1.
(i)	M.B., B.S. London, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P, D.P.M., England, M.R.C. Psychiatry; (ii) House Physician, Charing Cross Hospital, Royal Air Force as Medical Officer, 16 years in general medicine and forensic psychiatry, Honorary Senior Lecturer (Psychiatry), The London Hospital Medical College; (iii) Salary Range-1972, $26,800-$35,000; 1973, $28,700-$37,500; 1974, $32,000-$41,600; 1975, $34,500- $44,900. 1973, 2. Case 1, See 1972, Case 2 (i) BSC, MD, CM, University of Montreal, Fellowship of Psychiatry and Surgeon, Canada Certificate in Psychiatry, Royal Surgeon;
(ii)	Canadian Army Medical Corps Psychiatrist in 1941 Served Post Work regular Army Practice of Psychiatry in Kingston, Ontario Consultant to Department of Veteran Affairs at Queen's University Medical School 1960 appointed as Psychiatrist for CPS on part-time basis; (iii) Salary range 1973, $28,700-$37,500; 1974, $32,000-$41,600; 1975, $34,500-$44,900. 1974, 4. Case 1, See 1972; Case 2, See 1973; Case 3, (i) MD, LMCC, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, C.R.C.P. (C), F.R.C.P. (C), Diploma in Psychiatry, (ii) Staff Physician-Ontario Hospital, London, Staff Physician-Toronto Psychiatric Hospital, Staff Physician-Toronto Western Hospital; (iii) Salary range 1974, $29,300-$38,700, 1975, $31,700-$41,700, Case, 4. (i) Internship at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, (ii) Medical Officer, RAF 1953 transferred to RCAF as Staff Medical Officer Internal Medicine at Toronto Military Hospital Staff Officer Medical Services at Maritime Air Command France as Senior Medical Officer in No. 1 Air Division in Europe Armed Forces Hospital, Kingston, Surgeon and Psychiatrist; (iii) Salary range 1974, $29,300-$38,700; 1975, $31,700-$41,700. 1975, 4. Case 1; See 1972; Case 2; See 1973; Case 3 and 4: See 1974. (b) Nil for 1970 to 1975 inclusive.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time classification officers at Osborne Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil. Classification action is taken at Stony Mountain Institution.


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


Fabian Hugh Poulin: For the years 1970 to 1975 inclusive-Nil. The

living unit program at Frontenac Institution was implemented as of April 1, 1976.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Dungarvon and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: For the years 1970 to 1975-Nil. This institution was activated in 1974 and referrals for psychological services are made to Dorchester Penitentiary.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Westmoreland and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: For the years 1970 to 1975-Nil. All psychological cases are referred to Dorchester Penitentiary.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Were subsidies paid to companies for dragger construction in 1975 and, if so (a) in what amount (b) to which companies?
2.	How much was paid in subsidies to processing plants in 1975?
3.	Were licences allocated to companies owning draggers over 65 feet and, if so (a) how many (b) to which companies?
4.	How many (a) mid-water trawl (b) herring seining licences were allocated in 1975?
5.	(a) What is the composition of the Fisheries Prices Support Board (b) what are its duties (c) in what manner does it function?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fisheries)):: 1. Yes, the following subsidies were paid to shipbuilders for the construction of company owned draggers (trawlers) in 1975-1976: Marystown Shipyard Ltd., Marystown, Newfoundland: Tele-Direct Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $625,000; National Sea Products Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, $1,533,000; John Penney & Sons Ltd., Ramea, Newfoundland, $900,000. Verrault Navigation Inc., De Mechins, P.Q.: Les Pecheries du Golfe St-Laurent Inc., Cape-aux-Meules, Iles-de-la-Madeleine, P.Q.,	$272,000.
Pelagic Pacific Industries Ltd., Victoria, B.C.; Pacific Trident Fishing Co. Ltd., Tofino, B.C., $115,000. Ferguson Industries Limited, Pictou, Nova Scotia; Canso Seafoods Ltd., North Sydney, Nova Scotia, $1,988,000. Haste Fisheries Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C.: Haste Fisheries Ltd., $105,-
000.	Jack & Jerry Liddle, Wheatley, Ontario: Liddle Brothers Fishery Ltd., Wheatley, Ontario, $7,900.
2.	$19,503,951.
3.	Yes. (a) Newfoundland Region, 87 licences; Maritimes Region, 104 licences, (b) These licences are issued in accordance with established licencing procedures and the guidelines developed by the Atlantic Groundfish Licencing Committee. The name of a licence holder, whether it is that
July 13, 1976

of a company or an individual, is considered to be confidential and it is not the policy to make this information public.
4.	(a) Midwater trawl licences included in the above totals are: Newfoundland Region: Midwater trawl only, 1; Maritimes Region: Midwater trawl and Otter trawl combination, 33; Midwater trawl and Purse Seine combination, 7; Midwater trawl only, 6. (b) Newfoundland Region: Herring Purse Seine, 13; Maritimes Region: Herring Purse Seine, 70; of which seven are also licenced to fish midwater trawl.
5.	(a) The Fisheries Prices Support Board is composed of six members. They are appointed by the Governor-inCouncil to hold office during pleasure, (b) The Board is responsible for investigating and where appropriate, recommending action under the Fisheries Prices Support Act, to support prices of fisheries products where declines have been experienced. The basic principle of the legislation is to help cushion the sharp declines in prices and consequent loss of income due to causes beyond the control of the fishermen or the industry. The Board serves as an advisory board to the Minister, (c) The Board, subject to approval of the Governor-in-Council, is empowered to purchase fishery products at prescribed prices. The Board may also pay deficiency payments to producers of fishery products equal to the difference between a prescribed price and the average price at which products were sold.


Mr. MacKenzie: Has Interimco Ltd. of 1206-100 Bronson Ave., Ottawa, Ontario been awarded any CIDA or CUSO contracts or contracts with any department, Crown corporation or agency since January 1, 1975 and, if so (a) with which department, Crown corporation or agency (b) in what amount (c) for what purpose?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Supply and Services as follows: (a) Canadian Commercial Corporation, (b) $4,583. (c) Farm equipment spares for India under CIDA Grant Aid Program. Several other Departments, Crown Corporations and Agencies: Nil.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	What was the total amount expended, itemized to reflect the purpose of all main expenditures, by the government directly or indirectly on the Stol Air Transport System up to March 31, 1976?
2.	As of that date, what further monies have been committed, itemized to reflect the purpose of all main expenditures, with respect to the project?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1.
$000's	$000's
Expenditures to March 31, 1976 Capital
Aircraft, Avionics, Air
Navigation and Instrument
Landing Systems	7,895
Order Paper Questions
Stolports	5,442
Application and Market
Studies	1,154
Technical Trials and Studies	752
Total Capital
Operation and Maintenance
Stolport Operations	2,730
Stol Evaluation	333
Public Affairs	536
Air Tran'sit Operations	5,210
8,809
Less: Revenue (Rental of
Aircraft)	702
Net Operating
Total
2.	Estimated Additional Expenditures as of March 31, 1976
Operation and Maintenance
Stolport Operations	395
Stol Evaluation	140
Public Affairs	45
Air Transit Operations	504
	1,084
Less: Revenue (Rental of	
Aircraft)	35
Total	
15,243
8,107
23,350
1,049


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was there a fire at the Governor General's summer residence and, if so (a) on what date (b) what is the estimated amount of damage to the (i) building (ii) contents?
2.	Was there an automatic fire alarm system on the premises at the time of the fire and, if so, did it fail to function?
3.	Prior to the fire, was the government and, in particular, the Department of Public Works and the Dominion Fire Commissioner aware that the system was not functioning and, if so, for what period of time?
4.	During the past five years were (a) fire prevention inspections of the premises made by the office of the Dominion Fire Commissioner (b) tests made of the automatic fire alarm system and, if so, in each case, on what dates?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Yes. (a) Monday, February 2nd, 1976. (b) (i) $1,053,000; (ii) $150,000.
2.	Yes, there was an automatic fire alarm system. Yes, it failed to function.
3.	Early in November 1975, the system was reported unserviceable. On November 13, 1975, a work order was issued to a company specializing in fire alarms for inspection and repairs. As of the date of the fire, the work had not been performed.
4.	(a) An inspection was made by the Dominion Fire Commissioner's staff on February 21, 1973. (b) The auto-

July 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions
matic fire alarm was tested February 22, 1973, by the Dominion Fire Commissioner's staff. In addition, the system was tested and maintenance carried out by service contract in 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973. In 1974 and 1975 an annual inspection including testing was carried out by service contract. The last test in March 1975, indicated that the system was in operating condition and no repairs were required.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As at March 31 (a) 1946 (b) 1963 (c) 1968 (d) 1974 (e) 1975 (f) 1976, what was the total number of government employees including the following arms of the government, ministries of state and departments, departmental corporations, administrative, regulatory and special funds and agencies, government enterprises, and the Armed Services and what was the total employment under each category?
2.	What was the total number working for the government under contract or other arrangement but who are not classed as employees?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of National Defence as follows: 1. The data appearing on the attached table includes only civilian personnel. The only information available for 1946 is a total figure of those employed by departments and departmental corporations. For March 1963, the number employed by administrative, regulatory and special funds is included in the number employed by government enterprises. The number of federal government employees as of March 1976 has not been published as yet, however, we have included in the tabled figures for December 1975 and estimated figures for March 1976. Military personnel was as follows: (a) 212,692; (b) 123,694; (c) 101,572; (d) 81,624; (e) 79,354; (f) 79,073.
2.	In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned, the total number of persons working under personal service contracts during the years cited was: (a) No data available; (b) No data available; (c) 10; (d) 36; (e) 42; (f) 21.
Federal Government Employment-Number of Employees
Ministries of	Administrative	Total -	State and	Departmental	regulatory and	General	Government	Years	Departments	Corporations	special funds	Government	Enterprises	Total1946	(March 31)	120,5570)	Data not available	1963	(March 31)	184,732	14,089	129,819(2)	328,640(December 31)	187,479	14,540	4,998	207,017	127,011	334,0281968	(March 31)	225,248	10,263	7,248	242,759	126,595	369,3541975	(March 31)	291,861	15,227	12,517	319,605	133,936	453,541(December 31)	297,316	16,376	12,888	326,580	132,046	458,6261976	(March 31)<3>	306,480	15,788	13,000	335,268	132,000	467,268
0) With the exception of Wartime Prices and Trade Board this figure excludes statistics for other Boards and Commissions and Crown Companies, the personnel of which does not come within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Act.
<2>
Includes administrative, regulatory and special funds.
<3>
Estimated Figures.
note: Figures for 1974 were reported in the answer to Question No. 3,794.


Mr. Stevens: In each fiscal year ended (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, what was the total number of government employees (i) discharged or dismissed (ii) retired (iii) hired?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: Statistics are for calendar years 1974 and 1975 and apply to employees subject to the Public Service Employment Act. No statistics are available for 1976. N.B.-The terms used in our answer are consistent with the wording of the Public Service Employment Act.
	1974	1975
(i) Released for breach of dis-		
cipline or misconduct Released for incompetence or	95	71incapacity Released for abandonment of	168	140position	548	447Rejected during probation	695	685Revocation of appointment	15	39Total	1,521	1,382

(ii) Retirement		
at age 65 and over	2,182	1,567elective at 55-65	2,372	2,763medical grounds	1,022	744Total	5,576	5,074(iii) Appointed to the Public	Service	46,567	36,251I am informed by the Department of National Defence a follows: (a), (b) and (c) Military Personnel:	Fiscal Year Discharged Dismissed (Note 1) (Note 2)	Retired (Note 3)	Hired1973/74 6,375 7	2,638	8,0591974/75 8,357 5	3,160	9,4451975/76 8,597 6	2,686	11.099
Note 1: Discharged includes voluntary releases without entitlement to an annuity, medically unfit personnel, deaths etc.
Note 2: Dismissed means compulsory release due to misdemeanors etc.
Note 3: Retired includes service completion or voluntary release with entitled to an annuity.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	How long have the Unemployment Insurance Commission offices at 1155 Robson Street, Vancouver, British Columbia been vacant?
2.	How many floors were vacated?
3.	What are the plans to re-occupy the premises and by whom?
4.	How long is the lease or rental arrangements for the floor space and what is the cost?
5.	For how many months has payment been made for rent for the vacated premises?
6.	How many government offices have been vacated in Vancouver in which rental payments are still being made?
7.	In what location are the offices and what is the cost to date?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The U.I.C. did not completely vacate the building but reduced their requirements on December 15, 1975 due to the establishment of expanded service elsewhere in Vancouver. Occupancy of 10,455 rentable square feet has been retained on the first floor together with 4,480 square feet rentable in the basement for storage.
Order Paper Questions
2.	The entire second floor-10,914 square feet and a portion of the third floor-4,794 square feet for a total of 15,708 rentable square feet.
3.	The vacant space was included in the Regional Plan for Vancouver. The present proposal is for Statistics Canada to occupy the area, pending finalization of the Regional Plan.
4.	1155 Robson Street is a Crown-owned building and is therefore not subject to any lease or rental arrangement with the private sector.
5.	Not applicable. Please refer to No. 4 above.
6.	See statement following.
7.	See statement following.
Location
Lease	Vacancy		
	Date	Time	
Terminate Annual Rent Sq. Ft.	Vacated	Frame	Remarks
18th Floor	1/5/75
1050 W. Pender Vancouver, B.C.
30/4/79	$15,532.00	1,451	1/3/76	2 months Client: M & I
Reason for vacancy:
(a)	change in M & I program
(b)	being utilized as "swing space"
Has been utilized by:
(1)	Anti-inflation Board
(2)	Prime Minister's Cabinet Meeting
(3)	Proposed occupancy P.S.C. Language School May 1/76.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many international treaties, conventions, accords, etc., have been signed by Canada but have not been (a) ratified (b) implemented by either the (i) provinces (ii) Parliament of Canada or the executive of the government of Canada?
2.	What treaties are involved and on what date did Canada sign them?
3.	How many such arrangements has Canada ratified but have not implemented, if any?
4.	What consideration is Canada giving to implementing the recommendation of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada (1972) that international treaties be ratified by Parliament rather than the Executive and the Crown?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Ratification following signature is only one of several ways in which an international agreement may enter into force for Canada. Many bilateral agreements enter into force either on signature or on some
other date in accordance with procedures specified in the agreement. Most multilateral treaties require either signature followed by ratification, or, if they have not been signed, the deposit of an instrument of accession, approval or acceptance. In considering Canadian treaty procedures it is necessary to recognize the distinction between the treaty-making power, i.e. the power to enter into treaties and thus incur obligations in international law, and the treaty-implementing power, i.e. the power to enact whatever legislation may be required to bring Canada's domestic law into accord with the international obligations embodied in a treaty, (a) This sub-question is concerned with the treaty-making power. In Canada the constitutional authority to enter into treaties is part of the Royal Prerogative which in practice is exercised by the Governor General in Council. Ratification is therefore an executive act. For this reason no treaties, conventions or other international agreements signed by Canada which are subject to ratification have been ratified by either the Provinces or the Parliament of Canada, (b) This sub-question deals
15298

July 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions
with the treaty-implementing power. Many treaties are in accordance with existing domestic law and therefore do not require further legislative action for their implementation. Other treaties will require legislative action, either federal or provincial, to permit implementation by Canada. The Canada Treaty Register does not contain complete information on legislation which has been adopted by the Parliament of Canada for the purpose of implementing treaties. The Register contains no information on legislation enacted by the Provinces for the purpose of implementing treaties, the subject matter of which falls within provincial jurisdiction. For these reasons it is not possible to indicate the number of treaties which have not been implemented by legislative action of either the Provinces or the Parliament of Canada or have not required specific executive action for their implementation.
2.	The compilation of detailed lists of treaties binding on Canada which have not been the subject of specific implementing legislation by either the Provinces or the Parliament of Canada or of specific executive action for their implementation, together with the date of Canada's signature, would necessitate a search of every entry in the Canada Treaty Register and would require an inordinate cost and length of time.
3.	Canada has implemented all treaties by which it is bound, whether by signature, ratification or accession. As explained above, legislative action either by the Parliament of Canada or the legislatures of the Provinces is not required where the performance of treaty obligations does not entail alteration of existing domestic law. The number of treaties ratified by Canada which have not required specific legislation by Parliament for their implementation is approximately 296, of which 88 are bilateral agreements and 208 are multilateral agreements. As explained above, no figures can be given for treaties ratified by Canada which have not required implementing legislation by the Provinces because this information is not available from the Canada Treaty Register.
4.	No active consideration is being given to this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 5,410-Mr. Dinsdale: (Corrected)
1.	Has the Post Office Department recently introduced a policy of nameless postmarks and, if so, for what reason have the names of cities and towns been replaced by a code?
2.	Does the Department have a policy of replacing all names with numbers and, if so, what is the next planned change?
3.	Did the Department examine the experience of the USA Postal Service, which introduced similar nameless postmarks, and which more recently restored city and town names in the face of popular demand?
Paul Edmund McRae: 1. The Post Office recently introduced the use of the postal code in its cancellation mark primarily for certain centres where changes in the pattern of mail processing made the continued use of a community name identifier impractical. This has occurred where mail from a number of communities is now gathered into one major processing plant and collectively processed in one stream. In these new mechanized plants it is impractical to keep segregated the mail from different source locations, and rather than select the name of one community to be used

for the cancellation of all mail processed through such a plant, it was decided to use the postal code of the plant. For example, the processing plant located in Scarborough, Ontario will process mail from surrounding areas such as Richmond Hill, Willowdale, Thornhill, Markham, Ajax, Pickering and others.
2.	No, the Post Office does not have a policy of changing all names to numbers. It is not planned to use postal code postmarks at St. John's, Newfoundland as originally stated.
3.	Yes, the Post Office Department is familiar with the United States Postal Service experience. However, the systems are different in the two countries and there is no practical relationship.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the total value of contracts to private firms for work at the government dockyard in Halifax previously done by employees of the Department of National Defence for each of the past five years?


James Armstrong Richardson: Nil. No contracts have been given to private firms for work which has previously been done exclusively by Department of National Defence dockyard employees in each of the past five years. The number of manhours worked in the ship repair unit has been stable over the past five years, although the changing nature of the workload has resulted in some alteration in the proportion of the various trades employed.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the government's best estimate of the number of Department of National Defence employees replaced in contracting out work to private firms at the government dockyard in Halifax since 1970?


James Armstrong Richardson: None. For further detail see answer to Question No. 5,494.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	How many man-years were authorized for the National Museum Corporation in each year 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976?
2.	What is the actual number of man-years in each year and, if such man-years exceeded the authorization (a) for what reason (b) who (i) authorized (ii) recommended the excess?
3.	How many actual man-years in excess of those authorized were in the (a) administrative branch (b) other branches or agencies of the Corporation?
4.	Have any instructions been given to the Corporation or any of its officers to reduce the actual man-years in the year 1976 and, if so (a) by whom (b) what reduction will occur in (i) the administrative branch (ii) other branches or agencies?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows: 1. Authorized man-year
July 13, 1976

utilization: 1973-74, 696; 1974-75, 741; 1975-76, 949; 1976-77, 997.
2.	Actual man-year utilization: 1973-74, 656; 1974-75, 741; 1975-76, 949.
3.	Man-years have not exceeded authorized levels.
4.	No instructions have been given to reduce the authorized level of man-years for the Corporation for 1976-77 from that printed in the Main Estimates Blue Book 1976-77 of 997. However, all sections of the Corporation have been advised that the man-years authorized for their activities in 1976-77 must be strictly adhered to because the Corporation no longer is capable of providing the flexibility necessary to accommodate over-utilization of man-years in any of its components.
Order Paper Questions
employees as listed in the reply to question 5,514 may from time to time be employed at the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake. In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: Since question number 68 of the 30th Parliament was answered no DPW employees have been employed at the Prime Minister's residence, Harrington Lake. In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: Stanley Healy: Caretaker and grounds maintenance, $5.69 per hour at current rate or $11,881 pro rated for one year. Stanley Stevenson: Machine driving operator, $4.78 per hour at current rate or $4,159 pro rated for 5 months, spring and summer. Various equipment operators, for snow removal duties, 3 months of the year, estimate per annum is $10,356.


Mr. Cossitt: Since the date Question No. 68 of the 29th Parliament was answered, what are the names, job designations and salaries of all those who have been or are employed at the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Prime Minister's Office is concerned: The


Mr. Cossitt: Since the date Question No. 68 of the 29th Parliament was answered, what are the names, job designations and salaries of all those who have been or are employed at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Prime Minister's Office is concerned:
Name
Classification Hourly Rate
MacDonald T.
West, H. (Mrs.) Lavergne, D. (Miss) Virgo, S. M. (Miss) Vincent, Y.
Chenier, R. (Mrs.) *Schultz, M. (Mrs.)
Calder, B. A. (Mrs.) Clement, N. (Miss)


[Stage Direction]
$5.16 + .59 $4.13 + .25 $3.70 $3.70
$6.51 + .75
[Stage Direction]
$3.70 (employed from 15.09.75 to 11.06.76) $3.70
*working half-days only
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: Since Question number 68 was answered Mrs. Lepage is still employed at the Prime Minister's residence, 24 Sussex Drive as BUS 2 at $3.76 per hour. Mrs. Daviault has been replaced by the following: Mrs. Lucille Grondin, Cleaning Service Woman (BUS 2), paid at $3.76 per hour. In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: No individual assignment of any employee. Grounds maintenance and snow removal work is carried out as required by various personnel as available. Estimate per annum is $10,440.
Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	(a) What were the terms of the Chilean debt renegotiated by the agreement of November 17, 1975 (b) what (i) was the amount of debt outstanding (ii) were the terms for payment prior to renegotiation (c) what are the terms for payment under the renegotiated agreement?
2.	For what reason was there no mention of the debt renegotiations made in the 1975 Annual Report of the Export Development Corporation?
3.	Is the Chilean debt to Canada now held in its entirety by the EDC and, if not, where else is it held?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Department of Finance and the Export Development Corporation as follows: 1. (a) In accordance with an international agreement signed in Paris on May 6, 1975, Canada together with most other creditor countries agreed to refinance 70 per cent of the payments due in 1975 arising from commercial credits signed prior to December 1973 and with a maturity exceeding one year. It was further agreed that the amount rescheduled (70 per cent) would be paid in 13 equal semi-annual payments starting on January 1, 1978 and that the balance of 30 per cent would be paid as follows: 10 per cent in 1975, 10 per cent in 1976 and 10 per cent in 1977. The bilateral agreement signed by EDC on November 17, 1975 implemented this multilateral agreement; the same terms applied to the amount due to EDC which was estimated at $3.1 million, (b) i) The amount of debt outstanding as of January 1, 1976 was about $18.7 million, ii) The terms of payments prior to negotiation varied with each transaction from 2 to 10 years, (c) The terms of the loans have not been changed since, as is normally the case with multilateral debt
95570-67%

July 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions
reschedulings, the original loan agreements were not renegotiated. Only the payments due in 1975 were ren-gotiated. The terms are detailed in 1(a).
2.	In 1975 EDC in consultation with the Auditor General changed several areas of its accounting procedures to conform more closely with those of similar organizations. EDC now reports debt rescheduling in aggregate.
3.	At present the Chilean debt to Canada is held by EDC, by private firms exporting to that market and by Canadian chartered banks. The amount of these private Canadian credits is unknown. CIDA approved, under the terms of an agreement with the Inter-American Development Bank, two Bank loans (involving Canadian funds contributed to the Bank) to Chile in 1967-68. However under the terms of the above agreement the repayment of these loans is made direct to the Inter-American Development Bank.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were Canada Manpower offices in the Constituency of Leeds advised this year that they would no longer have anything to do with processing of applications for summer student employment with Canada Customs and Canada Immigration within Leeds and, if so (a) what is the name and job designation of the highest government official giving these instructions (b) to what Canada Manpower offices were they issued and on what date?
2.	Were Canada Manpower offices in Leeds instructed to forward all applications to Canada Manpower in Ottawa and, if so, what is the name and job designation of the highest official issuing this order and on what date?
3.	(a) What are the reasons for this change in policy (b) is it designed to cut down or eliminate the number of university students whose homes are in Leeds from gaining such employment (c) has there been any political influence used by the government in hiring of such summer students within Leeds and, if so, what are all the details (d) is this an attempt to downgrade the work and duties of the local Canada Manpower offices in Leeds and, if so, for what reason?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Canada Manpower Centres across the country, including those in the Constituency of Leeds were advised this year that they would no longer have anything to do with processing of applications for summer student employment with Revenue Canada-Customs. (a) These instructions were given out by the Director of the Post-Secondary Recruitment Program, under the direction of the Director General, Staffing Branch, Public Service Commission, (b) These instructions were issued on February 3rd, 1976, to Manpower Centres across Canada and in the Constituency of Leeds to the following Canada Manpower Centres: Brockville, Gananoque, Smiths Falls.
2.	Canada Manpower offices in Leeds were not instructed to forward all applications to Canada Manpower in Ottawa but to forward them to the Post-Secondary Recruitment Program, Public Service Commission in Ottawa. These instructions were given out to them on February 3, 1976 by the Director of the Post-Secondary Recruitment Program, under the direction of the Director General, Staffing Branch, Public Service Commission.
3.	(a) In 1975, all the Customs Inspectors positions (Revenue Canada-Customs and Excise) which were classified at CR 5 were reclassified to the PM 1A level. As the CMC's can only make referrals to positions in the

Administrative Support and Operational Categories, they could not refer candidates to the PM 1A positions which are part of the Administrative and Foreign Service Category. Appointments of summer students in positions which are career related or oriented to the Administrative and Foreign Service, Scientific and Professional or Technical Categories, are not delegated to departments or to the CMC's, but remain the responsibility of the Public Service Commission. Such programs are administered by the PostSecondary Recruitment Program of the Public Service Commission, (b) It is not designed to cut down or eliminate any university or community college students from gaining such employment. As proximity of job location was established as a criterion for selection, only those students whose area of residence was within the immediate area of the border point to be served, could be considered. (c) No political influence was used in the hiring of summer students within Leeds. The merit principle was followed and these selection criteria were used:	(1)
Canadian Citizenship (2) Eligibility as a student (i.e., be a full-time student and be returning to full-time studies in the fall) (3) Proximity to job location (4) Job experience with the public, (d) There was no attempt to downgrade the duties of the staff of any CMC in Canada (this is a national program). The authority to staff these positions was simply not delegated to either the Department of Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise or the CMC's, and staffing of these positions falls under the authority of the Public Service Commission.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Agriculture fly to Windsor, Ontario, on August 27, 1975 and, if so (a) what government aircraft was used (b) did the aircraft have four engines?
2.	Was the Minister the only person on board and (a) if so, for what reason was an aircraft with such power used (b) if not, what are the names, addresses and job designations of all others on board?
3.	(a) Where did the flight originate (b) what was the cost involved including (i) flying time (ii) waiting time (c) was the purpose of the flight as stated in a letter to Mr. Charles S. Pringle, 500 Ouellette Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, dated October 14, 1975 "to officially open Harrow Fair" and, if so, what are the reasons that the Minister did not take a regularly scheduled commercial flight to Windsor for this occasion?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Minister of Agriculture and Transport Canada as follows: 1. Yes. (a) DOT Viscount-CF-DTA; (b) Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) The most suitable aircraft available was used, (b) N/A.
3.	(a) Ottawa, (b) (i) $3,117; (ii) Nil. (c) The purpose of the flight was to officially open the Harrow Fair. Official commitments prior to departure from Ottawa precluded the use of a regularly scheduled commercial flight.
July 13, 1976


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Minister of Agriculture write a letter dated October 14, 1975 to Mr. Charles S. Pringle, 500 Ouellette Avenue, Windsor, Ontario and, if so, did this state in part "As you know, in my position as Member of Parliament and Minister of Agriculture I read and sign secret documents and papers and it would be impossible to do so travelling on Air Canada" (a) does the Minister consider this a valid excuse for large expenditures of public funds for his use of government aircraft (b) what are the reasons that the Minister could not sign and read secret documents and papers on Air Canada (c) has the Minister evidence that his activities are under any surveillance when on board Air Canada or that secret documents or papers he might be carrying are in any danger (d) what is the description of the type of secret documents and papers that the Minister claims to carry with him?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Yes. (a) See also 5,547, part 3c. (b) Documents were of a confidential nature, (c) No. (d) The documents relate to the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown and as a member of the Privy Council.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In regard to the various questions presently on the Order Paper concerning possible inadequate fire protection in government owned and leased buildings, in recent weeks, have a number of different sets of answers been prepared for the questions and has the Department of Public Works ordered revisions on each occasion and, if so (a) for what reason (b) how many sets of answers have been prepared for each question and for what reason?
2.	Was a meeting held by officials of the Department and representatives of the Dominion Fire Commissioner's Office at which time the proposed answers were discussed and, if so (a) on what date and in what location (b) for what purpose (c) what are the names and job designations of all persons in attendance?
3.	Were the answers as finally approved transmitted to the Privy Council Office on or about Friday, May 21?
4.	What are the reasons for the time taken to prepare the final answers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The
Government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


Mr. Woolliams: 1.	How many countries have obtained nuclear power reactors from Canada and what are their names?
2.	Does Canada intend to enforce nuclear safeguards on foreign powers who have purchased reactors if the contract and safeguards are breached and ignored and, if so, in what manner?
3.	Is there any real safeguard under such circumstances?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Two countries: India and Pakistan. Contracts for the sale of power reactors are in effect with the Republic of Korea and Argentina. Canada has also sold a 40MW (thermal) research reactor to Taiwan.
2. Canada intends to enforce safeguards through the mechanisms provided by the IAEA, and as appropriate,
Order Paper Questions
bilaterally. Safeguards required under Canada's policy leave no room for misunderstanding on the use of which Canadian nuclear exports can be put. Use for any nuclear explosives purpose is explicitly precluded. Other elements of Canadian safeguards give a high degree of assurance against any such use. Violations, should they occur, will have to face the reaction of Canada and the international community.
3. The Canadian Government strongly supports the international safeguard system and is participating very actively in efforts to improve that system to which constant technical and legal improvements are being made. Canada is also making efforts on many fronts to improve the international security situation in general in order to lessen the temptation which may be present for some countries in certain circumstances to wish to resort to a nuclear capability for national security.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is a special pencil required for filling out the five-year Census?
2.	How many pencils have been distributed with the 1976 census forms and what is the cost to the taxpayer for such pencils?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. It is necessary to use a soft lead pencil to complete the Census questionnaire. The Census questionnaire is processed by machine which does not readily read responses coded in ink. Manual processing by Statistics Canada of responses coded in ink is a very expensive operation-given the potential volume involved.
2. Pencils have been distributed to approximately 7,200,000 households at a cost of approximately $198,000.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs aware of a memo sent on government stationery by Mr. L. V. Thornton, the Department's Director of Personnel, to all departmental employees on May 14, 1976 promoting enrollment by employees in the transcendental meditation course offered by the World Plan Executive Council for $115 and, if so, does the Minister feel that the memorandum constitutes the promotion of a commercial enterprise at government expense?
2.	What was the total number of copies sent to employees?
3.	Does the Department sanction and recommend such a course and, if so, what research has been conducted by the Department in support of its recommendations?
4.	Is it departmental policy to allow government facilities to be used for the promotion of quasi-religious organizations?
5.	Is the Department aware that promotional material for the World Plan Executive Council represents their transcendental meditation course, the Science of Intelligence, as "the basis of solutions to all problems" including providing improved resistance to disease, development of personality and increased normality and improved relations with supervisors and co-workers and promises that "any government supporting the implementation of the World Plan, will bring integrity to its own internal organization, will develop the level of self-sufficiency of the society and will raise the dignity of the country in the family of nations" and, if so, is the Department satisfied that this material does not represent false and misleading advertising?


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes, the Minister

Order Paper Questions
became aware of the memo after it was issued by the Director of Personnel. The purpose of the memo was to respond to a number of enquiries received from employees about the technique of transcendental meditation. It is part of the function of the Personnel Division to inform employees of courses of instruction that could improve an employee's performance of his or her duties. The circulation of this memorandum is not considered by the department as the promotion of a commercial enterprise at government expense.
2.	Approximately 1350, one copy to each employee at Headquarters.
3.	No, the department did not sanction or recommend the course. The memorandum only brought the course to the attention of employees so that they could make their own decisions about taking the course. Yes, research was conducted on the technique of transcendental meditation by the Director of Personnel. A number of articles were consulted including the Conference Board Record (July 1975), Canadian Business (February 1975), Academy of Management Journal (Volume 17, No. 2), The Lancet (April 1970), Scientific American (February 1972); and a number of books including Transcendental Meditation by J. Forem; Tranquility without Pills by J. H. Robins and David Fisher; The Transcendental Meditation Program for Business People by Robert B. Kory; and TM Discovering Inner Energy and Overcoming Stress by Dr. Harold H. Bloomfield.
4.	No.
5.	The Department was not aware of these specific quotations and they have been brought to the attention of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act who has responsibility for the administration of the misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices provisions of the Act. Under the Act, it is the Director's duty to initiate an inquiry whenever he has reason to believe that there has been or is about to be a violation of any provision of the Act. In view of the subjective nature of transcendental meditation and the fact that no complaints concerning any promotion by this organization have been received in his office, the Director believes that it is unlikely that a court would hold beyond a reasonable doubt that the quotations were in violation of the Act. The Director, however, will examine the organization's promotional material in greater detail and take whatever action is necessary in accordance with the statute.
[Editor's Note: The following answer applies to Questions Nos. 5,655, 5,658, 5,661, 5,662, 5,665, 5,666, 5,667, 5,668, 5,669, 5,671, 5,672, 5,674, 5,675, 5,677, 5,680, 5,682, 5,683.]


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Algeria since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?

4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,658-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Brazil since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,661-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue)
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Congo (Brazzaville) since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,662-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Ivory Coast since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,665-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Guiana since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,666-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Kenya since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?


Question No. 5,667-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in India since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,668-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Indonesia since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,669-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Jamaica since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,671-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Malaya since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,672-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Mali since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,674-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Niger since 1972?
Order Paper Questions
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,675-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Nigeria since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,677-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Pakistan since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,680-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Tunisia since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,682-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Zaire since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,683-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Zambia since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?

July 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the reply is as follows:
Chart of CIDA'S involvement in the pre-investment incentive program from 1972 through June, 1976:
* Preamble: CIDA, through its Business and Industry Division, offers a pre-investment incentive program to Canadian companies under stringent guidelines (see reply to Part 3 below). Part of the requirements are that any subsequent investment made must be to the benefit of the developing country, as well as to the Canadian company involved. CIDA does not, directly, promote investment, rather it tries to encourage Canadian investment overseas. It never supports investment financially. What it does do is: (a) Offer funds to reimburse a company, up to a maximum of $2,500, to do a Starter Study in the country of its choice. This is a brief, almost superficial, look into a particular location by a particular company as to whether or not it could possibly establish an enterprise or form a joint ven-
CIDA beforehand, and these must be approved prior to the Study's commencement. These funds basically cover minimal travel expenses for a period of not more than 15 days, (b) After the Starter Study is completed, the company may decide to apply to CIDA for a Feasibility Study, providing the area of interest looks promising, and this is done in much greater depth. In this instance, CIDA will match funds (50 per cent of the cost) in reimbursing the Canadian company which has made such a Study, to a maximum of $25,000. Upon completion of the Feasibility Study, the company wil then decide to either invest their funds in the developing nation or not. The choice is entirely theirs. CIDA requires a report giving the reasons for their decision. Most of the companies listed numerically in Part 1 of the following chart decided not to invest, thus the discrepancy between the figures in Part 1 and Part 4 of each Question (or country). The grants given are not ongoing from year to year, but rather are a lump sum amount as reimbursement for a particular Study already completed.
* For further details, see brochure entitled Pre-Investment
ture in a	i country designated by CIDA as a "developing Incentive	Program, available from	CIDA's Informationnation".	All companies must	submit an	application	to Division.	Question	Number	Year	Dollar	Company	If "Yes", name	Purpose ofnumber	Country	of Grants	Given	Amount	investment	of Company Head office	investmentPart I	Fart II	Part IV	5655	Algeria	1	1975	1,939	no	1	1976	2,500	no	5658	Brazil	2	1972	28,737	yes, in 1	Monarch Wear Ltd. Winnipeg	Industrial development4	1973	9,251	no	2	1974	4,325	no	1	1975	2,500	no	5661	Congo (Brayzaville)	1	1975	1,748	no	5662	Ivory Coast	1	1973	2,283	no	1	1974	26,108	no	1	1975	14,880	no	5665	Guyana	1	1975	1,050	no	5666	Kenya	1	1974	1,903	no	3	1975	2,799	no	i	1976	25,000	no	5667	India	1	1972	4,536	no	i	1973	2,350	no	5668	Indonesia	i	1972	9,283	no	5669	Jamaica	2	1972	3,000	no	1	1973	5,300	yes	Reliable Toy Co. Toronto	Industrial Development2	1974	2,346	no	1	1975	1,813	no	5671	Malaysia	1	1971-72	5,727	yes	Microsystems Ltd. Montreal	Electronic Development3	1973	15,885	yes, in 1	Electrohome Ltd. Kitchener	Electronic Development5	1974	19,013	no	1	1976	1,815	no	5672	Mali	i	1973	2,500	no	5674	Niger	2	1972	14,853	no	5675	Nigeria	1	1971-72	3,954	no	1	1972	24,383	yes	Canada Wire & Toronto	Industrial Develop-Cable Ltd.	ment

July 13, 1976

4	1974	8,689	no3	1975	5,481	no5677	Pakistan	1	1974	1,222	no5680	Tunisia	1	1974	6,029	no2	1975	3,497	no5682	Zaire	1	1975	2,223	no5683	Zambia	1	1975	1,500	no1	1976	1,375	no
Part 3
Eligibility of Canadian business under the Pre-Investment Incentive Program: (a) The program is available to Canadian business and industry defined as individuals, proprietorships, partnerships and limited companies being Canadian citizens, with an established head office in Canada. They must have demonstrated their competency in a particular field and possess adequate resources for investment, (b) The applicant firm must be financially stable and capable of carrying through with a proposed project, (c) The applicant must intend to hold reasonable equity in a resulting enterprise, and the investment should be represented by tangible assets, (d) All types of industrial activity are eligible, provided the above criteria are met.
[Editor's Note: The following answer applies to Questions Nos. 5,656, 5,657, 5,659, 5,660, 5,663, 5,664, 5,670, 5,673, 5,676, 5,678, 5,679, 5,681.]


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Bangladesh since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,657-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Bolivia since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,659-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Cameroon since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
Order Paper Questions
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,660-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Chile since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,663-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Dahomey since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,664-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Ghana since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,670-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Laos since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,673-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Nepal since 1972?
15306

July 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,676-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Uganda since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,678-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Senegal since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,679-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Tanzania since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?

Question No. 5,681-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
1.	How many grants has the government or any para-governmental agency given to various Canadian companies to promote or support certain investments in Turkey since 1972?
2.	How much was granted to such companies in each year since 1972 by the government or any para-governmental agency to promote and support such investments?
3.	Under what terms and conditions did the government and/or agencies make such grants?
4.	What (a) are the names of the beneficiary companies (b) is the location of their head office (c) was the purpose and nature of their investment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the reply is as follows: Nil.


Mr. Epp: 1.	At what gasoline service stations are the RCMP authorized to purchase gasoline, oil and minor repairs in Emerson, Manitoba?
2.	Were open tenders called to establish where such purchases could be made and, if not, what criteria were used to determine where purchases could be made?
3.	Were open tenders called to establish price per gallon of gasoline and, if not, how was the purchase price determined?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. There are three service stations located in Emerson, Manitoba, Shell rated (B), Gulf rated (E) and Texaco rated (E). The R.C.M.P. are authorized to use any of these outlets, however the higher discount stations are to be used where possible. There is no outlet for the (A) rated company in Emerson.
2 and 3. The R.C.M.P. use the National Credit Card System for the purchase of gasoline and related products for vehicles. The National Credit Card System is administered by Services and Supply Canada and is based on open tenders called by Services and Supply Canada to establish an order of preference based on discounts offered. These tenders are called every three years to establish a Standing Offer Agreement to supply petroleum products for purchase of the products as set out in the Handbook for Users of Government of Canada Credit Cards published by Services and Supply Canada. The handbook lists companies that are authorized to accept the National Credit Card for use in payment of supplies and services provided and discount rate by province e.g., (A) would be best discount and then descend down the scale according to discount offered. As a result of this, the policy of the Force is to use the company which offers the greater discount, however in cases of emergency and after hours any of the approved companies listed may be used.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 5,291 which stated in part that $851.37 was the amount of money owing to the Treasury, as of December 31, 1975, for unused advances for travel by Mr. L. D. Hudon, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, was there an error in this amount and, if so (a) what was the error and for what reason was it made (b) should the actual figure be $2,400?


Eugene Whelan: The
amount of money owing to the Treasury for unused advances for travel as of December 31, 1975 is correctly stated to be $851.37. Travel claims against the amount advanced ($2,400) were outstanding as of December 31. (a) and (b) see above.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 5,291 which stated in part that $851.37 was the amount of money owing to the Treasury, as of December 31, 1975, for unused advances for travel by Mr. L. D. Hudon, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, was this answer seen by Mr. Hudon before it was given to the House and, if so (a) on what date (b) what are the details, if any, of the part played by Mr. Hudon in the preparation of the answer?
July 13, 1976

2.	Is it Departmental practice that the Deputy Minister approves answers to questions of this kind and, if so, on what date did Mr. Hudon approve the answer?
3.	Is it government policy to permit Deputy Ministers to take part in the preparation of answers to Order Paper questions that concern themselves?


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


Mr. Reid: 1.	What is the policy with respect to the choice of airlines for officials, by the Medical Services Branch Department of National Health and Welfare, the Canada Water Resources Branch, Department of the Environment at Fort Frances, and when was it inaugurated?
2.	Has any consideration been given for the contracting and tendering of the air transportation required by the Departments, and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what are the reasons for the current policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as Health and Welfare Canada is concerned: 1. The use of airlines in Fort Frances is based on convenience to the patients, nurses, private physicians, availability of aircraft in winter and summer, short notice, and the quality of service. Because of the light use of aircraft (to one community a maximum of twice a month) no policy, other than the above has been developed.
2. No detailed consideration has been given to contracting or tendering for air transportation. The Medical Services Branch frequently shares charters to Lac La Croix with other departments and agencies (e.g. Indian Affairs Branch, Canada Water Resources Branch, Children's Aid Society, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Ontario), (a) See 1 above, (b) Not applicable.
In so far as Environment Canada is concerned: 1. There is no specific policy with regard to the choice of airlines for officials by the Water Resources Branch of the Department of the Environment at Fort Frances.
2. No consideration has been given for the contracting and tendering of the air transportation required, (a) It has not been considered because of the very low utilization required, usually about five or six one-day charters per year, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Huntington: 1.	How many copies of the Department of the Environment, Fisheries, Marine Branch questionnaire "A Study of How People View Recreation" were distributed?
2.	Were copies distributed in all provinces?
3.	What was the total cost of (a) preparing (b) printing (c) distributing (d) compiling the results (e) other related costs of the questionnaire?
4.	What is the name and address of the company employed by the government to print the questionnaire?
Order Paper Questions
5.	How many 12 x 14 inch colour recreational prints were printed to accommodate any requests received from them through the questionnaire and what was the total cost?
6.	What is the name and address of the company which printed the colour recreational prints?
7.	How many requests were received for the prints?
8.	What was the total aggregate cost to study all aspects of the questionnaire?


George Baker: This study was a joint undertaking by the British Columbia Provincial Department of Recreation and. Conservation and the Federal Fisheries and Marine Service, DOE. It was intended to examine the question of substitutability between natural recreational opportunities and more artificial recreational opportunities of interest to the two jurisdictions.
1.	Copies of the questionnaire were distributed to 4,667 households in British Columbia.
2.	Copies were distributed only in British Columbia.
3.	(a) Preparation costs were approximately $1,00 (estimate of salary time), (b) Printing costs were $3,974.33. (c) Distribution costs were $1,650. (d) The compilation of the results has not yet been completed. This cost has been estimated at $500, part of which will be paid by the Provincial Government, (e) There were no other related costs.
4.	A tender for printing the questionnaire was issued through the Department of Supply and Services to Marshall Printing, 367 Water Street, Vancouver 3, British Columbia.
5.	The 12" x 14" colour recreational prints were provided by the British Columbia Provincial Government from existing stocks at no cost to the project.
6.	Refer to question 5.
7.	Approximately 2,400 requests have been received for the colour prints.
8.	The total cost of the study was $7,124.33. These costs have been distributed over three fiscal years with preparation costs accruing in 1974/75, printing costs and part of the distribution costs in 1975/76, and the remainder of the distribution costs and the compilation costs being paid in 1976/77.


Mr. Cossitt: Was Mr. G. Cousineau removed as Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission of Canada and, if so, for what reason?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No. Mr. Cousineau resigned his appointment as Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to accept appointment as Special Adviser to the President of the Treasury Board. His appointment in the latter capacity was preparatory to his appointment on June 8, 1976 as President of Loto Canada, Inc., a Company which will report to the President of the Treasury Board.
95570-681/2

July 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total amount of salary received by the Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission since the date of his appointment and what was that date?
2.	What is the total amount of expenses of any kind whatsoever incurred by the Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission since
the date of his appointment and what general groupings make up this total?


Ralph Goodale: The Canadian Transport Commission reports as follows: 1. Assuming the reference to be to the President of the Canadian Transport Commission (there is no office of Chairman of the C.T.C.), the present President was appointed September 1, 1972, and since the appointment has been paid at the rate of DM-3 (presently $54,000 to $66,000).
	1972/73	1973/74
Travel		
inside Canada	160.89	2,110.12outside Canada	1,262.84	3,360.87Hospitality	Expenses	-	-Relocation Expenses	1,800.00	-Total per year	3,223.73	5,470.99Fiscal Year	Total per1974/75	1975/76	1976/77	Expense2,296.15	1,046.80	559.84	6,173.80756.15	1,805.90	-	7,185.76670.72	216.50	125.05	1,012.27-	-	-	1,800.003,723.02	3,069.20	684.89	16,171.83


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total number of benefit control officers employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and, by province, what was the breakdown (a) for 1972 (b) for 1973 (c) for 1974 (d) for 1975 (e) as of the date the answer to this question is prepared?
2.	For the same years, what was the total number of benefit control officers employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in (a) Halifax (b) Montreal (c) Quebec City (d) Ottawa (e) Metropolitan Toronto (f) Kingston (g) Winnipeg (h) Regina (i) Calgary (j) Edmonton (k) Vancouver (1) Victoria?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1.
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)1972	1973	1974	1975	1976Newfoundland	5	8	9	13	15Prince Edward Island	1	2	2	2	3Nova Scotia	7	9	12	12	17New Brunswick	8	14	14	12	14Quebec	110	120	120	133	133Ontario	131	116	143	149	156Manitoba	9	16	16	13	14Saskatchewan	4	14	14	10	9Alberta	9	29	29	23	23British Columbia	24	39	41	41	412. (a) Halifax	4	4	5	6	8(b) Montreal	39	41	41	50	54(c) Quebec City	19	20	20	20	22(d) Ottawa	7	7	8	9	9(e) Metro Toronto	54	41	55	58	70(f) Kingston	3	4	4	3	3(g) Winnipeg	9	16	13	10	11(h) Regina	3	7	7	5	4(i) Calgary	5	14	14	11	10(j) Edmonton	4	15	15	10	10(k) Vancouver	13	10	8	8	8(1) Victoria	3	5	5	6	6


Mr. Huntington: 1.	What are the full terms of the lease arrangements between War-nock Hersey International Limited or any subsidiary thereof and Parks Canada or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in relation to the ski area at Sunshine Village, Alberta?
2.	What was the total cost of the four volume consultants' report entitled Sunshine Village prepared by Acres Consulting Services Ltd.?
3.	What percentage and total cost was paid by (a) Parks Canada (b) the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (c) any other government department (d) Warnock Hersey International (e) any subsidiary of Warnock Hersey International?
4.	What are the names of the constituent members of the consulting consortium of Acres Consulting Services Ltd.?
5.	What is the total cost of any other studies including environmental and feasibility studies done other than the four volume Sunshine Village consultants' report and what government department paid for them?
6.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Parks Canada or any other government department pay all or any of the cost of the preparation or printing of the booklet entitled Long Range Proposals, Sunshine Village, Banff National Park and, if so (a) what percentage of the cost was paid (b) what was the final value paid (c) by what department or agency?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. Release of this information would violate the established principle of confidentiality in the normal lessor-lessee relationship existing between the Department and Sun-

July 13, 1976

shine Village Limited, a subsidiary of Warnock Hersey International Limited.
2.	Total cost of Sunshine Village report prepared by Acres Consulting Services Ltd., $50,250.
3.	The costs were divided at 50 per cent ($25,125) each between Parks Canada (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs) and Warnock Hersey International Limited, North American Recreation Industries Division.
4.	Constituent members of Acres Consulting Services Ltd. Consortium: Acres Consulting Services Ltd.: R. Hey-chak, S. Toewes, W. MacNeil; A. Raine. Robert McLellan and Associates: R. McLellan, F.F. Slaney and Company Limited, D. Poole, L. Bayrock, D. Baker. Mel Borgersen and Associates: M. Borgersen, E. Borgersen, R. Morse. Don MacLaurin and Associates: D. MacLaurin.
5.	No other consultant studies were done. Some environmental, avalanche and traffic studies were conducted by staff of Parks Canada.
6.	(a) 50 per cent (b) Information not yet available as costs are ongoing, (c) Parks Canada, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	What was the number of overpayments in unemployment insurance in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 (e) 1976 to date?
2.	What was the amount of overpayment in each case?


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. (a) 1972, 160,322; (b) 1973, 263,142; (c) 1974, 283,163; (d) 1975, 327,868; (e) To May, 1976, 176,600.
2. (a) 1972, $20.1 million; (b) 1973, $35.4 million; (c) 1974, $39.6 million; (d) 1975, $48.2 million; (e) To May, 1976, $26.5 million.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Did the government advertise for the space for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Saskatoon and, if so, in what newspaper did the advertisement appear and on what dates?
2.	Did the Bessborough Hotel meet all the specifications required in the advertisement?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes. The Department of Public Works placed and advertisement for space in Saskatoon for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix on January 18, 1974.
2. Yes, the Bessborough Hotel met all the specifications required in the advertisement.
Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]

Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 5,189, 5,299, and starred question No. 5,386 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Coates: 1.	(a) What are the names of the firms that have rented office space to the government in either Ottawa or Hull or the National Capital Region (b) in each case, what is the amount of space rented (c) what is the dollar value of each contract or lease and what is the term, in years, of each?
2.	Of the rental agreements or leases presently in existence, how many have an escalation clause associated with inflation and, in each such case, what is the length of the lease?
Return tabled.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	In how many provinces and territories were Electoral Boundaries Commissions appointed for 1975-76?
2.	(a) How many served on each commission (b) what are their (i) names (ii) addresses by province and territory?
3.	What were the financial arrangements for each commission member, i.e., salary, expenses and for how long?
4.	By province and territory, how many hearings were held and, in each case, how many separate representations were made?
5.	What was the total cost for (a) Canada (b) each province and territory (c) each hearing, by province and territory?
6.	By province and territory, what is the projected cost for meetings of commissioners following debate on redistribution in the House of Commons?
Return tabled.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	What was the total amount of money requested by those applicants to the Medical Research Council whose projects were given a rating of 6 or above by the review committees at the last March competition and what was the total sum granted to these applicants?
2.	In each case where an amount over $4,000 was involved in the initial request (a) who were the applicants by name and address (b) what was the amount of money requested (c) granted?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the parliamentary secretary had the intention, after the corrected answer to question 5,410, to answer also question 5,462?


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, Mr. Speaker.

Order Paper Questions STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 5,461 and 5,463?


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Were inside postal workers provided recently with uniforms and, if so (a) at what cost (b) for what reason?
2.	How often are such uniforms issued?
3.	Since the policy was initiated, have any complaints been received from (a) the public (b) postal employees and, if so, in each case, how many?
4.	Is the wearing of the uniforms compulsory and, if so, how many employees have refused to wear them?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: 1. (a) $1,040 million (b) New uniforms were provided to ensure that counter sales staff are dressed as smartly as possible to project a favourable public image.
2.	The uniforms are issued on differing criteria. Fulltime employees were supplied with a full-time issue as outlined below, and then on the basis of one-half of the full-time issue every year commencing in 1978. "Each employee serving the counter more than 25 hours per week is entitled to the following issue: 1-male or female counter jacket, blue 1-male or female counter jacket, maroon 6-blouses (female) or shirts (male), white, long or short sleeve 4-scarves (female) or ties (male) 1-identification tag. Part-time counter employees are supplied with an issue every two years of the part-time accessories and jackets as outlined below: "Each employee serving the counter more than 10 hours per week is entitled to the following: 1-female or male counter jacket, blue 3-shirts or blouses (long or short sleeve) 2-either scarves or ties 1-identification tag.
3.	(a) 15, (b) 5.
4.	The uniform is to be worn while on duty, except where heat and humidity make wearing the jacket uncomfortable for an individual employee. Under these circumstances the requirement for the wearing of the jacket may be waived.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many copies of the book entitled: "Canadian Government Specifications Board-Role and Operations" were printed by the Department of Supply and Services in March 1976?
2.	Were approximately 125 boxes of the book placed on the street on April 30, 1976, behind the Royal Trust Building in Ottawa for garbage disposal and (a) if so, was it done after dark and for what reason (b) if not, on what date and at what time were they placed on the street?
3.	What is the identity and job designations of (a) those who placed the material on the street (b) the highest ranking person giving the instructions to place the material on the street?
4.	Were the books picked up and disposed of by the garbage collectors some time before 4.30 a.m.?
5.	What are the reasons that this newly printed material was destroyed?

6.	(a) What is the name and address of the printer of the material (b) what was the total cost of printing?
7.	Is the booklet being reprinted and, if so (a) on what date (b) by whom (c) at what cost?
8.	Were all copies originally printed disposed of in Ottawa on April 30, 1976 and, if not, where are the remaining copies?


Mr. Walter Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. 13,820.
2.	No. (a) No; (b) On April 26, 90 boxes were placed on the street between 2 and 3 p.m. to make room for the corrected version which arrived that day. (Approximately 40 boxes had been disposed of earlier). The Metcalfe Realty have a contract with Tricil Waste Management Ltd. for pickup and disposal of waste. This service is included in tenant lease arrangements.
3.	(a) and (b) The two staff members involved were from the Central Registry Office and are designated as CR2 and CR4.
4.	Normal pickup arrangements were followed. Precise time of garbage pickup not known but pickup arrangements by Tricil call for pickup between 6 a.m. and 6:45 a.m.
5.	Misprints on cover and title page.
6.	(a) Tri-graphic Printing Ltd., 465 Industrial Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario; (b) $9,340.
7.	Yes; (a) Completed and delivered on April 26; (b) Tri-graphic Printing Limited; (c) $5,570.
8.	All but 10 or 12 copies were disposed of on or before April 26. Those known to be holding copies have been asked to destroy them.


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


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my point of order goes back to a question placed on the order paper on October 14 of last year, No. 3,140. In this question I asked four things: I asked for the amount of legal business given a lawyer named N. Dwayne Dixon, of Smith Falls, within a year of his being appointed president of the Leeds Liberal Association. It also asked for a breakdown of his business. On December 5 the question was answered, in part, that he received within one year $15,585 worth of business. Then it said the following:
Information will be communicated at a later date to the hon. member in regard to what this business was.
That was seven or eight months ago. The information has not been communicated to me. Accordingly, on May 4 I put two further questions on the order paper, Nos. 5,425 and 5,427, asking why this information was not forthcoming and also asking if it was government policy to award lucrative government business to those who had served the Liberal party as presidents of ridings.
None of these questions has been answered although I have been promised this list for seven months. I think it is legitimate to raise the question, as parliament is about to adjourn for the summer, as to where this list is, why the government is not willing to make it available, and why this man got $15,000 worth of business shortly after he became president of the Leeds Liberal Association.
July 13, 1976

I think this is a legitimate question and either the parliamentary secretary or the President of the Privy Council should be willing at this time to rise in the House and explain the reason this information is not being given, so that the matter will not stand in abeyance until the fall and be put off and put off like everything else this government does when it does not want to tell the people the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds was just recognized. He had the floor and completed developing his point of order. Then he sat down. Surely nothing could have happened in the interval that would give rise to a question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Yes, Mr. Speaker, something did happen in the interval. The hon. member for St. Boniface asked me, across the floor of the House, how much money I received as president of the Leeds Liberal Association. I ask him to withdraw that remark.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: No way.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I also ask him-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Are you prepared to say how much you got?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I am prepared to say I never received one cent. I resent the implication, and I demand-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. No unparliamentary language was used or alleged to have been used in the exchange that has taken place. Besides that, the hon. member accepted the occasion to take the floor and put on the record whatever statement he wanted to make in response to the question.
Orders of the day.



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 amendment thereto of Mr. Condon.
Capital Punishment
Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-84, the famous and notorious bill to abolish capital punishment, seems to be nearing a close. I spoke on this subject and on this bill early in the debate on second reading, and at that time I presented what I thought were reasonable and logical arguments for retaining capital punishment and for sincerely opposing Bill C-84. Since that time many pages of Hansard, have been filled by those who have participated in the debate, some pros and some cons. A large majority of my constitutents have made it quite clear to me by petitions, by letters, by telegrams and by personal calls and contacts that they support capital punishment for all premeditated murders. I sincerely believe the great majority of Canadians all across the country think the same way, and that opinion should be reflected in this House. There has been no hue and cry from Canadians to introduce a bill to abolish capital punishment, let alone Bill C-84. On the contrary, there is an open and very clear demand on the part of the vast majority of Canadians to enforce capital punishment not only for the slaying of policemen and prison guards but also for all premeditated murders.
There is no question in my mind that all the avowed statements and pleas about there being a free vote on this subject are a lot of hogwash. There has not been a free vote. It would be naive for any person to say that all members of parliament exercised a free vote without fear or the threat of being affected regarding their desire for promotion within the political party system. I have no hestitation in pointing out quite clearly that I have a free vote, and I am proud to vote freely on all matters. There is only one influence which affects my votes and decisions, and that is the collective majority of opinions and views of Canadians generally, in particular the collective majority of opinions and views of the citizens of the federal constituency of Moncton.
Quite frankly, if I, as a member of parliament, were to support Bill C-84 to abolish capital punishment, it seems to me that I would be sorely irresponsible and would be responsible for the slaying of future police officers, prison guards and citizens generally, because by supporting this bill I would be an accomplice before the fact.
Let us think about this very seriously. Those who support this bill are vested with a serious power of judgment and should vote uprightly and impartially without any personal consideration or consideration for the political party system. They must divest themselves of prejudice and preconception they might have because of the party system. They must not be motivated by stubborn pride of opinion, nor should they be too facile in yielding to the views and arguments of their fellow members of parliament.
I suggest that responsible members of parliament in a democratic system based upon democratic principles should be prepared to adhere to public opinion. Members of parliament are supposed to be responsible. We are supposed to be representatives of the people, not necessarily of a party. People should be first. As members of parliament we are representatives of and responsible to the people, and we should be a government and a parliament of the people, for the people and by the people.

July 13, 1976
Capital Punishment
Canadians are urging those who supported the bill on second reading to reconsider their position. They are asking members of parliament who supported it on second reading to oppose it now. Believe me, public opinion is important and must be taken into consideration. When public opinion on this bill is so clear and of such significance, it is no time for concern for personal promotion within party ranks or for considering personal opportunities. It is contemptuous not to adhere to public opinion in a situation of this kind.
Now is the time to vote to kill this bill, and for the government to bring forward a bill for the complete reinstatement of capital punishment for premedicated murder and to show a proper sense of direction, responsibility and stability, for a change. It occurs to me that probably the only way to obtain a free vote would be for the hon. member for Moncton, yours truly, to present a bill for the reinstatement of capital punishment at the next session. Then, just maybe, we might have a free vote because I am the one member of parliament in the House today who, by virtue of the exercise of freedom of choice, would have a non-partisan vote.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. Member:: You are slow on your feet.


Mr. Caccia:: A new speech, please.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In speaking at third reading on this bill I would first like to say, in reply to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), that I would be very interested to hear him make a speech trying to justify his position on the vote at second reading.


Charles L. Caccia: I did.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The fact is that the hon. member is a very ambitious member in the Liberal caucus and he knows only too well that he must toe the party line with respect to this bill, rather than show any free will or free conscience.


Mr. Dinsdale:: All we hear is his master's voice.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I referred to the hon. member for Davenport, but I could refer to several hon. members from metropolitan Toronto.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) knows well enough how we on this side of the House have voted, as well as hon. members on his side of the House. By imputing to us motives as to how we voted, he is really not doing justice to the spirit with which we have approached this debate, namely, to try to find the answer we think is best for the country. I think he should at least withdraw the comment he just made as to the motives which inspired the intervention I made at second reading and the way I voted. I do not think that this is within the spirit and the direction of the rules which govern debates in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) that he is skating on thin ice again. I think he should withdraw that last remark.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I may ask, Mr. Speaker, what last remark?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member did impute motives. He implied that there was pressure applied to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that just prior to our lunch break this question came up with regard to another hon. member who suggested that there was pressure brought to bear on hon. members opposite with respect to their votes, and Mr. Speaker at that time held quite clearly that that was just a question of debate and that this is a debating chamber. That is what parliament means.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is only natural that hon. members, especially in a so-called free vote, might apply pressure upon one another in order to try to influence them to their way of thinking. My comment was simply provoked by the hon. member for Davenport who made a comment when I rose to speak. I am simply challenging him. If he wishes to speak and try to persuade hon. members as to why they should vote for abolition at third reading of this bill, as opposed to what I suggest, which is retention, he should do so.


Charles L. Caccia: I must repeat the same question of privilege, because earlier the hon. member for York-Simcoe imputed to me motives and ambition as guiding elements and factors in my making a speech at second reading and my manner of voting. Therefore, he has imputed motives with regard to my pattern of voting. I again ask Your Honour to ask the hon. member to withdraw his comments.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I suppose every day in this House motives are imputed to hon. members. One of those motives may be to curry favour with authority. There could be a motive, from time to time, to curry favour with the Chair. There could be a motive, from time to time, to vote in accordance with one's conscience, or it might be a motive to vote in accordance with the wishes of one's constituents. There may be a motive to speak and act in order to get out of this place early, or to stay late, depending upon one's point of view. This House operates, and hon. members make up their minds with respect to motives, and the imputing of motives is certainly not contrary to the rules. It is contrary to Standing Order 35 for any member to reflect upon any vote of the House; not upon individual members in the House but upon votes of the House of Commons.
I am repeating something I said before the luncheon break to the hon. gentleman who then occupied the chair and who ruled, as the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. July 13, 1976

Stevens) indicated, that this is a debating House and that we can reflect, subject to the use of abusive language, upon the motives or anything else of the debating member although we cannot, as the rules say, reflect upon any vote of the House of Commons, which is a quite different thing.
I have listened to what has been said and I would not enter into this discussion if I thought anything improper had been imputed to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I would not get into this question except, perhaps, to go to the defence of the hon. member for Davenport. Nothing has been said about the vote of the House of Commons, however, but only what may, correctly or incorrectly, have moved the hon. member for Davenport. I respectfully suggest that the hon. member ought not to be so sensitive, but should get on with the business before this House so that he will have an opportunity, for whatever motive he might have, to cast whatever vote he wants with respect to this particular bill.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the principle that is being advanced by the House leader of the official opposition has not been ruled upon by the Chair. The proposition of the opposition House leader ought not to be left unchallenged, although at this time I do not think the matter should be decided by the Chair because it is not before you, Mr. Speaker.
The point is that Standing Order 35 applies only to reflections upon the vote of the whole House. That, to my mind, is not the proper interpretation of that particular Standing Order. It is improper to reflect upon the vote of the House or upon any member within this House. To impute motives on the way an individual member casts his vote, or what those motives may have been, is not acceptable.
I fully agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) was treading a very thin line when he indicated that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) was toeing the party line on this particular issue. I say that on two bases. If there is one independent member in this House, it is the hon. member for Davenport. Mr. Speaker, if the comment was made about the intervention of the hon. member for Davenport that he may have been espousing certain arguments in his remarks that were espoused by the leader of his party and espoused and advocated by me, that may have been the interpretation of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).
Having said that, I am sure the hon. member for York-Simcoe would not impute motives to the hon. member for Davenport on the way he cast his vote at any stage of the debate on Bill C-84.


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this point of order. If I interpret correctly what the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said, it was that he had no ambition. If he has no ambition, I think it is only fair that he make his constituents aware of that. I am sure they would like to know what kind of member represents them in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I believe we are getting into discussion and debate. I suggest we return to Bill C-84.
Capital Punishment


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, to continue with my remarks on Bill C-84, I should like to touch on ten separate points which I feel are relevant before we come to the end of this important debate. One of my colleagues to the left suggested, "Keep politics out of the House of Commons". Mr. Speaker, certainly I am the last to introduce politics as far as debate is concerned on a matter as important as this question of retaining or not retaining the death penalty.
I wish to put a very basic question to hon. members. Is the retention of the death penalty in fact a deterrent? I believe most members would say it is a deterrent, as far as they personally are concerned, if there were any question of their committing a crime that might result in the loss of somebody's life or a crime that would be punishable by death. Certainly it would be a deterrent to me, and I believe most other members would say it would be a deterrent to them. The simple premise is that, if convicted, they might lose their own life. Surely in that case few could argue there is no deterrent.
There is considerable evidence, based on the statistics supplied by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), gathered over the last 16 to 18 years, which would indicate that the death penalty may be a deterrent. I say that bearing in mind that for the six-year period ended in 1962 we found that the murder rate in Canada was approximately one per
100,000	people and it has gone up steadily since. Is it simply a coincidence that since 1962 the death penalty has not been imposed? Is it just coincidence that by 1974 the rate was 2.4 per 100,000? I think that says that perhaps the death penalty was a deterrent, and I think we have to face third reading of this bill with the assumption that in all likelihood the death penalty is a deterrent.
When we reach our decision on how to vote tomorrow, we should recognize to a greater extent than we have to date that public opinion in Canada favours the death penalty. Many estimates have been made on the degree of acceptance. I would say that in my area 75 per cent, or maybe 85 per cent, of the people would answer "Yes" if asked the simple question: Do you think the death penalty should be retained for at least some crimes? I hear my socialist friends to the left saying, "No." If they are so sure my figures are incorrect, then let us have a plebiscite. Let us find out in an accurate way, preferably at the next general election, whether Canadians feel the death penalty should be retained or not.
I find it interesting that the more you see this Liberal-Socialist alliance, the more you see the Solicitor General proposing a bill in effect seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) as this one is, the more you can sense that there is nobody in this country so intolerant of public will-if public will happens to be against their views-than the Liberal-Socialists we have in this House. That is the simplest interpretation one can make of the fact that the government, aided and abetted by its Socialist friends to my left, has, by bringing forward this legislation, ignored the public will. If they do not believe that between 75 per cent and 85 per cent of Canadians favour retention of the death penalty, why can we not find out? Let us consult the public. Is there anything wrong with consulting the people, in a democracy, to learn if they think we should pass legislation abolishing the death penalty?

July 13, 1976
Capital Punishment
My third point is this. How does Canada stand in comparison with the rest of the world on this question? If we become an abolitionist nation, will we be in step with the rest of the world, or will we make ourselves a veritable island among nations which have retained the death penalty? There can be little doubt about the facts. United Nations' figures show that the world trend is increasingly to retention. More and more states are retaining the death penalty. It is clear, if one examines what is happening in the United States, that the trend in that country is to reimpose the death penalty. It is not in favour of more and more abolition.
When the United States Congress in 1974 passed antihijacking legislation dealing with air piracy, it specifically provided for the death penalty for air piracy. Yet we in this country, by passing Bill C-84, will do exactly the opposite of what has been done in the United States. Also, Mr. Speaker, the United States Congress is not alone in reinstituting the death penalty. Earlier in this debate I said that the United States supreme court had made it clear that the death penalty may be introduced in the states of the union and that it is not against the United States constitution. We began debating this question in the twenty-ninth parliament when this country began moving in the abolitionist direction. It is interesting to note that since 1972 no less than 35 states of the United States have introduced legislation which would make the death penalty mandatory or an alternative option, for many crimes, to life imprisonment.
Let me put on record which states south of the border have reintroduced the death penalty, together with the date of passage of the legislation. I wish to make it clear that the states I am about to list reintroduced the death penalty for one or more crimes. Mr. Speaker, Alabama passed such legislation on September 9, 1975, when it became a retentionist state. Maryland passed such legislation on July 1, 1975; Missouri, on June 23, 1975; Virginia, on October 1, 1975; Washington passed such legislation last year; Arizona passed it on August 8, 1973; Arkansas, on July 24, 1973; California, on January 1, 1974; Colorado held a referendum on November 5, 1974 and passed legislation on January 1, 1975; Connecticut passed it on October 1, 1973.
I emphasize that the dates mentioned are those on which legislation reimposing the death penalty was passed or became effective. Delaware passed the law on March 29, 1974; Florida, on December 8, 1972; Georgia, on March 28, 1973; Idaho, on March 27, 1973; Illinois, on July 1, 1974; Indiana, on April 24, 1973; Kentucky, on January 1, 1975; Louisiana, on July 2, 1973; Mississippi, on April 23, 1974; Montana, on January 1, 1974-and amendments were subsequently passed, effective later in 1974. Nebraska passed its law on April 20, 1973; Nevada, on July 1, 1973; New Hampshire, on April 15, 1974; New Mexico, on March 20, 1973; New York, on September 1, 1974; North Carolina, on April 8, 1974; Ohio, on December 22, 1972; Oklahoma, on May 17, 1973; Pennsylvania, on March 26, 1974; Rhode Island, on June 26, 1973; South Carolina, on July 2, 1974; Tennessee, on February 27, 1974; Texas, on June 14, 1973; Utah, on July 1, 1973; and Wyoming, on February 24, 1973.

In short, since 1972 no fewer than 35 states of the United States of America have brought back the death penalty. The United States Congress in 1974 brought back the death penalty for air piracy. Therefore, who is out of step with whom? Can we be absolutely assured that by abolishing the death penalty tomorrow, if hon. members so choose, and making this an abolitionist state, we shall move in the right direction? Will we not be out of step with the rest of the world by joining the mere one per cent of the population of the world which is abolitionist in the sense in which we shall be abolitionists if this bill carries tomorrow?
Let me now touch on the question of the misrepresentation that there is a free vote on this bill. It should be drawn to the public's attention that of the 133 members who supported the bill on second reading, 27 were cabinet ministers who voted en bloc. Clearly, since more than 10 per cent of the members of this House voted en bloc, according to a previous understanding, the vote was not entirely free. If you were to ignore the vote of the cabinet, the members of which voted en bloc, the net result of a truly free vote would have been that retentionists would have cast 125 votes, as against 106 abolitionist votes. In short, I believe the government intends to make this an abolitionist state; otherwise it would have allowed a truly free vote.
I suggest that the proper procedure would have been to allow a private member to introduce the bill and then to allow each member to vote on it according to his or her conscience. There should have been no suggestion of government involvement. I remind hon. members of that moment in this House, when he voted on June 29, when the question arose as to what extent the rules should be warped in order to allow us to finalize the vote. Hon. members will remember that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rose and indicated to all members on his side of the House that they should vote in accordance with his wish. Was the vote free?


William Warren Allmand: That was a procedural matter.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Solicitor General says it was a procedural matter. But it was a procedural matter touching on what was supposed to be a free vote in this House.
I next touch on the suggestion raised by abolitionists that in place of the death penalty the sentence for murder should be true "life" imprisonment. I challenge that. I do not think there is such a thing as life imprisonment as that term is generally interpreted. Certainly, we shall not impose the kind of life imprisonment whereby we can say to a prisoner that he will never regain his freedom, never be released on parole and never see his sentence lessened.
We must be honest with the Canadian public. In place of the death penalty we say that we shall impose life imprisonment for 25 years, but the sentence can be reviewed after 15 years and there is a possibility for the prisoner to be absent from prison for various periods, with escort. That sort of sentence is to be the alternative to the death penalty. Tomorrow, when hon. members cast their vote, they should remember this. I want to make it clear to the Canadian public that we are not substituting life imprisonment, in the true sense of the word, for the death sentence. It is simply life imprisonment for 25 years, open for review
July 13, 1976

certainly after 15 years. In any event, from day one it is subject to the privilege of taking an absence from prison with an escort at any time for various periods of time. That is something I feel many are not cognizant of or are weighing properly.
Again I must take exception to the committee proceedings which took place with respect to this bill at second reading. Quite rightly, we were urged to allow the bill to go to committee so we could have intensive study, a review of the bill and proper discussion. I believe that most of my colleagues will support me when I say that in committee we were subjected to a majority of Liberal members who, by coincidence or otherwise, happened to be mainly abolitionists. They insisted, first, that we should have no witnesses before the committee and, second, that our time be limited as far as study of the bill was concerned. On this type of issue I do not think that is fair to the Canadian public.
I ask hon. members to record the number of people who have written to them requesting that they be heard before the committee, or to say how disappointed they were that they were unable to come before a committee of this House to give their evidence concerning this important matter. I have received letters. I can only assume that many other members have received letters from people who have taken exception to the fact they were not given an opportunity to appear before the committee which presumably was to look in depth at the desirability of passing the bill in the form that was submitted.
The seventh point I wish to touch on, very quickly, is with regard to air piracy. Even if you are an abolitionist, surely the fact that every nation surrounding us has air piracy laws providing for the death penalty in case of death ensuing as" a result of air piracy requires us to keep the death penalty for piracy. Until other nations on this continent and nations such as Japan, Russia and Ireland, for example, do away with the death penalty, it would be unwise for us to do away with the death penalty with respect to air piracy, at least. Why should we make Canada one of the most hospitable countries for an air pirate when other nations have the death penalty for such a terrible crime? I hope those who vote on third reading will give consideration to that point.
If you like, be an idealist and say that in concept we should be an abolitionist nation. However, we must be practical and realize that many countries of the world are not at that stage. Until we get to that stage, let us not jeopardize Canada needlessly and act irresponsibly by saying we should do away with the death penalty, come what may; that we are not worried about air piracy or any other terrible crimes being committed. That is irresponsible. I hope members who feel otherwise will reassess their position.
The eighth point I wish to touch on is what I feel is a type of distortion by abolitionists. I refer to the argument as to the method of execution. In a sense, the abolitionists like to use the hangman's noose as their symbol. That is not the important question. The important question is whether there should be the death penalty. Once that is decided upon, the method of execution is a very secondary
Capital Punishment
thing. I feel that whatever is the most humane method of execution is the one that should be followed. My colleague, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), suggested that this could be left to the cabinet: they could decide by regulation the method of execution.
I supported that proposed amendment because I believed it would be a humane way of handling it. It is handled by regulation under the National Defence Act. That is how executions are prescribed. It is not laid down that it must be by hanging, firing-squad or any other way. It simply states in the National Defence Act that by order in Council the cabinet can determine the method of execution in any particular case. Let that be clear. When we speak about the death penalty and its retention we are not necessarily saying that the hangman's noose should be retained; we are saying that, regardless of the method of execution, let us make sure that capital punishment remains a deterrent to crime the way it was in former years.
The ninth point I wish to touch on is one I really believe is related. I am pleased that the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) is here. If this legislation passes tomorrow, a new drive will be commenced by those who have been abolitionists, and I do not fault their motives. For some odd reason there seems to be a relationship between the pro-abortionists and the abolitionists. There will be a new drive to make our abortion laws still easier. That will be a retrograde step for Canada. I hope the attitude that is moving some people to support this bill will be arrested short of new legislation to make abortion on demand virtually the rule in Canada. That would be most regrettable.


Mr. Stollery:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a member of the House who happens to be an abolitionist, I resent the implication the hon. member is making, somehow linking my position as an abolitionist with the abortion movement, on either side of the question. The hon. member should retract that kind of comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member should now get back to the point of debate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My tenth and final point is this. For many of the reasons I have outlined, if Bill C-84 is given third reading tomorrow I can assure hon. members that the subject will not be ended in Canada. New legislation will be demanded by the Canadian public. They will demand the return of the death penalty. I would guess that within a decade the death penalty will be restored in Canada because of public demand.
I intend to make sure, in my area, that in the coming election, whenever it is called, the cards are laid squarely on the table to show who stood for what in so far as the retention of capital punishment is concerned. Basically, on this side of the House this has been a free vote. It is to the credit of the official opposition that it has been free. It is to the discredit of the government that they have faked their free vote. That is why I am so confident that if we go to the Canadian public and spell out the truth concerning this important issue, they will respond with their votes to ensure the death penalty is reinstated in this country, come what may tomorrow.

July 13, 1976
Capital Punishment


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased with the summary which has just been provided by my hon. friend, the experienced member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who in my view has completed a careful, point by point analysis of the issue before us. Frankly, I do not expect to persuade anybody to my point of view, and bearing this in mind I intend to be brief. Nevertheless, at third reading there are certain areas of concern I should like to put on record. Not too long ago I received a letter from a professor of human behaviour at the University of Notre Dame in Nelson, British Columbia-Professor W. A. Forsyth. I took the liberty of marking some of the points he made. He followed a line of reasoning which I felt to be original and genuine. Among other things, on this issue of capital punishment he said:
The state has a responsibility to indicate its degree of disapproval by assessing and carrying out a just punishment.
That certainly applies to any criminal action.
The arguments for abolition of the death penalty seem to be based on the question whether the state has more right in applying equal justice for all than the individual has to make his own decision to kill anyone he chooses for whatever reason ... If the murderer finds less disapproval of his act of murder than he finds of the imposition of the death penalty, then he knows that, officially, it is not that bad. This is where the lack of a deterrent is centred.
Mr. Forsyth went on to say:
Some members of parliament focus their attitude upon the taking of life by the murderer rathern than upon the legal act of justice.
If we are afraid an innocent person will be executed, let us improve our judicial system. But let us not protect those proven guilty. The death penalty is final, but not a bit more final than was the unjustified act of murdering an innocent victim ... Let us make it clear that we disapprove more of the taking of another's life by the individual acting on his own judgment and desires than we do of the death penalty as just punishment for the murderer.
In my opinion, the professor has made an excellent point. He is certainly skilled on the subject of human behaviour.
I should like to move on to quote from a document provided by Statistics Canada two relevant passages from "Homicide in Canada" which appear at pages 162 and 163. The report states, in summary:
In all, there have been 29 persons in Canada between 1961 and 1974 who after being charged with murder and receiving a court decision on their cases were again involved as suspects in a homicide incident. In 12 of these cases the person is legally definable as a repeater of the offence of homicide. Of this group, five were convicted murderers who killed again, three while in prison and two while at large following an escape. There were seven men initially convicted of manslaughter who were convicted for another homicide after this first conviction. Four of them received life sentences for the second homicide offence. Of this group, two were on parole, one was an escapee and one killed again while in prison. Another seven persons who were initially convicted of manslaughter or another lesser offence were charged with murder in a new homicide incident. Six of these men were not convicted of any offence for a second incident.
The report goes on to say, on page 163, that there is another type of repeater murderer. We read:
This consists of persons who murder more than once in separate incidents before being apprehended and charged. With these persons, the police and courts did not intervene until after two or more murders are committed by the suspect.
I suggest that the words in that sentence are poorly chosen.
(Mr. Stevens.]
In any event, between 1961 and 1974 there were 31 suspects who killed more than once on separate occasions before being apprehended. Between 1961 and 1974 there were 31 suspects who were involved in more than one murder incident for which they were charged with murder. These were charged with murder for as few as two and as many as seven incidents.
There is one set of figures simply not available to us in this context. These are the statistics with reference to those who have murdered and murdered again, and will murder yet again until they are apprehended. We do not know how many of these people are presently on the loose, whether they be insane, whether they deal in contract murder or whether they are in yet another category.
There is one further comment I should like to make. I can only say I am sorry, in making this reference, that the members to whom I wish to refer are not present in the chamber this afternoon. But I find it more than passing strange that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) should have done a complete flip-flop on the second, third, fourth and fifth votes in connection with the amendments we dealt with the other day. I also find it passing strange that the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall)-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This matter was raised earlier today. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) is reflecting on votes which were cast by hon. members, and that is contrary to Standing Order 35. I am sure he would not want to argue that he is entitled to reflect on the way in which other hon. members voted at any time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Perhaps I should quote the Standing Order. It reads, in part:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the House except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
I suggest that the hon. member refrain from mentioning the voting.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I only wish I was in a position at this time to move that the votes of those members be rescinded. However, since the hon. member across the way has risen on this point of order-and it is a valid point of order-I shall not go on to mention other members from British Columbia about whose voting record I am rather concerned when this matter was before the House and the committee. But I should like to reinforce the comments made by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. There is a very grave concern among Canadians that a gaggle of cabinet ministers has clearly demonstrated to all Canadians, certainly to the members on this side of the House, that we have not truly seen a free vote.
I should like to conclude by saying that throughout the lengthy debate on C-84 I have had an opportunity to read the speeches of various members of the House, and I have found there are three classes of members who speak or vote according to their particular persuasion on this vital issue. We have those who for very genuine and real reasons support the retention of capital punishment. We have those who for very genuine and real reasons support the abolition of capital punishment. Then, Mr. Speaker, we have those who for reasons best known to themselves have
July 13, 1976

waffled on the issue. They have not demonstrated to the people in their ridings that they have a firm and true conviction regarding where they stand on this issue. Indeed, the record shows that there are those who stand squarely in the middle of the fence, and I only hope that the fence is a picket fence.
I was particularly impressed by the contribution to this debate of the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga). In the brief period that this member has been in the House of Commons much of what he has said has made not only good sense but good reading. The hon. member happens to be a retentionist, and although I am quite prepared to speak favourably on behalf of any member who may support the other point of view, I just wish to go on record as saying that I have been particularly impressed with his contribution.
I should also like to single out for special mention the contribution made by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldi-mand (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), and also the very singular and dedicated manner in which the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) has conducted the fight for those who, like myself, firmly believe in the retention of capital punishment.
I recognize that members on both sides are most anxious to see this debate come to a conclusion. Frankly, I do not believe that anything I have said, or for that matter anything many other members have said on this side, is going to change the thinking of any other member of the House; indeed I would be surprised if it did. But at least, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada know where I stand; the people of Canada know where we all stand.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, prior to getting into my comments I should like to pay special tribute to the member who has just concluded his remarks on third reading of this very important piece of legislation, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco). In regard to this issue and in regard to the majority of issues on which he has shared his views with the House, he has always given an extremely fair analysis. I am sure the constituents of Kootenay West are truly proud of him and happy to have him represent them in this chamber.
Since I spoke on this issue when it was before the House on second reading, my remarks will be extremely brief. I should like to go back to what I said on second reading when I questioned the about-face of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I asked the minister whether he would be kind enough to explain to this House and to his constituents what prompted him suddenly to support abolition when at every other time he had supported retention in this chamber. To this date, Mr. Speaker, he has not shared that information with us, and that is his right. But I think we also have an obligation to share our views and concerns with the country as a whole.
I believe that if this piece of legislation is passed tomorrow in this chamber, it will truly be a sad day for Canada. I say that because in essence what it will mean is that the government has demonstrated there is no such thing in Canada as participatory democracy. I think surveys have indicated that close to 75 percent to 80 per cent of the Canadian people are in favour of capital punishment. I ask
Capital Punishment
the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) what makes him feel that his conscience is so much wiser than the collective conscience of his constituents. It will indeed be a sad day for participatory democracy in this country; it will take us back into the dark ages when we almost lived under a dictatorship.
Those members who support the abolitionist stance say the reason they do so is that the country will be totally abolitionist. If this bill passes, Mr. Speaker, Canada will still not have total abolition. I had hoped to be recognized today during the question period to ask the defence minister whether he could give the House any indication of what the government's plans are regarding the introduction of amendments to the National Defence Act. As I understand it, this act presently provides capital punishment for 36 offences, some of them as strange as an individual getting drunk on watch. We will not have total abolition, since these provisions are still contained in the National Defence Act. I would appreciate very much some indication from the government side of the House as to what the government's plans are in this area, whether changes are planned or whether we are going to have a certain segment of our society that has a special responsibility to Canada, in a sense discriminated against; a situation where for the ordinary citizen there will be total abolition, but for military personnel there will not.
Let me conclude by emphasizing once again that if this bill passes tomorrow, it will be just one more sign that this government has no concern for the will and wishes of the people of Canada-and that will be a sad day for participatory democracy.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, four times since I have been a member of this House the subject of the death penalty has been debated in this chamber. Until now, on each occasion I have, for one reason or another, not been able to participate in the debate, even though on the first occasion I was one of the movers of a tripartite resolution for abolition during my earliest days as a freshman member. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to speak briefly and to state my position in what I hope sincerely will be the last and decisive debate on this subject in this parliament.
My concern about the death penalty extends back not only a decade but goes back about 30 years to the time when, as a teenager, I took time off high school to attend the first murder trial I have witnessed. It was a trial of a very poor, friendless man who was accused of a very heinous crime, the killing of a young girl and the disposal of her body in a furnace. It could hardly have been a more horrible crime or one calling more for the ultimate penalty. The accused was convicted, and he was executed. Only a few months after his execution it became apparent that his defence was entirely inadequate, if not incompetent, and there was grave doubt about his guilt. From that day forward I have been asking myself what possible rationale there could be for such an irrevocable penalty in our law. Whatever the arguments for capital punishment, and there have been many persuasive ones put forward in this House, we must bear in mind that the death penalty is the one penalty that is irrevocable. There is no way we can

July 13, 1976
Capital Punishment
correct the errors of our human legal processes, and they are human and fallible.
Many thoughtful speeches have been made during this debate and the debates during these past ten years or more in the House on this subject. I will not try to repeat the arguments which have influenced my thinking. Many of my constituents have written me, telephoned me and discussed with me in person this issue over the past ten years. If there is any member of this House who has attempted to consult his constituents, to stimulate their participation in the democratic process and their commentary on current affairs and national issues, I hope I am one. I have felt that it is my duty as a member of parliament, a duty given me by those who elected me, to study an issue of this importance as deeply as I can and to reach a responsible and conscientious decision based on the facts as I found them. During these past ten years I have searched for evidence that would persuade me that the death penalty is a necessary part of our law. In the process of this consideration I have, perhaps incorrectly but in my own mind correctly, eliminated every other justification for the death penalty but one, and that is the protection of society.
In all the debates and all the evidence in this House during these past ten years I have not been persuaded that the death penalty has anywhere in the world been effective in reducing the incidence of capital crime. If it were otherwise, I would not hesitate to accept capital punishment. I do feel that the state has the right to levy such a punishment, but only where it is clearly demonstrable that society achieves some protection as a result. I have not been so persuaded and I am, therefore, still very much convinced that capital punishment should be removed from our statute books.
What is the responsibility of a government in this respect? Much has been said about that in this debate. For me, this is a free vote, but I must say I do not think it should be. I feel that a free vote in many ways is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the government. Why capital punishment should be less a matter of commitment on the part of any government than bilingualism, than divorce, than any other subject which is constantly put before this House by a government, for which a government takes responsibility, I do not know. I would have much preferred that the government had not only put forward a bill in the terms which met its convictions, but that it had been prepared to stand or fall as a government on the way in which this House dealt with it.
The government initiative on which we are now about to vote is long overdue. I regret that the impression has been allowed to build over the last few years of an almost routine commutation of death sentences. The cabinet, I have reason to know, takes each case very seriously and considers the merits of each one. However, the longer the government put off committing itself to abolition and carrying out its intentions in the most direct way, with the approval of parliament, the greater the chance there has been that the public would lose confidence not only in the government but in the processes and administration of the law. I welcome this initiative for abolition. I wish it were an initiative on which the government were prepared to take full responsibility as on other important measures, but I am prepared, as an individual member, to take my

responsibility as will all other members when they vote tomorrow.
It has been suggested that as members of this House we must vote according to our estimation of what our constituents want. I believe in consulting my constituents. I believe in their wisdom, and what they tell me influences my thinking a great deal. However, I believe members of parliament are here in the best British parliamentary tradition to take responsibility for their own decisions and not to pass the responsibility for those decisions to those who sent them here.
I believe it is incumbent on each member to satisfy himself or herself about the wisdom of a decision that he or she is called upon to make, and if they do not do so they are short-changing those who sent them here. So I will cast my vote, as I have in the past, bearing in mind what my constituents have told me on various aspects of this matter, bearing in mind my own feelings and conscience but, most of all, I will base my decision on the facts as I have found them to be and on the judgment that I can bring to bear as a responsible and conscientious representative of my electors.
Probably all members have received a letter from a man in Biggar, Saskatchewan, who wrote very movingly about his 17 year-old daughter who was killed in 1973. This man wrote:
Courtrooms, laws and even the hangman's noose seemingly provide no influence or restraint whatever over an anxious, distressed or afflicted mind.
He suggests that hanging is meaningless and even disgraceful for this day and age. The noose, he says, will only serve to indicate our backwardness. He goes on:
You and I have an obligation in attempting to erase as much of human suffering and punishment as is possible. We, the Canadian people look to you as a member of the Parliament of Canada for the required leadership toward such an end.
I hope that on whatever side of the matter members find themselves, we will attempt not simply to reflect the mass feeling of the moment but that we will exercise our conscientious judgment, bearing in mind the interests of society as a whole, not simply those who might be under sentence of death now or in the future, and that we will put our emphasis on the prevention of crime and suffering and on respect for life; in short, that we will exercise leadership. In so doing, I hope sincerely that tomorrow we will dispose of this question in the Canadian parliament once and for all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It appears that the debate on third reading of Bill C-84 has been concluded, as no other hon. member is seeking the floor. However, the House will recognize that it would be improper for me to put the question on the motion for third reading until the House has pronounced itself on the amendment. Does the House agree that the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-84 has now been concluded, and that the question will be put, if necessary, immediately after disposal of the question on the amendment which has been deferred until tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
July 13, 1976


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, during the discussions that took place among the House leaders who had also consulted the various members who had taken an active part in this debate, we had an understanding that if the debate should conclude before closing time tonight no other business would be introduced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a point of order before he moves any motion?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is quite correct that in our discussions it was agreed that if we concluded this matter before ten o'clock tonight, no other business would be put forward. But it was also discussed at our meeting that if there could be unanimous consent to dealing without debate with the finalization of Bill C-242, that would be a possibility. Bill C-242 is a private members' public bill having to do with the prohibition of smoking in certain vehicles of transport. I think I am stating the case correctly, that if there was to be any debate the government was not prepared to bring it forward, but if there was a possibility of completing the debate on third reading of that bill and passing it without further debate, this could be entertained.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. As the House will recall, there were two, or perhaps three occasions when the official opposition indicated that if this matter could be considered and called as a government order, we would be prepared to deal with it. This is still the situation. There was some question about it as private members' business, as I explained to the House on another occasion and to many people across the country. But as a government order we would be prepared to deal with it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so that the record is quite clear, I should like to say that I agree entirely with what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and by the House leader of the official opposition. However, at no time have I ever been given any understanding that if this motion were brought forward on any basis, it would be approved without debate. I was not able to get that assurance from either side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister ask for it now?
Capital Punishment


Mitchell William Sharp: I was just going to say that if the House were disposed to approve Bill C-242 now without debate, we would have no objection.


Walter David Baker: Is it the intention of the government House leader to bring forward this bill now as a government bill? We have indicated on a number of occasions that we are quite prepared to do that, but we have explained the difference to members of the House and to others. The difference is well known to the government House leader and to others. If the government House leader is prepared to say that the bill will come forward as government business, we are prepared to deal with it. If it is private members' business, then the government House leader knows even better than I do that House leaders have no place messing about in private members' business. That has been a long-standing tradition of this House.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is not the intention of the government to bring forward a government bill to replace Bill C-242 which would have to go through all the stages. Therefore, I think this is a hypothetical case. I would, therefore, like to conclude the remarks which I began. It was agreed among us that apart from the question of Bill C-242 which was raised in the way it was, if we did conclude the debate on Bill C-84 there would be no other business introduced by the government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you would now call it ten o'clock there would certainly be no objection from this side.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear, with regard to Bill C-242, that if the government had been prepared to introduce it as a government measure this afternoon, we on this side of the House would have been prepared to complete it at all stages without debate.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it ten o'clock and, I suppose, eliminate the adjournment debate, because I would think that no hon. member has received due notice?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.42 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, July 14, 1976