1976-05-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity that has to do with the deep concern and participation of all members of this House in the face of the catastrophe which took place last week in Northern Italy, and in view of the evident contribution made to Canada by people from that region, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin):
That this parliament go on record expressing its deep concern to the families of the survivors and that the government consider the desirability of
(a)	intensifying and increasing its assistance through the Canadian
Armed Forces in Europe;
(b)	participating with financial assistance; and
(c)	consulting closely with the Italian authorities so as to maximize
the Canadian efforts in alleviating the suffering of the affected
population.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 can be presented to the House only if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to present a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Another Newfoundland fisherman has been lost on the west coast of Newfoundland, the second in a week, emphasizing again that, the Ministry of Transport's overall concept to provide lifeboat stations in the Atlantic Region
does not include any stations in Western Newfoundland. It further emphasizes the complete lack of strategic planning for surveillance, patrol and protection of Newfoundland fishermen and all mariners in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House orders that the decision to provide four new lifeboats, none of which is presently intended for Newfoundland, be reconsidered by a combined committee of Transport and Communications and Fisheries and Forestry, to offset the evident deficiencies in strategic planning by MOT and to include rescue lifeboats for Newfoundland, thus improving Canada's search and rescue service in the area of greatest need.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering the fundamental importance of a free press to a democratic society, and considering that the RCMP raid on the offices of the Toronto Sun on Friday, May 7, is an apparent abuse of the Official Secrets Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the Solicitor General to make a statement which will provide a full explanation of this raid, including who initiated it, who authorized it and under what law it took place.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: Warren Allmand said no.


Mr. Allmand:: I said, nuts!
13324

May 10, 1976
Beef Inquiry


AIR CANADA
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
As the new regulations intended for the flying personnel of Air Canada constitute a glaring injustice towards all Quebecers, and it is unacceptable that Quebec pilots should not be allowed to communicate in French with other Francophones on Air Canada planes flying from sea to sea, while Quebecers represent almost one third of the Canadian population, and the Official Languages Act, passed by Parliament in 1969, grants the French fact the same status, the same rights, as the English language in all parliamentary and government institutions, as the federal government advocates bilingualism to the extent of spending considerable amounts of money to promote it, as there are two official languages in Canada, and as, in addition, French has the priority in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House adjourn its business immediately to allow a debate on concrete measures to be taken to redress the injustice and affront Air Canada has done to Canadian culture by edicting new regulations, and that the use of French be authorized as soon as possible in the flying cabins of Air Canada planes to meet the standards of a bilingual Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, that being the matter of the report of the special beef inquiry that was placed on the desk of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 27. Because of its importance to the beef industry, and the uneasiness caused by the speculation surrounding some of the recommendations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture table the reports so that a thorough public discussion can be held.


Mr. Speaker:: A motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the same order. In view of the obvious challenge to a free press inherent in the recent raid on the well-known paper the Toronto Sun by the RCMP, in view of the provisions of section 11(2) of the Official Secrets Act which permits search warrants to be issued by "an officer of the RCMP not below the rank of superintendent where the case is one of great emergency", and in view of the fact that the reputation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), whi^ important, may not be a matter of great national emergency, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Justice be requested forthwith to bring in amendments to the Official Secrets Act in order to ensure that the civil judicial authority remain as the sole protection against the abuse of either political or police power in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an urgent motion of pressing necessity.
In view of the prestigious nature of the Olympic Games, in view also of the federal government's strong refusal to participate directly in the financing of the estimated deficit, considering, moreover, that Quebec is almost completely responsible for the material realization of those games and that its citizens alone will have to pay the deficit of $1 billion, considering finally that the Quebec government put forward special programs, particularly "Mission Quebec 76", to bring the number of athletes from Quebec to 30 per cent of the national delegation, and considering the fact that Canadian federations for each of the Olympic sports seem to strongly disregard athletes from Quebec, who would barely represent 20 per cent of the Canadian
May 10, 1976

athletes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimous-ki (Mr. Allard):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for sports in the country, order an inquiry into this matter so that a fair portion of Quebec athletes take part in the Olympic Games.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the United States has presented a proposal to the Law of the Sea conference which calls for the mining of nickel from the seabed at a minimum 6 per cent annual rate of increase, in view of the fact that it has been suggested that this rate of increase in the mining of nickel from the sea would mean the extinction of the nickel industry in Canada in a very few years, and in view of massive unemployment in large areas of the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That the Canadian government immediately inform the government of the United States of its opposition to the American plan, and that the particular workers who are so vitally affected by these developments be involved in any government plans or strategy.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF VICE-PRIME MINISTER OF THE NETHERLANDS, MR. VAN AGT
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a distinguished visitor in the Speaker's gallery, His Excellency Mr. A. A. M. Van Agt, the vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Justice from the Netherlands.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance whom I should like to compliment on his enthusiastic participation in the "Mackasey Roast". I should say, too, that we may raise it as a matter of privilege if any more "cabinet roasts" occur outside of the House of Commons.
I should like to direct a question to the minister with regard to his next performance. Would he tell the House when he will be presenting his first budget?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the kind compliment. Of course, he will recognize that there are not generally as many targets like that particular one for that kind of occasion. Let me say in answer to the second part of his question that I intend to present the budget on the evening of May 25.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I concede nothing regarding the targets on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FINANCE
Charles Joseph Clark: We understand that as part of the contribution to the post-control policy development the Department of Finance has prepared a five-year economic forecast. Will the Minister of Finance confirm that that kind of forecast has been undertaken and, if so, will the minister agree to immediately direct that forecast to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so it can be studied along with the economic review?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would not regard the department's work in this regard as being forecasting. The department has, of course, been engaged in examining various possibilities which might occur in the development of the international and Canadian economies. I would think it not advisable to try to predict so far in advance what the events may be. Under the circumstances, it would seem to me the work to this point is not of the kind that could effectively be referred to the committee.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I continue to regret the refusal of the government to lay before a committee of the House of Commons and the people of Canada some indication of the options it is considering in forecasting, on which the government is acting in preparing budgets. I wonder whether the minister could tell us now if
95 5 68- 10Vi

May 10, 1976
Oral Questions
there will be appended to the budget address, or included in the budget, some indication of the long-range forecasting on which budget plans will be based?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I just say with regard to the reluctance to commit ourselves to long-range forecasts, and I think it is a fair observation to make to the House, that when a figure of that kind is given in a forecast the qualifications that necessarily surround it are immediately forgotten and it is as though the figure were stated as being definite for all time. In fact, in economic planning I think the appropriate course of action is to look at some options which might occur if different eventualities took place, particularly those beyond the control of the government. The budget will obviously look at the future and try to draw some conclusions with regard to the coming 12 months, but will not in any detail go beyond that period.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that kind of fear about forecasting is not shared by virtually any other country with a parliamentary democracy. Of course, these other countries also do not share the existence of secrecy which is apparent here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the government is prepared to put anything on the Table or take parliament and the people of Canada into its confidence? The white paper of last October promised to establish consultative mechanisms for economic policy development.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked four questions now and this is the second preamble. I wonder if I could ask the hon. member to put his question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is going to follow up on the agreement of his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, to provide small business representation on the taxation advisory committee by providing small business a formal place in whatever mechanism is established regarding post-control policies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be glad to continue the close co-operation we have had with the small business sector of the economy, particularly in the work of the Canadian Independent Business Committee, in considering in particular whether a representative of that group might effectively be involved in some formal discussion with government work, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests.



NATIONAL SECURITY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Given the importance of a free press to a democratic society, particu-

larly its right to operate in a non-harassed way within the rule of law as we know it in the west, I should like to ask under whose authority the RCMP raided the offices of the Toronto Sun last Friday? I ask this particularly because under the Official Secrets Act an inspector of the RCMP can act on his initiative and issue a warrant if the case is "one of great emergency" and "that in the interest of the state immediate action is necessary." Was it done under the Official Secrets Act or if not under what authority was it done?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the warrant to search was issued under the Official Secrets Act and fully in accordance with the law. No political persons were involved in the decision. As a matter of fact we learned about it only after the fact. The search warrant was obtained in pursuance of an alleged infraction of the Official Secrets Act.


John Edward Broadbent: Well, Mr. Speaker, given this extraordinary assurance-I say "extraordinary" in light of the facts as we know them at this point-would the minister mind expanding on his answer. I quoted what seemed to be the relevant section of the act which refers to a "great emergency" or a situation in which "immediate action" was necessary. Would the minister kindly, given the importance as I say for a free press to operate in our society unharassed by the RCMP, expand on his answer and tell us precisely why such speedy action was necessary and what was the great emergency involved.


William Warren Allmand: Well, Mr. Speaker, under the law I was not involved in the decision. The RCMP went to a justice of the peace and obtained the search warrant in accordance with the statute. The justice granted the warrant. I think any question with regard to the legality should be put to the Minister of Justice. I cannot explain it. I was not involved in the decision in any way whatsoever.



STATUTE UNDER WHICH WARRANT TO SEARCH OFFICES OF TORONTO &quot;SUN&quot; ISSUED-OFFICIAL WHO INITIATED THE ACTION

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to do precisely that and go to the Minister of Justice because presumably he will have done some checking on such an important matter over the weekend. Will he confirm that the action was taken under the Official Secrets Act, and if so under what part of that act, what specific official initiated the action and what official issued the warrant.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the name of the Justice of the Peace or the official who may have issued that warrant, either under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 11 of the Official Secrets Act. I wish, however, to thank the hon. member for asking the question so that I might have an opportunity to correct statements that have appeared both in news stories and editorials in-the Sunday Sun-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -saying, and I quote-

May 10, 1976


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -where it is alleged that I issued such a warrant and no such warrant could be issued-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, if he wants to return to this subject on the Orders of the Day, well and good, but this does not go, the smuggling in of an answer for self-satisfaction.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having taken the Leader of the Opposition to task about an undue preamble I can scarcely do less in respect of the minister. If he has an answer to the specific question put by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby I think he should answer.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the specific answer to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is that I do not have the name of the Justice of the Peace or the superintendent who may have issued-


John Edward Broadbent: "Who may have"? Don't you know?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -the order under Section 11, either subsection(l) or subsection(2). It is clear, in answer to the hon. member's question, that no such warrant was issued by me nor do I have such authority to issue.



AIR CANADA


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell the House whether it is true that Air Canada has prohibited the use of French in its plane cabins alleging that it could be a source of misunderstandings? If such is the case, has that policy been approved by the government?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker. There was a directive which Air Canada had issued which indicated that English would be the language used in technical work, and that was really in accord with the fact that our own regulations on instrument flying require that language generally to be used. The directive is open to a broader misinterpretation which Air Canada will be correcting in some detail, but I can assure the hon. member that it was never intended to stop casual or ordinary conversations in French between anyone but only related to the use of the English language in technical communication which is required at present under our regulations.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since the reason given by Air Canada to justify its prohibition of French in plane cabins is that the use of
Oral Questions
French could become the source of misunderstandings, could the minister tell the House whether he is aware that such reasons suggest that, to avoid misunderstandings among French-speaking and English-speaking people, the government will have to ban the use of French as official language in Canada or separate Quebec from the rest of the country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member does make that suggestion seriously, and I hope he will take Air Canada at its word that the directive was meant to relate solely to technical language. Indeed they will be explaining that in more detail.



ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM POSSIBILITY OF CHANGES-REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION WITH INTERESTED GROUPS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. The minister has indicated that changes in the control program may have to be made at the time of the budget. Without inviting the minister to say anything about the budget at this time, I should like to ask him whether he has decided to make changes at that time and, if so, in what way is the minister consulting directly the various sectors of the economy on this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Inflation Board and the government have been looking at many of the representations we have received about the operation of the anti-inflation program. We intend to make announcements in the context of the budget with respect to lines of change which of course will then be followed by a period of consultations on the preparation of amendments to the guidelines.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the president of CLC has indicated that the congress is not going to form part and parcel of the Economic Council of Canada, I wonder whether the minister could assure the House that he will seek out a meeting with the president of the CLC this week in order to impress upon labour the need for it to discharge the very important responsibility given to it as a member of the Economic Council of Canada? Can the minister assure us of that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We
have been taking that position with the CLC for the last couple of months, both in private and in public meetings.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister has evaded my question. All I am asking is whether he will assure the House that he will meet with the president of CLC this week in order to

May 10, 1976
Oral Questions
impress upon labour the need for labour to discharge its responsibility with respect to the Economic Council of Canada, from which the minister will have to acquire in due course.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It does not seem to me that it is particularly necessary to seek a panic meeting this week to tell them what I have been telling them for the last two or three months.



INCOME TAX


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and it has to do with the cancellation of a march and a presentation of position by a religious group last weekend, of which I am sure the minister is well aware, with respect to the advocating of the Christian cause in iron curtain countries. I wonder if the minister can indicate on what basis his officials notified this group that they would be jeopardizing their charitable tax status, and whether he thinks it is appropriate for his department to make a definition as to the kind of representations that are legitimate and those that are illegitimate.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the regulations are quite clear as to what groups can in fact qualify for the charitable donation certificate. In this particular instance this group had lost its right to be considered a charitable group as a result of failing to file a particular report. They are now making an application to be reinstated. In the course of that they indicated they would be taking part in this political activity or moving in this particular political arena. Jurisprudence in the courts indicated this goes beyond what the act allows. There are four clear items under which an institution qualifies as a charitable organization. In effect, they were going one step beyond the promotion of their religion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If hon. members are interested in hearing the answer, I am trying to give it. This was not given as a ruling of the department; it was given as an indication- and as a courtesy-that they might run this particular risk. We asked them to consult their lawyers, to look into the matter and to see if the jurisprudence did in fact tell them this. It was a matter of courtesy, and it was a suggestion.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Perhaps there is some disagreement about the nature of the course of events. I wonder if the minister can confirm that in respect to this specific demonstration officials of the minister's department contacted directly representatives of this organization and warned them that they would in fact jeopardize their status. Could the minister confirm that there was no request by the organization of Revenue Canada but that an initiative was taken by his department to forestall this specific demonstration?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I suppose we could get into a question of semantics. It did not seem appropriate when this particular group was endeavouring to be reinstated, that if it ran the risk of losing that reinstatement as a result of participating in that activity, it should not be brought to its attention that it should consult its lawyer. It seemed appropriate and courteous of my officials. I applaud my officials for taking that initiative, if they in fact did.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the minister indicate whether his officials took this action as a result of either reading a newspaper ad or by being contacted by third parties who asked that action be taken by the department to forestall this demonstration by this particular religious group?


An hon. Member:: Did you get a call from the Soviet embassy?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In taxation we do not speak that particular language. No, we did this as a courtesy to the individual group because it had lost, its charitable donation status. The group advised that it had made application to get that status back, and in the course of that we indicated that if it participated in this particular move it might be jeopardizing that status and that it should consult its counsel.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration of which I gave his office notice this morning. It involves the Towers Cleaners operation at Toronto international airport. I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether nine employees of that company were arrested approximately three or four months ago for being illegal immigrants in Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I did receive notice of this just before I came into the House. I know of some arrests at the airport about a year ago, in July of 1975. I want to follow up on the results of that, and since the hon. member has indicated a more recent occurrence. I should like to check on that before I give a definitive response.



AIRPORTS


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I gave the minister's office notice at 9.30 this morning, not just before question period. My supplementary question is to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise whether his department has taken any action since those arrests to ensure that all employees
May 10,1976

working at federal airports in Canada have security clearance checks before they get jobs in airports?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look at the procedures to see if any change is required.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Further to the answer given by the minister to a question asked earlier by one of our colleagues that the prohibition of the French language would apply to the technical aspect of air communications, can the minister inform the House what he means by the technical aspect, the air-ground or ground-air communications between pilots and the control tower, or whether he intends to include any conversation between flight personnel on a Crown company aircraft?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think in its wording it would seem to apply to technical conversations, that is to say working conversations of a technical nature between the pilot and co-pilot. From the comment which Air Canada made I am not sure if it was ever intended to apply in that detailed fashion, and that is why Air Canada is issuing an explanation of it and will be issuing a longer directive to replace the rather short and misleading one which it has issued.



NATIONAL SECURITY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Prime Minister has to be absent from time to time. I intended to direct some questions to him, and I will reserve my right in that regard after having directed questions to the Minister of Justice, who says he does not know anything about the issuing of these warrants, which actually constitute, on the face of it, infringement of freedom of the press. When asked by the press about the circumstances, the Prime Minister said "shove it".


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: The Solicitor General said he does not know anything about it. I ask the minister to advise whether this is a conspiracy of silence on the part of members of the government, each passing the buck to the Mounted Police to get out of the difficulties in which they find themselves.
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP operates within the confines of the law and general directions by the government, but the government does not interfere in individual investigations; it follows the law.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister recall that a few days ago in connection with the laying of charges by the Mounted Police in Ottawa rather than in Quebec the government took the attitude that this was very wrong and that the Mounted Police should not make such decisions without government concurrence and agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister this: what are the provisions of the statute-and I know the provisions, but I want the minister to enlighten the House-with regard to the issuing of warrants in respect of serious emergency conditions in connection with the security of Canada? Does the law not require the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice to have some responsibility?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: I will be glad to hear the postponed explanation of the minister in a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I have got them all asking. Even the former minister of justice, when he carried on to upset the administration of justice-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Solicitor General, does he want the House and the country to believe that he was as surprised as the Prime Minister pretended to be when asked questions by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar on Friday?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the right hon. gentleman put his question?


John George Diefenbaker: I have much difficulty getting attention, but I must make my question simple so that the Solicitor General can understand me. Is the security of this nation not in jeopardy as a result of the fact that the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice know nothing about action to be taken regarding one of the most serious offences which can be committed against the security of Canada?


William Warren Allmand: The law does not require that the Solicitor General or the Attorney General be consulted or approve when a warrant is issued under the Official Secrets Act. If the right hon. member knows the law so well, he should know that that is clearly in the law. Obviously, the judge was satisfied that the warrant should be issued and issued the warrant.


An hon. Member:: It was a J.P.

May 10, 1976
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: The justice of the peace. With respect to the earlier question, the government did not say that the RCMP should have laid charges in Quebec. In that particular situation the RCMP had the choice of having the case taken in Ontario or Quebec, but we felt that there was a need for further guidelines to the police in a general sense and not in an individual sense.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: In the question the right hon. member for Prince Albert mentioned both the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice, so I should like to answer that part of the question which referred to the Minister of Justice, namely-


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, this should be done on motions.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.
[DOT] - (1440)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely, I can at least hear the preamble.


Erik Nielsen: The question has been answered.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the law is perfectly clear. Under section 11 of the Official Secrets Act a Justice of the Peace may issue a warrant on the information that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence under the act has been committed or, where there is an emergency situation a similar warrant may be issued by an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-


An hon. Member:: Who issued this one?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -not below the rank of superintendent. In this case no such warrant, no such action, is required by the Attorney General of Canada. No action was taken by the Attorney General of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Who issued the warrant?



SUGGESTION COMMITTEE COMPOSED OF PRIVY COUNCILLORS INVESTIGATE LEAK OF LETTER TO TORONTO &quot;SUN&quot;

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. This being a very serious matter and one that strikes at the fundamental foundation of freedom, namely freedom of the press-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: This government, through its Prime Minister has spoken in a most caustic, libellous manner of the Toronto Sun and its publishers and of course, there is no action for anything spoken in the House. The Prime Minister said that the letter in question was not fully understood, that the officer in charge of security apparently did not understand. Everybody excuses the government and the government excuses itself. As security must be

kept from public notice so that this will be cleared up, would the minister give consideration to having the Prime Minister and the officer in charge of security place their views before a committee of the House composed of members of the Privy Council-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, these hon. gentlemen have never heard of that place! I ask him that because this is too serious to be brushed aside in the manner in which the government is endeavouring to do. If this is done, members of the opposition who are members of the Privy Council, and who are sworn to secrecy, will find out where the Ethiopian is through the explanations that the government gives.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to take the comments of the right hon. gentleman seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: You have made that mistake before.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General have all said they had no knowledge of this affair.


An hon. Member:: That is why we want an inquiry.


Mitchell William Sharp: The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert pays no attention to what anyone says. He accused the Prime Minister of being a liar. I want him to repeat that to his face when he appears here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I can't believe my ears.


John George Diefenbaker: No matter how far he departs from the truth, I would not go that far.



RESPONSIBILITY FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO SEARCH OFFICES OF TORONTO &quot;SUN&quot;

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Justice. I am not at all clear from what he said whether the warrant was issued by a Justice of the Peace, which has to be done on information on oath, or whether it was issued under section 11(2) of the Official Secrets Act by some official of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If the minister does not know the answer, would he try to find out and tell the House who did it, who was responsible for it and, furthermore, will he make sure that this House sees either the written order of the official of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the information on oath upon which this action took place?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: On motions.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to find out this information but this is a

May 10, 1976

question which should really be directed to the Solicitor General-


An hon. Member:: Passing the buck.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am amazed at the right hon. member for Prince Albert talking about freedom-here is the right hon. gentleman who talks about freedom of the press and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There remains about 15 minutes of the question period. I think it might be better if we could stick to questions and answers.


Charles Joseph Clark: Who advertised in Le Jour?



SUGGESTION SOLICITOR GENERAL SHOULD BE CONSULTED BEFORE WARRANTS ISSUED TO SEARCH NEWSPAPER OFFICES

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question and I should like to address it to the Solicitor General. I am perfectly prepared to get the information that I asked for from the Minister of Justice at some later date, if and when he takes the trouble to find out the facts. My question is, in a matter so important as the freedom of the press and a warrant to search through the files of the press, even though there is no legal duty to consult, would the minister not think it wise to inform the Royal Canadian Mounted Police before taking the action which might be the highest infringement of that basic right of Canadians, the right of a free press, to be consulted about it? Does he not take that to be an advisable step?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there is also an important question to be considered and that is, whether we want the elected person, the political person, to be involved in the operational aspects of criminal justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I would put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and/or the Minister of National Revenue. In light of the earthquake tragedies in northern Italy is it possible to expedite the granting of charitable tax deduction licences to facilitate the fund raising by Canadian Italian groups and others for this purpose?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have not received any direct call for governmental aid from the Italian Red Cross. Several Canadian groups, however, have taken the initiative in raising funds. I might point out that those funds can be forwarded to destination through officially recognized charitable organizations under the Income Tax Act, and donors will then get official
Oral Questions
receips for income tax purposes. Among those organizations are the Canadian Red Cross, OXFAM, CARE and the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, to name just a few.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which concerns last week's announcement that only four ships will operate on the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry service this summer, an announcement which follows upon another one of vastly increased fares on that service. Will the minister cause a re-examination to be made of this unwelcome combination of increased costs and diminished service, and will he find a means of forestalling this latest contribution to the weakening of the economy of the maritime provinces and the widening of regional disparity?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that in response to the local desire, the ferry has been or is being transferred from one service to the other. He refers to the increase in fares but as I indicated to the House before, and I am glad to do so again, action has been taken by the government to moderate increases in the deficits incurred by ferry services but not eliminate them. In fact, there will be more of the taxpayers' money going to support these services than in past years and by a significant amount. In view of the need for some restraint, I hope the hon. member will recognize that there has been no price increase for some years but there is a need for increased service.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary question in reference to the local wishes. May I ask the minister if the government of Prince Edward Island requested withdrawal of this boat from the Borden-Tormentine service?


Otto Emil Lang: If the hon. member is referring to transfer, there was some general support for this. I will check to see specifically whether the Minister of Transport in that area requested it.



EFFECT OF INCREASED FERRY CHARGES ON ECONOMY OF NEWFOUNDLAND-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Gulf ferry fares to Newfoundland have increased up to 100 per cent and in view of the fact that the public service utilities commission asked the Canadian Transport Commission or CNR to roll back the increase in bus fares, in view of the fact this will deter and stultify the only industry left in Newfoundland, will the minister investigate this vast increase to alleviate the problem of the future of Newfoundland on an economic base?

May 10, 1976
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member would not want to mislead the House by his reference to 100 per cent increases of that nature in view of the fact that the bulk of the increases were very small in percentage figures. In fact, there was an increase in the amount attributed to the ferry part of a rail service, but that does not indicate an increase in rate, but a difference in sharing. In general, we have increased certain peak period charges for both passengers and traffic to attempt to assure there will be a better spreading of the load in order to save money which would otherwise be required for additional ferry facilities. I hope that when the hon. member and his colleagues are looking at government restraint in spending, they will appreciate doubly the increase in the amount being devoted toward payment of deficits in these services where the increases are rather modest after many years of no increase at all.



INDUSTRY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister looked into the causes which brought about the decision by Du Pont of Canada to delay the start of construction of the $50 million polyester yarn plant at Coteau-du-Lac in Quebec and to lay off 125 workers, and also the decision by Electrohome to lay off 400, in order to find out if the causes of this delay of construction and these lay-offs can be corrected by government action, and if so, what action does the government plan to take?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of these questions. I met quite incidentally with the people concerned at lunch hour today. Therefore, I can give an up-to-date assessment with regard to the Du Pont situation. It is, in fact, related to imports of polyester yarn which follows on to a problem with what is known as the double-knit type of fabric. Part of this problem has been due to a drop in the market of the United States which has resulted in sales into Canada at depressed prices. As the result of the explanations I received today from the industry, we are looking into that to see if there is a cause for taking action. Also, there was a general view expressed that this was a temporary situation. There was a reasonable degree of confidence that it would correct itself over time. In the meantime, we are looking to see what kind of action should be taken. I emphasize that, primarily, it is because of the situation in the United States.
With regard to Electrohome, that is a more complex problem. Electrohome, being a totally Canadian company, has been proven to be more vulnerable in some respects to a drop in sales of television sets than some of the integrated or multinational companies. They are taking a three week layoff in order to correct an inventory problem. We

are discussing with them, and with the industry in general, what is a very serious problem with regard to the future of the television industry in this country.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
As two of my colleagues have already raised that question, the minister will understand the importance of it; in view of the statements made by Quebec newspapers regarding that so-called decision made by Air Canada and which seems to be openly questioned by the minister's statement, I would like to ask him for the guidance of all Quebecers whether he would be prepared to make a new statement saying whether French-speaking pilots will or will not be'able to speak French, or at least issue a press release to inform adequately the newspapers on that issue.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I made the position perfectly clear. The hon. member is simply repeating the question and the issue. I indicated to him that the Air Canada directive may well have been open to this interpretation, although I understand the phrase "technical language" is in the directive. Even that may have been interpreted more widely than was intended. If Air Canada intends to elaborate on that, I will be happy to let the hon. member and other hon. members see the elaboration.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
As the Minister of Transport announced a few months ago the use of French in air-ground communications in a few airports in the province of Quebec, will the decision made today by Air Canada prohibit the use of French in air-ground communications at airports where the federal Department of Transport has already authorized the use of French?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not. It certainly was not intended to in any way limit the use of French, if that were possible, between a pilot and air controller in those airports where visual flying rules allow communication in the French as well as the English language. However, it should be appreciated that most of the Air Canada flying is, indeed, according to instrument flight rules. Therefore, the rule in that regard has not changed. While we are looking very closely at the development of procedures which will allow in the province of Quebec some IFR communication in French as well as English, we have to stick very strongly by the rules. Until the rule itself can be changed, because the procedures are safe, the present rules must be enforced.
May 10,1976

Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS



PROPOSAL BY NOVA SCOTIA RESPECTING COST OF ELECTRICAL POWER-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the premier or the government of Nova Scotia has made a proposal to the government of Canada with respect to the cost of electrical power as a result of a dependence on oil? If so, what is the general nature of that proposal and what has been the response of the government of Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there has been received from the premier of Nova Scotia a proposal setting out in rather general terms a particular position of the province of Nova Scotia. I think the Prime Minister has already made clear that this proposal was accepted in the sense that it would be studied and that the premier of Nova Scotia would be advised at a later date as to what his position, if any, would be on it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to indicate in general terms the nature of the proposal of the government of Nova Scotia?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would want to ensure that the nature of the correspondence was of a kind that could be made public. I will find out whether the premier of Nova Scotia would like to have that proposal made public. I do not see any reason why we would have an objection.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since the Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Branch of the Ministry of Transport has initiated a defect investigation involving both the premature rusting of certain Ford motor vehicles along with a problem in the steering assembly of Ford motorcars built since 1965, when is the minister going to order a recall of these dangerous vehicles built since 1965, involving both the rusting and the steering assembly? What precise measures does the minister intend to take to protect the lives of Canadians in this regard? Will the minister be making a full report to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the department's record of safety is well known. The hon. member knows if there is any basis for a recall because of safety, that action is taken forthwith. There are some issues involved in this situation which are arguable from a legal point of view. It is true the department is watching the situation in relation to the idler arm very closely.



POSSIBILITY OF PROVIDING FOR CLASS ACTIONS- COMPENSATION FOR RUSTING OF FORD MOTOR VEHICLES

William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the government introduce class action legislation in this House so that individual consumers may be protected in provinces other than Ontario? Has the minister read the documents pertaining to Ford's U.S.A. secret warranty program J-67, as a result of which the United States public have been protected against premature rusting? What does the minister propose to recommend to the Canadian people in the interim so that they can be compensated by the Ford Motor Company? Will the minister meet with Ford officials once again and make sure that Ford owners will be compensated forthwith? Will he impress on the Minister of Transport that this question involves safety here and now, and that a recall is a matter of imminent importance?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for asking three unrelated questions.


An hon. Member:: You drive a Ford, Bryce, don't you?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member will appreciate that since the question of alleged premature rusting of Ford automobiles is before the courts in Ontario and the subject of anti-combines investigation here in Ottawa, I do not want in any way to presume that Ford is guilty of anything at the moment. On the matter of class action, we intend to make part of the second phase of the competition bill. And, yes, I have read the warranty which exists; and, yes, I do intend to meet, as I did late on Friday, with Ford officials some time this week.


William Heward Grafftey: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since Ford owners in the United States were fully compensated without any buck-passing to the courts, everybody having acted in a spirit of goodwill independent of what was happening before the courts, will not the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs speak up for the Canadian consumer, meet with Ford officials immediately and make sure that the individual Canadian consumer who has obviously been prejudiced is compensated immediately?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the Ford Motor Company of Canada also has rights under our law. Whether it is guilty or not will be determined by the courts.


An hon. Member:: You cannot speak of guilt in this connection.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If the company is found guilty, I will move very fast to look after the difficulties of consumers who may have been in some way affected by the Ford Motor Company.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Transport suggested that perhaps I was misleading the House, although he was sure I would not want to, with regard to some figures I mentioned to do with the

May 10, 1976
Transport and Communications
gulf ferry service. Even though I do not have the document in front of me, I was quoting from a table of figures showing increases charged for service across the gulf between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. It indicated that the rate for camper-trailers was to be increased by 100 per cent. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister and the House because the government helped with the development of Gros Morne national park and the increased rate would deter tourists from visiting this part of Newfoundland. I can produce those figures if the House wishes. The facts are as I have indicated, and are supported by CNR.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on the same point of order. I appreciate the hon. member drawing the attention of the House to the fact that when he looked with his microscope for a figure, he found one. That was my point. I tried to make the point that this is not a sort of general matter, as the hon. member may have managed to suggest.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that the Prime Minister entered the House just at the end of the question period. No doubt he was preoccupied with other serious matters. I wonder if the House would unanimously agree to allow the Prime Minister to say something about an important issue, about something which to many appears to be a clear infringement of the freedom of the press of Canada. I say this in light of the raid by the RCMP on the Toronto Sun this past weekend.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is inaccurate, at least, to portray such a point as a point of order. The routine proceedings of the House countenance statements on motions, which can accomplish what is being sought without the consent of the House being necessary. Whether this will take place in the ordinary course of business is something which shall be seen only later in the day; but this can be accomplished without consent.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. I think the minister ought to make clear that this is not a microscopic point, as the announcement made this week with respect to the Northumberland ferries means there is to be a 100 per cent increase in all ferry rates this summer. The increase was approved by the minister's department and by the Canadian Transport Commission.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth and fifteenth reports of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 42 (1), I would like to table an information document on Loto-Canada, the national lottery which the government has decided to launch. This document is available in the two official languages.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House of the government's decision to set up, administer and manage a national lottery, most likely until late 1979, to enable the public, on a voluntary basis, to ease the deficit incurred by the Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976, and the Commonwealth Games in 1978 in Edmonton. The House will be given the opportunity before the end of June to express its opinion on the government's decision. The new lottery, Loto-Canada, will be launched for good in September 1976, that is to say after the last draw of the Olympic Lottery.
From the beginning of the lottery until the end of 1979, if Parliament approves and if the two sides of the House are agreed, 82.5 per cent of the net profits will be earmarked for the 1976 Olympic Games and the 1978 Commonwealth Games. During that period, 12.5 per cent of net receipts will be shared among the provinces according to sales made under their jurisdiction so that, in the whole, the share of Olympic Lottery receipts will be maintained. We hope that provincial authorities will continue to earmark these funds to assist amateur sports. The other 5 per cent of the net receipts will be used by the federal government to finance programs related to physical fitness, amateur sports and recreation.
We have not yet established a formula for sharing the lottery's net receipts after 1979. These matter will be dealt with as soon as possible in co-operation with the provinces.
On the whole, the creation of Loto-Canada will maintain for Canadians the opportunity they have had since 1973 to assist, on a voluntary basis, in developing amateur sports and in improving the physical fitness of citizens. It is, of course, a most worthy goal. So far, the Olympic Lottery has been exceptionally successful: at the last count, it has generated $168 million for financing the Olympic Games. From now on, the new national lottery will be a means of attracting and channelling the contributions of Canadians to help finance a variety of initiatives in the field of amateur sports, physical fitness, recreation and large-scale sporting events which may take place in the various parts of Canada in the future.
I want to point out that the government's initiative is fully consistent with its defined and often-reiterated policy regarding the Olympic Games, namely that no direct contribution from the general revenue of the federal treasury would be allocated for their financing, but that steps would be taken to ensure the success of financing programs.
A new Crown corporation will soon be incorporated, pursuant to the provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act. The name of this new corporation will be Loto-Canada Inc.; its role will be to administer and operate

May 10, 1976

a lottery under regulations made by the governor in council pursuant to paragraph 190(l)(a) of the Criminal Code.
Needless to say, the lottery administration charges will come out of its gross revenues. Therefore, it will not cost anything to the Canadian taxpayers. The government will make sure, Mr. Speaker, by implementing the necessary controls, that the company will comply with the highest standards of integrity, prudence and efficiency in the management of the citizens' voluntary contributions.
I am convinced that all members of the House and all Canadians will join me in conveying to the organizers of the Olympic Games of 1976 and the Commonwealth Games of 1978 our wishes of good luck and overwhelming success.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) for his courtesy in making a copy of his statement available to me earlier. We shall be interested in looking at the regulations which he tabled. Sir, the statement we have just heard, and the apparent proposal of a resolution concerning the extension of the Olympic lottery, represents but the latest chapter in one of the sorriest performances of this sorry government. Indeed, on the subject of the Olympics, the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have consistently tried to play both sides of the street, embracing the Games in one context and virtually disowning them at other times and places. That has happened with the predictable result that as far as the federal government is concerned, we have the worst of both worlds.
The essential and primordial consideration is that the games affect not only the good name of Montreal and Quebec, but also the reputation of Canada as a whole. This reputation has already been on the line since 1969 when the Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Brundage of the International Olympic Committee to assure him of the warm support of the Canadian government for the request of the City of Montreal to host the summer games. As stated on many occasions by spokesmen for our party, such as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), we think the government should have taken their share of national responsibility in this matter instead of having only an indirect and irresponsible participation.

I look back over the records, Mr. Speaker, and note various statements by the Prime Minister, statements such as the undertaking of February 2, 1973, to "do everything possible to help the Games organizers maintain the cost at the lowest possible level", and the assurance he has given friends on my left as to sharing a desire that the thrust of these Games be on people and not on monument-building.
Putting aside the question whether, on its own records, this government is capable of helping anyone control expenditures, it should be very clear that these statements by the Prime Minister have had no practical or effective meaning whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Lotteries


Charles Joseph Clark: That, sir, speaks for the performance of this government. Our position, Mr. Speaker, remains clear and straightforward.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the government benches should be surprised to hear from a party that has been clear and straightforward on this question. We want these Games to be a success, not simply for Montreal and for Quebec but for all of Canada. We are prepared to support any reasonable proposition directed toward making them a success.

Consequently, we will support the principle of this resolution because, although it comes late, it is apparently the only practical means to prevent a massive increase in taxes for Quebecers with an average salary. However, our support must not be interpreted as a carte blanche; in fact, we make serious reservations on this resolution.

Concerning the apparent intention to act by order in council and approve by resolution, we in this party question the procedure. Given that this proposition is very much a financial one, and given the magnitude of the operation that we are being asked to approve, I ask the House whether the spirit, if not the letter, of our rules does not demand more than a simple resolution. I say to the government, bring in a bill. If time is the problem, we are ready to discuss that through the House leaders. I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that we would prefer to spend two or three days on this important matter rather than on a resolution in respect to televising our proceedings, which seems to be among the priorities of the government House leader.
We are most certainly concerned about the open-ended nature of this government proposal which amounts to a unilateral appropriation of a new revenue source. In that respect, let me make our position clear. We are prepared to support a temporary extension of the lottery to help meet the deficit of the Olympic Games. We are not prepared to support any attempt by this government to create a new slush-fund for itself by a back door manoeuvre in an area that rightfully belongs to the provinces. I am sure that in taking that position we can count on the strong support of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) who assured us, when he introduced the Olympics bill in January, 1973, that-if I may quote him from Hansard-"the federal government is not in the least interested in operating a national lottery".
We will want, as well, Mr. Speaker, an assurance that this time we will finally receive the full accounting, even on a post facto basis, which has for too long been denied the people of Canada. We want this matter referred to a parliamentary committee where we can receive a full, independent and public accounting of expenditures and spending practices employed in regard to the Olympics project.
Finally, we want some guarantees from this government that this is it; that there are, in fact, iron-clad undertakings on the part of the various other governments involved to meet the whole Olympics deficit; that this temporary

May 10, 1976
Lotteries
extension of the lottery is the final proposal to be placed before this parliament; that we will not be asked a little farther down the road to approve yet another "final" federal offer of assistance. And let me be clear, Mr. Speaker: we want more than the word of the Prime Minister on this score; we want some guarantees that we can rely on.
We support the principle of this resolution. It is the least we can do for the people of Quebec and Montreal who have a right to expect better of their supposed leaders, including those who sit across the way. But we want to receive a lot more from the government than we have had today, and we most certainly reserve for the debate our right to move appropriate amendments.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that last Thursday the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) told my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), that conversations about this matter had not yet been completed, it is amazing that by Monday he is ready to present a proposal to the House. I wish we could get speed like this in respect of some other measures.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we were given notice of this statement shortly before the House convened at two o'clock, but I must point out that that hardly gives a caucus the opportunity to meet and take a final decision on an issue as important as this. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) pointed out, this is a double-barrelled, or even a triple-barrelled proposition. When we have a had a chance to consider the whole matter there may be a difference of opinion within the membership of this caucus on some of its details.
However, sir, there are one or two points that are very clear which we want said right away. The leader of the opposition has dealt with the aspects of the matter that concern the deficit of the Olympic Games. The position of this party with respect to federal spending on the Games has been made clear time and time again, yet we are aware of the fact that something might have be done such as the temporary extension of the lottery which is now taking place. But, sir, the proposal in this statement is not just that something be done about the immediate situation; the proposal in this statement is that there be established a Crown corporation to conduct state lotteries for all time. There is no end to it. There is a proposal in more or less specific terms about what will be done with the money for the next year or two, but after that it is suggested that the money be used to finance physical fitness, amateur sport and recreation. On that, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: What's wrong with that; are you against it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks whether we are against that. I thoroughly believe in physical fitness. Just look at me!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is because we believe that physical fitness, amateur sport and recreation are important aspects of Canadian life that we think they

should be financed out of general taxation and, therefore, paid for on the basis of the ability to pay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not
believe that aspects of life as important as physical fitness, amateur sport and recreation should be financed by gambling, which calls on the poor to pay for it, instead of taxation which is levied according to ability to pay.
We also feel therefore that this proposal to put the federal government into the lottery business for all time is economic retrogression of the worst kind. What is the point of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) announcing a budget in which he is going to propose tax measures, if the government is going to accept the proposition that when money is needed it can be raised through lotteries and gambling? It is a move completely in the wrong direction, and so far as the aspects of this proposal that relate to the future are concerned, we are opposed to them. This makes it clear that the government does not take physical fitness, amateur sport and recreation seriously, and it makes it clear that if the government gets into trouble with something else-health costs, veterans' pensions, or what have you-which it cannot afford, it will say, "We can go in for gambling again," and the whole business of taxation and redistribution of wealth in this country would be completely shot.
We find ourselves more or less in the position which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) indicated, namely, that this House may have to do something about the Olympic Games and should do something about the Commonwealth Games. But bring that proposition before us in clear terms, and do not ask us at the same time to commit Canada to a government lottery under federal authority on a permanent basis. We are completely opposed to such a regressive step.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) for having made available to us a copy of his statement.
As far as the members of the Social Credit Party are concerned, the Olympic Games are a national event which will benefit the whole country. If the games are very successful, Canada's reputation will benefit at the world level. Consequently, in all our interventions dealing with the Olympic Games, we requested that the federal government contribute adequately to the financing of the games. It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that the taxpayers will have to pay the deficit of the games. The deficits will be paid from tax money.
The question now is: Which taxpayers will foot the bill? Those in Montreal, in Quebec or in Canada as a whole? As I said, Mr. Speaker, the whole country will benefit from the Olympic Games in Montreal. Therefore, we feel the Canadian government should contribute directly, and not only through the Olympic Lottery and the sale of coins, which are an extra levy on the taxpayer. We have no objection to programs such as the Olympic Lottery and the issue of coins, but we believe the federal government should not limit its contribution to these programs, which
May 10,1976

cost nothing to the government. I repeat Canadian citizens are paying that money over and above their taxes.
We believe the federal government should announce its willingness to pick up the tab for the Olympic deficit. Since the whole country benefits, the whole country must pay. Any other arrangement is unacceptable, because it would put the burden on a fraction only of the Canadian taxpayers, namely Montrealers and Quebecers, whereas Canada as a whole will benefit.
Such has been our position since the Olympic Games were announced, and certainly it is shared by all those who believe the games are the business of all Canadians, in other words the Canadian government.
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the games will be opened by the chief of state, rather than Quebec's premier or Montreal's mayor. This is another proof that the games are first and foremost the central government's direct responsibility. In that respect, we believe the new lottery announced today by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) is in no way a federal government initiative to assume their responsibilities, but simply a means of passing the buck to the average citizen who will be facing another tax, albeit voluntary.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is difficult to be delighted, because a lottery is opium to mislead people and falsely raise the expectations of the poor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board-and I am happy, in asking it, to see that the President of the Privy Council is here to hear it. In view of the fact that as House leaders we have had difficulty persuading the President of the Privy Council that there is parliamentary time between now and June 30 to deal with certain important matters in which we are interested, may I ask him how he was able to persuade the President of the Privy Council that there is parliamentary time for this matter before June 30?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it depends on the formula the leaders of all parties would endorse to have a debate on that motion. Substantially, it is the same bill that we had in the past, except that for the next three years, it will be under federal government control and that under the Corporations Act and the Criminal Code, we could create a Crown corporation without having to pass legislation.
However, there are many ways to put forward this project for the approval of the House and I am sure the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) will have discussions with his counterparts of other parties. We could even proceed by a budget item, if needed, but I would rather submit to the House a motion which would be debated during one day, and then we could have a vote. Or we could accept the suggestion that the opposition leader (Mr. Clark) kindly put to us, that is adopt a bill after all stages in two days.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the event the government does not adopt the suggestion that a bill be introduced, what controls will
Lotteries
parliament have regarding the allocation of funds after the deficit of the Olympic Games has been met? What provision will there be for parliament to control the disposition of funds coming from a Crown corporation operating a national lottery?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I intend to bring forth regulations, and so on, at a later time. The Crown corporation will be under a minister and there will be an opportunity, under the normal estimates procedure, for members of the House of Commons to examine the operations of that Crown corporation. Because the money will be coming in until 1979 under federal control, this will be an instrument through which the House of Commons can request an annual presentation to an appropriate committee regarding the operations of this lottery.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the minister correctly, he is suggesting that the Crown corporation operating the national lottery will operate under regulation. If those regulations are passed by order in council, they can be altered by order in council. I would ask the minister what guarantee parliament would have that no allocation of funds for any objective or purpose set out in the regulations would be subject to change without being referred to parliament. Does the minister think this is the kind of responsibility which ought to be given to the government, or is this the kind of abdication of power which parliament should be asked to accept?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the way I am proposing to do it-and this will come to light later, depending on the procedural activities-is that if we have a Crown corporation established by order in council, we propose to make sure that there will be ample control of the spending and operations of this corporation, more than in respect of any other. There will be a minister directly responsible. Five per cent of his budget will be money coming from that Crown corporation, and he will have to justify the operation of that corporation when he defends his own estimates. In that way, members of parliament will have absolute control over the changes, if there are any, in the regulations that will be passed under this order in council.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am amused that the minister would suggest he would be prepared to introduce a bill. If we would agree to an extremely limited debate on what, in effect, is the appropriation by the government of Canada of an entirely new revenue source over time, I would ask him and his colleague the government House leader, since they apparently have no objection in principle to the introduction of a bill-which obviously is the proper way to proceed-why they are not prepared to introduce a bill without the condition of some kind of a time-muzzle being placed on parliament when we are discussing a matter of this consequence.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think one must realize we are in a very difficult time-frame with this operation. There have been many precedents in this House concern-

May 10, 1976
Lotteries
ing the creation of Crown corporations of this nature, both under Conservative and Liberal administrations.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Not for a lottery.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not for a lottery; for the creation of a Crown corporation. The House of Commons had occasion to debate at length a few years ago the pros and cons of a lottery when we approved the Olympics lottery. It was debated and voted on in this House of Commons. Members of parliament cannot claim that they have never had occasion to debate it. It was debated and voted for. The only change at the present time is that this lottery will come under the control of the federal government, rather than the control of the organization in Montreal as is the case now. I am sure the bringing of that lottery under more control by this House of Commons should be the last thing to which the opposition would object.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give us an unqualified guaranteee now that there will be a reference to a standing committee of this parliament which will allow an unfettered examination, after the fact if necessary, of all of the affairs relating to expenditures in regard to the Olympics, and that that kind of examination will not be limited in any way. Can we have that guarantee now?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the management of the Games and the management of the operation which led to the construction of the stadium, and so on, are not under federal control; they are under the provincial administration and the municipal administration in Montreal. I have spoken to representatives of the Quebec government and with the mayor of Montreal. They have said to me that post facto they would be delighted if there were kind of a look into it and, if needed, an inquiry and that the facts could be passed on to a committee of this House.
However, I do not believe it would be wise for us to move now when for years we have said that the administration of the construction for and the operation of the Games was to be under municipal and provincial administration. If we come in later, after the fact, as the leader of the opposition seems to suggest, this would be terribly unfair, because the House of Commons has never asked the government of Canada to make such control over the Games but, rather, that it help the Games be self-financing. We have voted many schemes in this House and have taken some responsibility in the matter of television and security, but we have left the control with the people in Quebec. I am confident that if there should be something wrong in the operation of the Games, the democratic mechanism in Quebec can take care of that.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the President of the Treasury Board could indicate a couple of things. First of all, in view of the fact that the government has totally changed its position with regard to the operation of a national lottery, and has indicated that by the establishment of this new Crown corporation it would continue to operate, as I understand it, such a lottery in perpetuity, can he indicate, apart from the fact that there is need to finance a considerable aspect of the deficit of the Olympic Games, what in fact are the reasons the government is taking this action?

Second, in view of the considerable implications there will be, both in terms of the revenue program of the government and in terms of its own future taxation policies, plus the disbursement aspect of cost-sharing with the provinces in the areas of responsibility indicated by the minister, will he tell us whether there has been any consultation with the provinces, because certainly this would be an area in which I think the various provincial governments would have a considerable interest.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have decided to proceed with this program until 1979 because we want to carry out the word of this House; and I understood the leader of the opposition to say he would be in favour of a loto financing scheme. This is completely voluntary. No Canadian will be forced to buy tickets. No money will be taken from the federal treasury. This is merely to permit all the citizens of Canada to help people who have organized the Games to finance them.
The reason we are stepping in is that after months of consultation it was not found possible to have an agreement for a lottery operated by the province, and we felt it was our duty to do this at this time because the Olympic Games have had their first Olympics lotteries, which have had great success, and we thought it would just be fair to give them the opportunity to carry on for a few more years so that some additional benefit may be received from all Canadians.
In terms of the financing, whatever is the end result, 40 per cent of the tickets already have been sold in the province of Quebec, and we felt it would be a fair contribution, if Canadians want to do it, to help the Quebec government and the Montreal authorities make sure that these Games will be a great success. Nevertheless, in spite of this scheme the great bulk of the deficit will still rest on the shoulders of the Quebec provincial government and the municipal government. I am merely asking today that all Canadians co-operate in helping the province of Quebec and the citizens of the city of Montreal to make the Olympic Games a great success.
I might say that in spite of the difficulties they have had so far, in terms of technical results and in respect of the organization of the site, everything seems to be on-stream and I am quite confident that the Games will have a great result and all Canadians will be proud of their success. Of course, we are inviting all Canadians to contribute, if they wish to do so, in respect of the deficit of this great national venture.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the minister has yet answered the first part of the question. I suppose he indicated, in respect of the second part, that there has been consultation. In respect of the first part, am I right in assuming there is no final end point or self-destruct time in respect of this new Crown corporation to operate a national lottery, or will it expire at the end of three years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The way I see it, Mr. Speaker, I want this lottery to go on until 1979. In my statement I mentioned that I would like to discuss with the provinces the future of this lottery after 1979. If there should be a very obvious wish on the part of members of this House that this be
May 10, 1976

completely destroyed after 1979, I am willing to consider that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why not write it in?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The information I have received so far from some provincial governments is that they would like to talk about the possibility of sharing, after 1979, in greater proportion. Now, provinces receive 12.5 per cent of the net proceeds of that lottery. I would like to consider different sharing after 1979, but if it is the wish of the provinces and of members of this House that we use the noose and hang the project after 1979, I, myself, do not mind.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the minister on the matter of costs. I think that the minister has realized that there is no doubt in the mind of our colleagues of the opposition. We want to support, encourage or assist those who will be called to pay that deficit.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think that as a Canadian and a Quebecer, I know that many Quebecers are greatly concerned about those huge costs. There are surely some justifiable reasons. Now my question is as follows: Could the minister responsible, for the information of those who will defend that legislation, invite the COJO authorities to provide the best possible explanations? Up to now the Canadian people have not been sufficiently informed and that would enable us to support such a measure to the extent that those huge costs are justified. Those are the particulars which we would like to obtain and I wonder what information the minister could provide.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, I had discussions with the mayor of Montreal and with the provincial government. They indicated that they wished that the reasons for the frightening escalation of the costs be made public. I believe that their main concern now is to make sure that the Olympic Games will take place and will be a success, and I think that this aspect of the problem will certainly give rise to discussions in Quebec and in Montreal after the Olympic Games. I will be pleased to transmit to the provincial and municipal authorities the wishes of the members of the House and in turn to give the House or an appropriate committee all the information from the government of Quebec.
As for launching a comprehensive inquiry now, interrupting now the project managers and asking them to spend days and days in the corridors of Parliament while they should be terminating their work, I think it would be most inappropriate, all the more so since the provincial and municipal authorities assured me that it will be possible to forward all the information concerning the question asked by the hon. member directly or indirectly to a committee of the House when I will be present to justify the bill or the proposal. As a matter of fact, I would like to have time to discuss it now but unfortunately there are only 5 or 6 weeks left before the House is adjourned and there are a number of precedents when Crown corporations have been established by order in council. I think that such action is justified now, but I would like to appear sometime before a
Lotteries
committee of the House to give hon. members all the necessary information.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board a question. He said that the bulk of the income received from this Crown corporation running a lottery will go toward covering the deficit of the Olympics. Can the minister tell the House whether that, in fact, puts an onus on the people of Canada-or the parliament of Canada, since a bill will have to be passed by parliament-if the lottery does not raise the amount needed to cover the deficit or any part of it? Will we have backed into supporting that deficit from the general revenues of the country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am happy that the hon. member has put this question to me. My answer is "no". Our only commitment is that as this lottery has been established by Quebec, by the Olympic Games, and has been a great success, we are giving them the opportunity to continue for three more years. If the lottery is a great success, after all, it will bring more revenue after the Games than if it is not a success. But that is the only commitment we have made to them.
The policy of this government is still the same. We do not intend to take any money from the treasury to cover the deficit, but we are willing to allow the operation of this lottery to continue for three more years. Many people were skeptical about the lottery when it was first started two years ago: I was one of them. The government predicted it would bring in revenues to the tune of $90 million. By the time the Games are over, it will be almost three times as much because the response of the Canadian people to it has been very good.
Of course, there is a little of the puritan approach to raising money that way, and being as puritan as anyone else, I had reservations about the lottery. Now I find that Canadians are enjoying the Olympics lottery. Let us consider the example in Ontario, where I think there was the maximum amount of objection to a lottery, but now we find Wintario so profitable as to be an embarrassment to the Tory government in Ontario because they are giving money all over the place and they are embarrassed by the amount of money they are distributing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to conclude the questioning by recognizing, on a supplementary question, the hon. member for Nickel Belt and the hon. member for Battle River followed by the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's answer rather strange. At present the lottery is run by the organization which is running the Olympics. The provincial government of Quebec has stepped in to take over responsibility for getting the facilities ready; therefore, they have accepted the responsibility. Why would the minister not allow the province of Quebec to be responsible for the lottery, rather than having the parliament of Canada sponsor a national lottery? After all, Wintario, as he has pointed out-which was sponsored by the province of Ontario-

May 10, 1976
Lotteries
has been successful. The western provinces are getting together to put on their own lottery. It seems to me that financing the Olympics should be the responsibility of the government which has accepted responsibility for the Games.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The answer to that question is that the Quebec government has tried to secure the approbation of the other provinces to carry on with the lottery after next August, and there are only a few which have agreed to one more "tirage", to use a good French word, or draw, following which the lottery could not operate any longer. That is why we have had to step in to establish a national lottery in order to achieve goals which everyone seems to favour apart from some members of the hon. member's party. It is strange to see that party supporting the establishment of a lottery in the western provinces such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia a few years ago, and to hear now their representatives in the federal government exhibit a guilty conscience when it comes to a lottery at the national level. I am rather surprised at this double standard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am opposed to it at all levels.


Mr. Malone:: My question arises out of concern for some sectors of our economy with respect to this lottery. This has already been indicated previously. I should like to ask the minister whether any research has been done in connection with the concept of a lottery as to the sectors of our economy from which the people who buy lottery tickets come-whether they are from the lower economic sector or the middle class. I thing it is relevant, because if the government is going to use lotteries as an ongoing practice for raising funds, then it switches away from a progressive income tax system to one that is retrogressive and puts the burden on the backs of people in the lower socioeconomic bracket.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: My understanding is that the tickets are bought all across the board by people from all classes in our society. But generally speaking, if a person who makes $5,000 a year buys one ticket, he is using more of his income to pay for that ticket than a person who makes $50,000 a year. I think the burden is heavier on the lower income people than on the middle-class people, because people do not usually buy a pile of tickets but only one or two.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Montreal area, I want to thank the minister for his decision to extend the Olympic Lottery program for a three year period.
In view of the tremendous success of the Olympic Lottery, could the minister tell the House whether forecasts have been made concerning the amount which could then be allocated for the financing of the Olympic deficit over a three year period, from the returns of the future Canadian lottery?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The amount?


Claude-André Lachance: -the forecasts of the amounts?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Well, Mr. Speaker, it really depends on the success of this lottery, and there are two items which are to be taken into account.
First, the national lottery we want to establish will have four draws a year instead of three, and I do not know if, with four draws a year, the number of tickets sold for each draw will diminish. Second, as far as revenues are concerned, a certain amount, which we still do not know, will have to be spent to finance the deficit, if any, of the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton. The combination of these two elements creates a certain degree of uncertainty, but we can already assess that the amount will rise to about $300 million.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the President of the Treasury Board for his initiative today and I am certain that my sentiment is shared by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board first how much of the 82.5 per cent which were to be used for financing the 1976 and 1978 games will be allocated to the 1976 summer games and to the Commonwealth Games and then if these funds will be used to finance both the administration and capital expenses of games.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have just said that I do not know exactly which amount will be allocated to the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton, because we have already launched a fairly important assistance program for these games. As for the money itself, the revenues, they will be used to finance the deficit of the Olympic Games. Of course, the COJO will self-finance itself, which means that the organization of the Olympic Games will finance itself. I think that the deficit will come mainly from the necessary infrastructure for the holding of the games, and the money will be used to finance this particular deficit because, as I have already said, the COJO, with its selffinancing programs of stamps, coins and the lottery will have managed to finance itself.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,843, 3,844, 3,854, 4,094, 4,095, 4,932, 4,960, 4,966, 5,065 to 5,074 inclusive, 5,111, 5,137, 5,218, 5,238, 5,256, 5,331 to 5,334 inclusive, 5,364 and 5,365.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Development Plan, what measures have been taken to achieve the objectives included in the Fisheries Development Programme of (a)
May 10, 1976

developing quality control practices (b) monitoring quality at market level (c) integrating waste product use with anti-pollution controls?
2.	Are there specific criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of such measures and, if so (a) what are they (b) what progress has been made in reaching the objectives?
3.	Are further measures (a) planned (b) under consideration and, if so, what are they?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fisheries)):: 1. (a) and (b) The development of quality control practices and inspection of fish and fish products related to interprovincial and export trade is a continuing function of the Inspection Branch, Fisheries and Marine Service, Environment Canada. This function is not directly related to the fisheries sector of the Prince Edward Island Development Plan, (c) The general policy of Environment Canada is to integrate waste product use with anti-pollution controls insofar as it is practical to do so.
2.	Not within the P.E.I. Development Plan.
3.	The Fish Inspection Branch of Environment Canada, under its program, is continually studying ways to improve fish quality.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, what measures are (a) planned (b) under consideration for Phase 2 to provide to fishermen (i) catch failure insurance (ii) price supports (iii) productivity incentives?


George Baker: None. The Fisheries and Marine Service of Environment Canada is studying a program of Net Revenue Stabilization for all Canadian fishermen. The Department also recently announced a $44 million temporary assistance program to take effect on April 1, 1976 under which direct payments will be made to all ground-fish fishermen for first quality food fish. Fish processors will also benefit from this program which is not related to the fisheries sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the Port Consolidation Programme under the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan (a) what new facilities have been and/or are being built (i) at which ports (ii) what was and is the cost of constructing each (b) what new facilities are presently planned (i) for which ports (ii) at what cost for each (c) what facilities and at what ports have been (i) abandoned (ii) allowed to deteriorate below pre-programme levels of upkeep and what is the estimated saving in upkeep from such measures in 1974?
2.	For each port (a) designated (b) not designated under the Programme, what has been the change in usage figures between the year in which the Programme was first implemented and 1974?
3.	What is the estimated loss of income to non-designated ports as a result of the Programme?
4.	What is the estimated total increase in fuel costs (boat and car) to fishermen as a result of travelling further to designated ports?


George Baker: 1. (a) (i) and (ii) 1974: West
Order Paper Questions
Point-skidway, $16,000; Launching Pond-landing extension, $100,000; Beach Point-wharf extension and dredging, $100,000; Red Head-landing extension, $40,000; North Lake-wharf extension, $70,000. 1975: North Lake-wharf extension, $55,000; Beach Point-wharf and dredging, $230,000; Skinners Pond-wharf reconstruction, $72,000. 1976: Alberton-wharf and fill, $150,000; Beach Point- wharf extension and dredging, $20,000; Miminegash- wharf extension, $100,000; French River-wharf extension, $100,000. (b) (i) and (ii) Alberton-wharf and fill, $100,000; Howards Cove-landing extension, $100,000; Launching Pond-landing extension, $26,000; Malpeque-landing extension, $120,000; Naufrage-landing extension, $80,000; Red Head-landing, $50,000; Rustico-harbour improvements, $450,000; Skinners Pond-harbour improvements, $700,000; West Point-breakwater improvements, $500,000; Tignish-south breakwater extension, $150,000; Rustico (Robinsons Island)-harbour improvements, $2,000,000 est. (c) (i) Anglo Rustico, South Rustico, Basin Head, Cape Traverse, Chapel Point, Haydens, Sturgeon Bridge, Kiers Shore, Little Sands, MacFarlans Cove, MacPhersons Cove, North Cardigan, Poplar Point, Rocky Point, (c) (ii) the above stuctures have been allowed to deteriorate below acceptable standards due to the changes in the level of fishing activity. Savings in upkeep have not been calculated.
2.	(a) Savage Harbour, Naufrage, North Lake, Graham's Pond, Launching Pond, Beach Point, Wood Island, Red Head, French River (South), Malpeque, Tracadie, Rustico, Milligan's Shore, Alberton, Tignish, Skinner's Pond, Miminegash, Howards Cove, West Point, Egmont Bay. (b) Approximately 75 other harbours have not been designated under the program, of which 14 are being abandoned. Most of the 60 remaining undesignated harbours will be maintained. Usage information is not available.
3.	There has been no appreciable change in usage to date because the program has not been in effect long enough for the expected transitions to take place. It is estimated that there has been no net loss of income.
4.	To date, the fishermen are still operating at both designated and non-designated ports. It is estimated that there will be no net average increase in fuel costs.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the statement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in January. 1976 that his Department would be acting "in bad faith if we did not continue through to the conclusion of a sales agreement" with the owners of the largest part of Melville (or Hay) Island in the St. Lawrence River because of the advanced state of negotiations (a) what are the names and job designations of all persons conducting such negotiations on behalf of the government (b) what are the names and addresses of all persons conducting such negotiations on behalf of the owners of Melville (or Hay) Island (c) on what date and in what locations did such negotiations take place?
2.	Is the Minister aware that this island was still listed for sale on February 1, 1976 with real estate agents and available for purchase on the open market?
3.	In what way does the government account for this obvious discrepancy between the Minister's statement and, if negotiations are not advanced for government purchase, will the Minister agree to extend the freeze on land purchases in the area by Parks Canada to include Melville (or Hay) Island?

May 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) It is not in the tradition of a non political public service to disclose names of officials who perform tasks in the course of their duty, (b) Bicker-ton Agencies Ltd., 395 Pine St., Gananoque. (c) Contact was established with the agent in Gananoque, August 20, 1975 and discussions held concerning possible purchase. Subsequent contact was primarily by telephone up to December 12, at which time all works was suspended. Negotiations were resumed February 6 at which time it was agreed an option to purchase would be submitted.
2.	Yes. Negotiation for acquisition on behalf of Parks Canada does not require the property to be withdrawn from the open market.
3.	Negotiation for Hay Island was undertaken in good faith by both parties up to but not including a definite commitment prior to the decision to freeze acquisition. While no legal commitment was made, negotiations were undertaken with the reasonable expectation of an option being offered. With the announcement on park expansion and the subsequent withdrawal of our presence as a potential buyer on the open market, those who legitimately hoped to dispose of properties have been adversely affected to the extent that other potential purchasers are reluctant to take any action. Because the course of events has had a probable detrimental effect on the value of the particular properties we considered as priority purchases, it was felt we should proceed. We do not feel the purchase of part of Hay Island will prejudice the intent to actively encourage the participation of all levels of government and private interests in the preparation of a park and discussions on expansion.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the statement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in January 1976 that his Department would be acting "in bad faith if we did not continue through to the conclusion of a sales agreement" with the owners of Wallace Island in the St. Lawrence River because of the advanced state of negotiations (a) what are the names and job designations of all persons conducting such negotiations on behalf of the government (b) what are the names and addresses of all persons conducting such negotiations on behalf of the owners of Wallace Island (c) on what date and in what locations did such negotiations take place?
2.	Is the Minister aware that the owners of Wallace Island told a public meeting at Escott, Ontario, on February 14, 1976, that (a) the island has not been for sale (b) the island is not for sale (c) they have never had any negotiations with the government on the matter nor has anyone else acting on their behalf?
3.	In what way does the government account for those discrepancies between the Minister's statement and the statement by the owners of Wallace Island and, if the government has not conducted negotiations for Wallace Island, will the Minister agree to extend the freeze on land purchases in the area by Parks Canada to include Wallace Island?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. (a) It is not in the tradition of a non political public service to disclose names of officials who perform tasks in the course of their public duty, (b) Bickerton Agencies Ltd., 395 Pine St., Gananoque. (c) Contact was established with the agent September 9, 1975 in Gananoque and subsequent discussions, primarily by telephone continued to December 12, at which time all

further work ceased. Negotiations were resumed February
6.
2.	Yes. I am aware that a person, who apparently has an interest in the larger portion of Wallace Island, made such comments.
3.	The discrepancy appears to stem from information which my Department considered valid upon which to act and the subsequent actions of certain persons claiming to own property on Wallace Island. My Department was advised in writing on August 25, 1975 by Bickerton Agencies that two properties, which when combined comprised the whole of Wallace Island, were for sale and a value quoted. In an ensuing assessment of priorities to meet fiscal restraints it was decided to pursue only the smaller parcel. Accordingly negotiations were not continued for the larger parcel. Because of difficulties encountered in determining who represents the owner of the smaller parcel no recent negotiations have taken place. In light of this I am having all of Wallace Island included in the freeze.


Mr. Herbert: Is any money owed by the government to Montreal lawyer Mr. Richard Holden, and (a) if so (i) in what amount (ii) for what services (b) if not, is there an unsettled claim from Mr. Holden?


Stanley Ronald Basford: There is no money owed to Mr. Richard Holden by the Government of Canada. Mr. Holden submitted an account to the Minister of Justice in relation to legal services rendered at the request of Mr. Justice Kenneth C. MacKay in the prosecution of the Honourable Andre Ouellet for contempt of court. This account was for a total amount of $21,053.02 for fees and disbursements. The account has been forwarded to the Minister of Justice of the Province of Quebec as the prosecution of this matter falls within the jurisdiction of this Province.


Mr. Kempling: Was a grant, loan or other assistance given to Les equipements Laporte Inc., Granby, P.Q., by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76 and, if so (i) in what amount (ii) for what purpose?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the
Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned the answer is nil.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many French speaking faculty members have been hired at the Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario since January 1, 1975 (a) what were the criteria for hiring them (b) what courses do they teach (c) what is their total combined annual salary (d) how were the positions advertised (e) in what publications (f) at what cost?
2.	(a) How many has the Treasury Board approved for the 1976-77 academic year (b) how many will the College request for the 1977-78
May 10, 1976

academic year (c) how are their salaries determined (d) by what department are their salaries negotiated?
3.	Has a decision been made to build a new classroom development at the College for the bilingual programme and, if so (a) who authorized it (b) what are the criteria for the building (c) who designed it (d) at what cost (e) were tenders called for the design and, if so, was the lowest tender accepted?
4.	Were tenders called for the construction of the building and, if so (a) how many firms offered bids (b) what was the (i) highest (ii) lowest bid (c) what is the name of the firm that was awarded the contract and was this the lowest tender?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Five (a) Criteria for hiring was professional qualification to teach at the third year university level in the specialty with doctorates preferred, (b) Electrical Engineering, Engineering (Physics), Chemical Engineering, Mathematics, (c) $88,700. (d) Advertisements in professional journals, daily newspapers and direct approach to Deans of Engineering of Canadian Universities. (e) La Presse, Montreal; he Devoir, Montreal; The Gazette, Montreal; La Tribune, Sherbrooke, P.Q.; Le Soleil, Quebec City; Le Droit, Ottawa; Globe and Mail, Toronto; University Affairs; Journal of the Chemical Institute of Canada; The Journal of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada; The Journal of Physics in Canada; Canadian Association of University Teachers (a journal); Order of Engineers of Quebec (Journal); The Engineering Journal; Chemistry in Canada, (f) $3,406.30.
2.	(a) Forty-three, (b) Ten man-years in addition to the 43 man-years approved for 1976/77. (c) Salaries are determined in accordance of scale of pay for University Teachers as approved by the Treasury Board, (d) Treasury Board.
3.	Yes. (a) Treasury Board, (b) 55 faculty offices (3 at 225 sq. ft.; 52 at 150 sq. ft.); 22 research and lab areas varying in size from 300 to 1,000 sq. ft.; one computer science area (approx. 3,700 sq. ft.); instruction areas in the form of 25 syndicate rooms, 5 classrooms, and 2 amphitheatres varying in size from 420 to 1,260 sq. ft.; miscellaneous areas approx. 5,100 sq. ft. for storage, administration, lunch rooms and rest rooms, (c) The firm of Mathers and Haldenby. (d) $258,565.83. (e) No.
4.	Yes. The construction was implemented by two separate contracts. One was for the addition of a North Wing to the Massey Library and the other one for outside services (i.e. utilities and landscaping), (a) North Wing, four; outside services, two. (b) North Wing (i) $4,783,160. (ii) $4,389,000. Outside services (i) $1,204,900. (ii) $994,300. (c) North Wing,-Bramalea General Contractor (Peel) Ltd. of Bramalea, Ont., who was the lowest bidder. Outside services-Taggart Construction Ltd. of Ottawa, Ont., who was the lowest bidder.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of Heritage^Canada, how much did the government invest in the Province of Nova Scotia for the restoration of historic sites?
2.	(a) How many historic sites have been restored (b) what is the name and location of each (c) what amount was granted for such
Order Paper Questions
restoration in each case (d) by year, how many permanent jobs were created for the administration and maintenance of such sites?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	$5,000,006. (to Feb. 27/76)
2.	(a) Nine, (b) (i) Alexander Graham Bell-Baddeck.
(ii)	Grand Pre-Grand Pre. (iii) Halifax Citadel-Halifax, (iv) Port Royal-near Annapolis Royal, (v) York Redoubt-Halifax (Purcell Cove), (vi) Fort Charlotte- George's Island, Halifax Harbour, (vii) Fort Anne- Annapolis Royal, (viii) Fortress of Louisbourg-Louis-bourg. (ix) Halifax Waterfront Buildings-Halifax. (c)(i) $417,800. (ii) $2,700. (iii) $527,900. (iv) $42,800. (v) $88,500. (vi) $30,000. (vii) $42,200. (viii) $4,051,600. (ix) $625,500.
(to February 27,
1973-74	1974-75	1976)(d) (i)	0	0	1(ii)	0	0	1(iii)	1	0	0(iv)	0	0	0(v)	0	0	0(vi)	0	0	0(vii)	0	0	1(viii)	3	1	5(ix)	0	0	0


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of Heritage Canada, how much did the government invest in the Province of Prince Edward Island for the restoration of historic sites?
2.	(a) How many historic sites have been restored (b) what is the name and location of each (c) what amount was granted for such restoration in each case (d) by year, how many permanent jobs were created for the administration and maintenance of such sites?


Iona Campagnolo: 1.	$61,786 (to February 27 1976)
2.	(a) Three. (b)(i) Fort Amherst-Rocky Point, near Charlottetown, (ii) Pope House-Charlottetown, (iii) Government House-Charlottetown. (c)(i) $42,900. (ii) 7,600.
(iii)	8,700.
(d) (i)	0
(ii)	0
(iii)	0
1
0
(to February 27, 1976)
0
13344

May 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of Heritage Canada, how much did the government invest in the Province of Saskatchewan for the restoration of historic sites?
2.	(a) How many historic sites have been restored (b) what is the name and location of each (c) what amount was granted for such restoration in each case (d) by year, how many permanent jobs were created for the administration and maintenance of such sites?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $953,797 (to February 27 1976)
2. (a) Four. (b)(i) Battleford-Battleford. (ii) Batoche- Batoche. (iii) Motherwell Homestead-near Abernathy,
(iv)	Fort Walsh-near Maple Creek. (c)(i) $93,800. (ii) 60,200. (iii) 49,000. (iv) 892,600.
(d) (i)	1973-74 3	1974-75 1	1975-76 (to February 27, 1976 2(ii)	0	0	1(iii)	0	0	0(iv)	1	2	2


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of Heritage Canada, how much did the government invest in the Province of Quebec for the restoration of historic sites?
2.	(a) How many historic sites have been restored (b) what is the name and location of each (c) what amount was granted for such restoration in each case (d) by year, how many permanent jobs were created for the administration and maintenance of such sites?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $3,499,976 (to February 27 1976). 2. (a) 13. (b)(i) Croix Jacques Cartier-Gaspe. (ii) Cartier House-Montreal, (iii) Maison Laurier-Villes des Laurentides. (iv) Fort Temiscamingue-near the town of Ville Marie, (v) Quebec City-Walls and Gates-Quebec City, (vi) Cartier-Brebeuf-Quebec City, (vii) Fort Levis-Levis, (viii) Parc de l'Artillerie-Quebec City, (ix) Les Forges du Saint-Maurice-Trois Rivieres, (x) Carillon Barracks-Carillon, (xi) Fort Chambly-Chambly. (xii) Coteau-du-lac- Coteau-du-Lac. (xiii) Fort Lennox-Ile-aux-Noix.
2. c)(i) $ 2,400. (ii) 31,200. (iii) $ 2,200. (iv) $ 80,800. (v) $466,870. (vi) $186,600. (vii) $247,600. (viii) $1,756,900. (ix) $204,000. (x) $38,600. (xi) $101,700. (xii) $31,700. (xiii) $604,300.
1973-74	1974-75	1975-76 (to February 27, 1976)<d) (i)	0	0	0(ii)	0	0	0(iii)	1	0	0(iv) [Mrs. Campagnolo.)	0	0	0(v)	1	0	0(vi)	2	0	1(vii)	-1	0	0(viii)	1	4	0(ix)	0	1	3(x)	0	4	0(xi)	1	-1	0(xii)	1	- 1	0(xiii)	0	- 1	0


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of Heritage Canada, how much did the government invest in the Province of Newfoundland for the restoration of historic sites?
2.	(a) How many historic sites have been restored (b) what is the name and location of each (c) what amount was granted for such restoration in each case (d) by year, how many permanent jobs were created for the administration and maintenance of such sites?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $452,177 (to February 27 1976).
2. (a) Six. (b)(i) Signal Hill, St. John's, (ii) Cape Spear, near St. John's, (iii) Castle Hill, Placentia, (iv) L'Anse aux Meadows, 25 miles north of St. Anthony, (v) Port au Choix, Port au Choix. (vi) Moravian Mission, Hopedale, Labrador, (c) (i) $134,500. (ii) $11,800. (iii) $96,600. (iv) $187,550. (v) $116,200. (vi) $12,000.
1973-74	1974-75	1975-76 (to February 27 1976)<d) (i)	0	1	1(ii)	0	0	0(iii)	0	0	0(iv)	1	0	1(v)	0	0	1(vi)	0	0	0


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of Heritage Canada, how much did the government invest in the Province of New Brunswick for the restoration of historic sites?
2.	(a) How many historic sites have been restored (b) what is the name and location of each (c) what amount was granted for such restoration in each case (d) by year, how many permanent jobs were created for the administration and maintenance of such sites?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $360,324 (to February 27, 1976).
2.	(a) Three. (b)(i) St. Andrews Blockhouse, St.
Andrews, (ii) Fort Beausejour, Aulac. (iii) Frederiction Military Compound, Fredericton. (c)(i) $9,000. (ii) $208,950. (iii) $153,000.
May 10, 1976

1973-74
(d)(i)	0
(ii)	1
(in)	0
0
0
(to Febuary 27, 1976)
1


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of Heritage Canada, how much did the government invest in the Province of British Columbia for the restoration of historic sites?
2.	(a) How many historic sites have been restored (b) what is the name and location of each (c) what amount was granted for such restoration in each case (d) by year, how many permanent jobs were created for the administration and maintenance of such sites?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $530,142 (to February 27, 1976).
2. (a) Four. (b)(i) Fort St. James, Fort St. James, (ii) Fort Langley, near Langley, (iii) Fort Rodd Hill, Victoria,
(iv)	St. Roch, Vancouver. (c)(i) $371,900. (ii) $59,200. (iii) $207,000. (iv) $55,000.
<d) (i)	1973-74 0	1974-75 1	1975-76 (to February 27, 1976) 0(ii)	5	0	0(iii)	0	0	1(iv)	0	0	0
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of Heritage Canada, how much did the government invest in the Province of Ontario for the restoration of historic sites?
2.	(a) How many historic sites have been restored (b) what is the name and location of each (c) what amount was granted for such restoration in each case (d) by year, how many permanent jobs were created for the administration and maintenance of such sites?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $1,165,408 (to February 27, 1976).
2. (a) Nine. (b)(i) Bellevue House, Kingston, (ii) Fort Malden, Amherstburg. (iii) Niagara Complex, Niagara Peninsula, (iv) Fort Wellington, Prescott, (v) Woodside, Kitchener, (vi) Fort St. Joseph, St. Joseph Island, (vii) Sir John Johnson House, Williamstown. (viii) Inverarden House, Cornwall, (ix) Rideau Canal. (c)(i) $94,200. (ii) $103,700. (iii) $674,000. (iv) $97,750. (v) $38,600. (vi) $296,600. (vii) $102,600. (viii) $7,000. (ix) $114,800.
(d) (i)	1973-74 0	1974-75 1	1975-76 (to February 27, 1976) 2(ii)	1	1	1(iii)	-1	1	1(iv)	0	1	0(v)	0	1	0(vi)	0	0	1(vii)	0	0	0(viii)	0	0	0(ix)	-	-	-


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of Heritage Canada, how much did the government invest in the Province of Alberta for the restoration of historic sites?
2.	(a) How many historic sites have been restored (b) what is the name and location of each (c) what amount was granted for such restoration in each case (d) by year, how many permanent jobs were created for the administration and maintenance of such sites?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $145,959 (to February 27, 1976).
2. (a) One. (b)(i) Rocky Mountain House, Rocky Mountain House. (c)(i) $75,300.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of Heritage Canada, how much did the government invest in the Province of Manitoba for the restoration of historic sites?
2.	(a) How many historic sites have been restored (b) what is the name and location of each (c) what amount was granted for such restoration in each case (d) by year, how many permanent jobs were created for the administration and maintenance of such sites?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. $301,069 (to February 27, 1976).
2. (a) One. (b)(i) Lower Fort Garry, Selkirk, (c)(i) $513,400.
(d) (i)	1
(to February 27, 1974-75	1976)
0 0
(to February 27,
1973-74	1974-75	1976)(d) (i)	2	0	4
May 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: What is the government's best estimate of the commercial value of the annual fisheries harvest taken within 200 miles of the (a) Atlantic (b) Pacific shores?


George Baker: The commercial (landed) value of the annual fisheries harvest taken by all countries (including Canada) within 200 miles of the Canadian coasts is estimated for the year 1974 at: (a) Atlantic Coast $350 million, (b) Pacific Coast $125 million. Prices received by Canadian fishermen were used to estimate the value of foreign catches.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What method does the Department of Transport use to facilitate public parking at the Halifax International Airport?
2.	(a) Who is responsible for the operation of such public parking (b) how was the decision reached (c) for what period of time is it to be operated under the present arrangements?
3.	Is the public parking facilities at the Airport satisfactory from the point of view of demand and, if not, what efforts does the Department intend to undertake to provide additional space?
4.	Have any complaints been directed to the Department relating to inadequate parking space?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. To facilitate short-term public parking, 60 metered parking positions are provided. These spaces are metered for one hour parking duration. In addition to short-term parking, a parking lot which accommodates 729 cars is provided for long-term parking.
2.	(a) The metered parking is administered by Transport Canada officials. The public parking lot at Halifax International Airport is operated under a management fee contract for Transport Canada. Canadawide Parking Services Ltd. is the present operator of the parking facility, (b) The decision to award the contract to Canadawide Parking Services Ltd. was reached by means of a public tender call, (c) The present contract expires August 31, 1976 and Transport Canada will call public tenders in the very near future.
3.	The parking lot is inadequate to meet the demand. Expansion of the facility to accommodate an additional 502 cars is included in the Airport Development Plan for year 1977/78. The inadequacy has been recognized for some time, however the project has had to be deferred in favour of other local projects of higher priority.
4.	No complaints have been recorded.


Mr. Stevens: 1. What is the total estimated cost for improvements now underway at Toronto International Airport for (a) Terminal Number 1 (b) Terminal Number 2 and, in each case (i) what is the nature of the improvements (ii) on what date will they be completed?
[Mrs. Campagnolo.j
2.	(a) What was the total cost to the government for the destruction of the Shell Service Station facility required presumably as a result of the improvements to Terminal Number 2 (b) what was the nature of the costs (c) what compensation was paid to the owners or operators of the Station (d) on what date was the Station (i) opened for business (ii) closed?
3.	What was the original total cost for (a) Terminal Number 1 (b) Terminal Number 2 and, in each case, on what date was it first opened for business?


Ralph Goodale: 1. (a) $21,301,000 in November, 1975 dollars, (i) This consists of Terminal Building modifications to structural, architectural, mechanical and electrical work related to vertical transportation, west court modifications, holdroom expansion, public arrivals waiting room, international inspection and inbound baggage systems; outbound baggage system and air conditioning, (ii) December 31, 1978. (b) $41,088,000 in November, 1975 dollars. (i) This consists of approximately 750 feet expansion to Terminal Building including structural, architectural, mechanical and electrical works associated with Stage 3 imporvements and to the interface with the parking structure project; furniture and furnishings; environmental improvements; Apron expansion associated with Terminal II and related services; elevated road (curb) construction and other areas requiring finishes such as tenant relocation and improvement facilities, (ii) September 30, 1978.
2.	(a) $57,637.40 paid to date, balance due contractor $6,288.60. (b) Demolish, excavate, backfill, remove and dispose of the abandoned service station including underground tanks, roofs, etc. (c) $400,000. (d) (i) August 1, 1964. (ii) August 1, 1975.
3.	(a) $24,460,000. February 20, 1964. (b) $39,413,000. April 1, 1973.
Note (1): The cost figures for question 3 do not include utilities services, roads, furnishings and fixtures.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the present position of the Minister of Transport on the shed rental charges to be imposed on the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth by the National Harbours Board in June 1976?


Ralph Goodale: Since the proposed marine terminal policy was proposed for discussion last year, the National Harbours Board has received valuable comments from various groups. In response to the suggestions, the original proposal was recently amended and will be reviewed by the Port Authority Chairmen concerned later this month. No decision has been made regarding implementation of the effective date thereof.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): Was a notification sent by April 1, 1976, to the Government of the United States by the government as required under the Canada-United States Bilateral Air Agreement for the introduction of customs preclearance at international airports and, if not, for what reason?
May 10, 1976


Ralph Goodale: The Government's intention to introduce pre-clearance at Edmonton and Calgary in the fall of 1977 was recorded in a Memorandum of Consultation between the Canadian and United States delegations signed at Ottawa on March 4, 1976. As further recorded in that Memorandum, the two delegations have also agreed to hold a technical meeting at the end of April to approve final plans.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Was a new investment proposal made by Borsig GMBH of West Germany, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Babcock, also of West Germany, and Hartmann Patentverwertung GMBH of Switzerland, to establish a new business in Calgary, Alberta, under the name Borsig Hartmann Valve Ltd., a business to be engaged in the manufacture of a broad range of ball valves, largely for sale to the oil and gas industry and, if so, what is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
2.	Who are the principal shareholders of Babcock of West Germany and Hartmann Patentverwertung GMBH of Switzerland?
3.	Do Babcock of West Germany and Hartmann Patentverwertung GMBH of Switzerland control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by percent of control and value?
4.	What will be the effect of the establishment of this petroleum refinery on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts, components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada?
5.	How many persons will be employed once the new plant is established?
6.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
7.	How will the establishment of this plant be (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the new plant?
8.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the transaction?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as the
Foreign Investment	Review Agency	is concerned:	aninvestment proposal to establish a new business in Calgary, Alberta was made by Borsig GMBH of West Germany and Hartmann Patentverwertung GMBH of Switzerland. The proposal	was	allowed by	the Governor	inCouncil on April 6, 1976 (P. C. 1976-816). All information with respect to a person, business or proposed business obtained in the course of the administration of the Foreign Investment Review	Act	is privileged	and may not	be
released except as provided in section 14 of that Act.


Mr. Nystrom: 1. In the takeover of Dispenser Division of The Oshawa Group Limited of Islington, Ontario by Moccomat Beverage Systems Limited of Islington, Ontario which is controlled by Douwe Egberts Koninklijke Tabaksfabriek Koffiebranderijen Theehandel B.V. of the Netherlands, what percentage of control will Moccomat Beverage Systems Limited of Islington, Ontario-a company controlled by Douwe Egberts Konink-
Order Paper Questions
lijke Tabaksfabriek Koffiebranderijen Theehandel B.V. of the Netherlands acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Dispenser Division of The Oshawa Group Limited of Islington, Ontario and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Douwe Egberts Koninklijke Tabaksfabriek Koffiebranderijen Theehandel B.V. of the Netherlands and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Douwe Egberts Koninklijke Tabaksfabriek Koffiebranderijen Theehandel B.V. of the Netherlands control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Dispenser Division of The Oshawa Group Limited of Islington, Ontario and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Dispenser Division of The Oshawa Group Limited of Islington, Ontario employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 3,954 answered on March 2, 1976.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Canada Carbon and Ribbon Company Limited of Toronto by Columbia Ribbon and Carbon Manufacturing Co. Inc., of Glen Cove, New York, and Marline Resources Company Inc., also of New York, what percentage of control will Columbia Ribbon and Carbon Manufacturing Co. Inc., of Glen Cove, New York, and Marline Resources Company Inc., also of New York acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Canada Carbon and Ribbon Company Limited of Toronto, Ontario and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Columbia Ribbon and Carbon Manufacturing Co. Inc., of Glen Cove, New York and Marline Resources Company Inc., also of New York and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Columbia Ribbon and Carbon Manufacturing Co. Inc., of Glen Cove, New York, and Marline Resources Company Inc., of New York control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety
13348

May 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions
in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Canada Carbon and Ribbon Company Limited of Toronto, Ontario and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Canada Carbon and Ribbon Company Limited of Toronto employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 3,954 answered on March 2, 1976.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	In the takeover of Dominion Coachcraft Industries (Canada) Ltd. of Regina, Saskatchewan by Standard Auto Glass Western Limited of Winnipeg, Manitoba (Standard Auto Glass Western Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vanfax Corporation Ltd. of Montreal, which in turn is wholly-owned by Libbey-Owens-Ford Company of Toledo, Ohio), what percentage of control will Standard Auto Glass Western Limited of Winnipeg, Manitoba acquire?
2.	What is the total and/or per share price of the transaction, including the value of share transfers or other considerations?
3.	Who were the principal shareholders of Dominion Coachcraft Industries (Canada) Ltd. and what control, if any, will they retain in the company?
4.	Who are the principal shareholders of Libbey-Owens-Ford Company of Toledo, Ohio and what are their holdings in the company?
5.	Does Libbey-Owens-Ford Company of Toledo, Ohio control and/or partially own, directly or indirectly, any other businesses in Canada and, if so, in each case, what are the holdings by per cent of control and value?
6.	What will be the effect of the takeover on (a) the level and nature of economic activity in Canada (b) resource processing in Canada (c) utilization of parts components, materials and services produced in Canada (d) exports from Canada (e) productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada (f) competition within any industry or industries in Canada (g) employment within Dominion Coachcraft Industries (Canada) Ltd. of Regina, Saskatchewan and within the industry?
7.	(a) How many persons did Dominion Coachcraft Industries (Canada) Ltd. employ before the takeover (b) how many are presently employed?
8.	(a) What are the unions, if any, who represented the employees (b) did they approve or disapprove of the takeover (c) was their opinion sought?
9.	What is the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or will form?
10.	How is the takeover (a) compatible (b) incompatible with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives of any province likely to be affected by the takeover?
11.	What is the significant benefit to Canada of the takeover?


Marcel-Claude Roy: See reply to question No. 3,954 answered on March 2, 1976.



Mr. Cossitt: Has a policy been established by the Department of Agriculture that all Order Paper questions pertaining to the Department must have answers prepared within fifteen days of the questions being asked and (a) if not, what is the exact number of days allotted for the answering of such questions (b) if so, what are the reasons that Question No. 3,240 concerning the use of government aircraft by the Minister and members of his family has remained unanswered since October 21, 1975?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) The general policy of the government regarding written questions is that they will be replied to as quickly as possible. While it would be ideal to have all written questions replied to within fifteen days and this is urged upon Ministers, this is not always possible. Strict adherence to such a policy would require the institution of a system similar to that found in Great Britain and accepted by M.P.'s where interim replies frequently are given or, more frequently the Minister replies that he will write to the hon. member. The length of time required for preparing replies to written questions among other factors depends upon the length of the question, its complexity, the availability of information, the number of departments and agencies involved, and the number of questions directed to the particular department of agency, (b) The Government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was Question No. 3,240 received by the Department of Agriculture from the Privy Council Office and what are the names of any persons assigned to prepare the answer?
2.	Was an answer to the Question prepared a number of weeks ago and, if so, on what date was the answer completed?
3.	Were representations made by the Minister, his Executive Assistant or anyone else acting on his behalf that the answer be altered and, if so, in each case (a) on what date (b) by whom?
4.	Was the answer forwarded to the Minister for signature and subsequent transmittal to the Privy Council Office and, if so, on what date?
5.	Has the Minister signed the answer and, if not (a) for what reason (b) on what date will he sign it?
6.	If the Minister has signed the answer, has it been transmitted to the Privy Council Office and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.
May 10, 1976


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would simply clarify whether question 5,204 was included.


Mr. Blais:: It was not, Mr. Speaker; it was scratched.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,838 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, for each year since 1965, what was the (a) number of fish processing plants in operation in PEI (b) number of pounds of fish processed (i) at all plants combined (ii) on an average per plant (c) percentage of the total PEI fish catch processed in
(i)	PEI (ii) outside PEI (d) total market value of fish products processed in PEI in (i) real dollars (ii) constant dollars (e) average market value of fish products per plant in (i) real dollars (ii) constant dollars (f) percentage change over the previous year in market value of fish products produced (i) at all plants combined (ii) on an average per plant (g) number of weeks in operation (i) of all plants combined (ii) on an average per plant (h) number of workers employed (i) at all plants combined (ii) on an average per plant (i) number of man-hours of employment (i) at all plants combined (ii) on an average per worker
(j)	total income paid to workers at processing plants in (i) real dollars (ii) constant dollars (k) average income paid per worker in (i) real dollars (ii) constant dollars (1) number of fishermen who worked part-time at processing plants (m) average percentage of family income for all fishermen derived from employment in a processing plant?
2.	Have any fish processing plants in PEI received financial assistance from the government since 1969 and, if so, as totals (a) what were the sources of this assistance (b) from each source, what were the (i) amounts (ii) types (iii) purposes of assistance (c) what percentage of financial assistance went to (i) processing plant consolidation (ii) creation of new processing plants?
3.	For each new processing plant since 1969 which received assistance under the Regional Development Incentives Act (a) what procedures were followed to ensure that the decision to give assistance complemented the overall fishing sector strategy and objectives (b) was consideration given, prior to the awarding of assistance, to the potentially negative effects on processing plants already in operation and, if so (i) what negative effects were foreseen (ii) what were the advantages of the new plant which outweighed these negative effects (iii) have the actual negative effects been more or less serious than originally foreseen?
Return tabled.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate in this debate on Bill C-84 and make my position known loudly and clearly. When this matter came before parliament in the past, I had opportunity their of speaking. I had the opportunity to speak on May 22, July 23, and again on an amendment on October 18, 1973: and let me state categorically that I have had no reason to change my stand.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) who opened this debate. He stated, and rightly so, that society is outraged and is demanding capital punishment. He then went on to quote from many experts supporting abolition. However, those on the other side of this subject can quote from just as many experts supporting their case. I think we are all well aware that the Canadian public is concerned about crime and wants peace and security. Furthermore, it feels that a longer term of imprisonment will not deter would-be killers.
Many polls have been taken. The most recent which I received was dated May 3; it was from the metropolitan Toronto police association. I believe all hon. members received it. It showed that 68,745 responses to their questionnaire were sent in, showing 87.6 per cent of the people in favour of capital punishment. This government seems willing to fly in the face of public opinion and use every means within its power to pilot this bill through.
There is no question that the government will be ably assisted by the press gallery and the media, those great moulders of public opinion. Let me point out that this is one particular area in which the media has not been successful. When reporting on this bill, the news commentators on the national news are depicted with the sinister noose on the screen behind them. It might be an idea, for a change, for some of them to put the noose around their own necks. Again, this morning, on the "Canada A.M." program I believe it was Dennis Macintosh who mentioned that this matter would be discussed in the House today- and the sinister noose was in the background. Let there be a change in reporting, and let us see on the television screen some of the murder victims. I can assure the House that this would portray a pretty gruesome scene. I hope hon. members will give serious consideration to victims, rather than murderers, when they cast their vote and stand up to be counted.
I hope, also, that hon. members will give some thought to the feelings of the great majority of Canadians. The Solicitor General has pointed out that he hopes to convince the 60 or so new members of parliament that they should vote
95568- llVi

May 10, 1976
Capital Punishment
for the bill as they are the ones who will decide the outcome. He says this bill is not perfect. That is an understatement. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who began the debate for the official opposition, stated that he was somewhat cynical about the proposed free vote as far as the government side is concerned. I am aware that there are several abolitionists on this side of the House and nothing I could say would change their minds. I respect the views of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), for example, even though I do not agree with him.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And vice-versa.


Stan Darling: I recall the Solicitor General some months ago stating that on this legislation there would be a free vote except for the government. I presume he meant the cabinet.


William Warren Allmand: I was wrong.


Stan Darling: You bet you were wrong, sir. I am aware that the will in all probability vote 100 per cent for the bill even though some of them, if they were free to do so, would vote the other way. I point out that it seems ironic that there are 262 members in this House-there are two vacant seats at the present time-who represent all walks of life, and therefore one would expect they would reflect the views of the average Canadian. It would seem only logical that, not in the neighbourhood of 87.6 per cent but probably 70 per cent of the members of this House would feel the same way as the average Canadian. I recall a question asked in this House last Wednesday by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), who I see in the House this afternoon. She asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the following:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to -put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the free vote on Bill C-84 be free to the cabinet?
That was a straightforward question, and from all sides of the House there was "Hear, hear." The Prime Minister stood up, and this was his pronouncement:
Mr. Speaker, a freer group of men and women still has to be found in Canada.
Certainly, that was a very diplomatic way of saying that all 28 or 29 members of the cabinet will vote as the Prime Minister sees fit. No one can tell me that those august men and women are all abolitionists. It may be of interest to parliamentarians that Ronald Reagan, the former governor of California, for a good number of years was an abolitionist, but he now states he is against the law which makes the death penalty unconstitutional. He says:
When I was governor, I saved the lives of 12 murderers. They were paroled or released, and now their score is 34 murders. They killed another 22 people.
I have listened to a good number of speeches on Bill C-84. Hon. members on both sides have spoken with feeling. I was most impressed by the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), who is one of those members who has had second thoughts. In the previous vote on capital punishment he supported the government, but has now come to the conclusion that Canada is not ready for the total abolition. He stated that he had done a great deal of soul-searching before coming to this decision.

We are dealing with one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this House: we are dealing with life and death.
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) are constantly talking about peace and security-and I am wondering, for whom? It is my view that this bill, if passed, will only provide peace and security for the criminal element and murderers. And let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am not talking about murderers who have committed crimes of passion, or of drunken brawls. I am talking of cold-blooded, premeditated murder or the mafia-type killing-the killing of people during armed robbery and rape, and, of course, the killers of police and guards.
I should just mention, Mr. Speaker, that just before I turned off the television on Saturday night a movie came on entitled "Assassination Bureau", which I watched for a few moments. That movie would give ideas to anybody who wanted to get rid of an enemy. All they would have to do is contact this bureau or one like it.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out, also, that there should be longer mandatory sentences for armed robbery involving an offensive weapon, and longer sentences for people caught carrying offensive weapons; and, of course, longer sentences for crimes involving hard drugs. There are certain cold-blooded and violent murderers who cannot be rehabilitated. They have already committed murder and will do so again if given the opportunity. It is because of this that I feel the death penalty should be retained for certain types of violent murder.
Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned the death penalty, but I do not necessarily mean hanging, as I am opposed to this and feel that a much more humane method should be used, as long as the killer is permanently removed from society as quietly and efficiently as possible. Let me repeat that we are not ready for total abolition, the chief reason being the growing crime rate, combined with the government's present way of dealing with crime. Violent crime in Canada increased 90 per cent in the ten-year period 1965 to 1974. In 1965 there were 243 murders in the country; in 1974, 545. The murder rate in this period has doubled, from 1.2 per 100,000 population to 2.4. Despite the fact that 38 policemen and jail guards were murdered in this same ten-year period, no convicted murderer has been executed. Is it any wonder that the public is up in arms? A great majority of Canadians are now demanding a return to full capital punishment.
Let us now look at attempted murder. In 1961 there were 74 attempted murders in Canada-a rate of .5 per 100,000 population. In 1967 there were 139 attempted murders, a rate of .9 per cent, and in 1974 there were 524 attempted murders, a rate of 2.3 per cent. The actual number of attempted murders in 1974 was between seven and eight times the number of only 13 years earlier in 1961. In other words, by the grace of God only are the murder figures for 1974 not even worse. Over the same period, the death penalty has been increasingly modified in Canadian law and, indeed, not implemented at all. The murder rate has doubled and the attempted murder rate has quadrupled.
May 10, 1976

Mr. Speaker, now that we are engaged once again in serious debate on the subject of capital punishment, it is time for all the experts to reappear. There are more experts on this subject than on any other subject I can think of, with the possible exception of the Canadian economy. They are a dime a dozen, and come to think of it, that is just about what they are worth. For some strange reason, most, if not all, of these experts are abolitionists. These are the people who insist that we demean our own society when we take the life of a brutal and sadistic murderer. These are the people who maintain that capital punishment is not, and would not be, a deterrent to deliberate murder. They have all kinds of data and statistics to support their arguments. When their statistics are put to the test, we find that their supporting arguments are based on the very same data as my own-no better and no worse.
The plain fact is that there is no reliable data available either to me or to the experts. We are all on our own and there is no more evidence available to support my position than there is to support the position of the abolitionists, except for the great increase in murders which those of us who still favour the retention of capital punishment can quote. They cannot be denied.
I think that I have made my own position clear, Mr. Speaker. I am a retentionist and I make no apology for it. I repeat that on the basis of existing data and evidence, or rather the lack of it, my position is just as tenable as any taken by the experts. I think that I have now made it equally clear that I do not intend to juggle any figures to build my case for retention of capital punishment.
The debate on the pros and cons of capital punishment has raged for many years in Canada. Running parallel to this debate I have noticed a strange sort of pattern develop in our society, fed by the tedious arguments of social workers and do-gooders of every conceivable stripe. These people are first on the scene when a person is charged with a serious crime such as a violent assault, and especially a brutal murder. They are there before the innocent victim has even had a decent burial and before the accused can be brought to trial.
We are told, first of all, that the accused is not to blame for the crime: society is to blame, and the accused murderer is just as much the victim as the person who was murdered. While I do not intend to employ figures to support my position as a retentionist, I will say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter of record that the average murderer gets more attention, more sympathy and more assistance than either the victim or the family of the victim. There are all kinds of people who are standing by today to run to the defence of anyone charged with murder or any other violent crime.
Next we are told, if it happens to be a crime for which the death penalty is prescribed on conviction, that the death penalty is barbaric and inhumane. In support of this argument we are told that the death penalty has been abolished in Great Britain, Pango-Pango and any other place that happens to come to mind. We are told the death penalty is out and the only civilized method of punishment is a long prison sentence.
What happens when a long prison sentence is imposed on anyone convicted of murder? We hear that this, too, is inhumane. The idea of keeping a human being caged-up for
Capital Punishment
10, 20 or 30 years sends these social workers and a couple of cabinet ministers across the way into a frenzy. How can a modern, civilized society be so barbaric as to even consider caging up human beings as though they were animals in a zoo, they ask? So we have things like weekend passes, supervised and unsupervised leave, time off for good behaviour and, of course, early parole.
What happened to the poor victim, Mr. Speaker? He, or she, has been conveniently buried, and just as conveniently forgotten. We have a new victim to consider-the poor, misguided victim of society. We must all rush to the defence of this victim and we must ensure that no harm shall come to this unfortunate and misguided individual. When I think of the way these people so callously dispose of the victims of crime in their haste to rush to the defence of the criminal, I want to go into a quiet corner and bring up. I also get pretty angry, Mr. Speaker.
It takes a really twisted mind to regard the victim of a premeditated murder as simply a figure in a tally book. It takes an unusual mind to regard the murderer as someone who deserves, and even demands, the sympathy and indulgence of the very society upon whom he or she is preying. I disagree in the strongest terms that we demean our society when we take the life of a convicted murderer. I think, instead, that we demean society and ourselves as legislators when we refuse to take whatever action is necessary to protect the lives and property of law-abiding citizens of our country.
Social workers and do-gooders can afford the luxury of misdirected sympathies and concerns. If other crimes are committed, or if society suffers further misadventures when its theories backfire, then it does not really matter: it is back to the drawing-board. These experts on social conduct hold themselves to be above rebuke and censure. They hold themselves to be unaccountable-and they have at least two champions of their cause over there on the government benches.
I say to the Minister of Justice and to the Solicitor General that their responsibility is not to the bleeding hearts, to the innovative, misguided social workers and the other assorted do-gooders in our society. Their responsibility is not to the well-being or the comfort of those convicted of violent crime; it is to millions of law-abiding Canadians, people who must wonder at times whether there is anyone on their side. I strongly urge those two ministers to consider resigning if they cannot take their responsibilities seriously because of preconceived notions about capital punishment.
Unfortunately for the two ministers, they cannot afford the luxury of playing around with innovative social experiments. They cannot afford the luxury of showing how civilized they can be by turning dangerous criminals out on the streets just to see if they will commit more crimes and then bring them back to coddle them some more. I am not a retentionist because I want to see the state take the life of criminals; I am a retentionist because I have seen this government's stupid and senseless experiments in prison reform fail utterly over and over again.
Like the vast majority of Canadians, I am fed up with a system that allows, and even encourages, the criminal

May 10, 1976
Capital Punishment
element in our society to hold law-abiding citizens at ransom. I might say that I am a retentionist for the very same reason that the two ministers across the floor are abolitionists. They say there are no figures or data to support the view that capital punishment would be a deterrent to murder. I could say that I am a retentionist because there is no real evidence to support the view that it would not be a deterrent. I support the theory that the very real fear of having to forfeit one's own life if convicted of murder would deter at least some murders, and longer mandatory prison sentences might reduce the numbers of other types of violent crime.
The real problem facing us is not whether the longer prison sentences proposed in this legislation would prove to be a workable alternative to the death penalty. The problem will be the same one that has plagued us for the past ten years, the failure of this government to carry out the will of parliament. I believe it was in 1967 that parliament adopted the present law regarding capital punishment. It was a compromise solution, partial abolition, and the compromise was proposed by the government of that day, essentially the same one that we have today.
We know now, and we have known for a very long time, that the government had no intention of abiding by the compromise legislation adopted by parliament in 1967 or in 1973. The present law calls for the death penalty for convicted murderers of policemen and prison guards where the court does not recommend clemency. All of us know that although there have been more than a score of convictions for such murders since that time, not one death penalty has been carried out; they have all been commuted by the cabinet-and those awaiting execution at the present time can be assured that their sentences will also be commuted.
Those of us who are retentionists-and we are by far the majority, according to all the polls on the subject do not trust this government to carry out the law with respect to longer mandatory prison sentences in place of the death penalty. I am sure that most, if not all, of us could be swayed in favour of at least ensuring that convicted murderers and other violent criminals would be prevented from endangering law-abiding citizens. Before I would accept this solution in place of the death penalty, I would have to have to have that assurance, Mr. Speaker, and I simply cannot place that kind of trust in this government. We have already found in this and many other areas that the government, on the floor of this House, cannot be trusted to honour a commitment.
A couple of weeks ago the legislature of the state of Maine abolished the death penalty in that state and substituted a mandatory prison sentence. While that may sound just like the kind of solution that the government proposes in this legislation, there are some differences in the Maine legislation that might just make it work. For one thing, they have removed most of the discretionary powers of the parole board with respect to convicted murderers. The sentence has to be served. That is the one aspect of their legislation that gives it a chance of being an acceptable alternative to the death penalty. For instance, a person serving a 25-year term for premeditated or capital murder must serve the time without possibility of parole. The only time that can be commuted is that earned for

good behaviour. That is certainly a more sensible and reasonable way to handle the problem than the one we have had for the past several years where convicted rape murderers, for instance, have been given passes from prison to go out and commit more rape murders.
In the legislation we are debating here, Mr. Speaker, there is still discretionary power in the hands of the Parole Board to decrease the sentence of convicted murderers, people who have committed deliberate, premeditated, heinous murders. This is not a deterrent and it is not an acceptable alternative. When you are dealing with today's enlightened social reformers, you just cannot win. It seems that they are winning their fight to abolish the death penalty, so one would naturally assume that they are prepared to settle for longer mandatory prison sentences with little or no possibility of parole. Not so, Mr. Speaker. They have a new angle, one that makes most reasonable people wonder just who, or what, these people are for.
We are now told that if we impose longer prison terms than the usual 20 years to life, where convicted murderers are back on the street again after a couple of years on weekend or day passes, it would be difficult to rehabilitate them. Right now, I believe the average time spent behind bars for murder is about seven years. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, there are the customary passes that are handed out holus-bolus to prisoners who have the ear of the Parole Board, and there is the provision for early parole. In fact, it is doubtful that violent criminals are treated more gently anywhere else in the world than they are in Canada.
It is strange that while the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General are telling us that punishment is not a deterrent to crime, our Department of External Affairs cautions Canadians travelling abroad that most countries mean what they say when they sentence people to prison terms for smuggling, drug offences and the like. They caution our young people to avoid getting involved in criminal activities while they are in such places as Mexico, the Middle East and countries where the laws are stricter than our own for these offences. The plain fact of the matter is that there is a deterrent effect in imposing severe penalties for severe crimes.
Canadians who have run afoul of the police and the courts in Israel, the Arab countries, and other places where Canadians are serving prison sentences, know that there is a deterrent value in these stiff sentences. There are numerous examples of these people warning other young people who travel the world in search of fun, or whatever, to avoid getting into trouble in countries where severe penalties are imposed for drug-related crimes and other offences. Any thinking person would certainly deduce from that that there is certainly a deterrent value in imposing a sentence that fits the crimes. I certainly do not propose to exact the death penalty for drug-related offences in Canada as they have in Iran and Iraq, but it has had a dramatic effect in controlling drug trafficking in those countries.
To get back for a moment to rehabilitation of prisoners in our penitentiaries, I do not consider that to be the number one priority. What I would consider a high priority is the rehabilitation of as many law-abiding citizens as we possibly can, and I am thinking mainly of the hundreds of
May 10, 1976

thousands of people who would be almost immediately rehabilitated if they could only find a job. This is where I would place the emphasis and, as I have said many times, my sympathies are with the law-abiding and the innocent victims of crime. When they are looked after I will consider looking after the interests and the rehabilitation of those who have been convicted of anti-social behaviour.
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General apparently tried to beef up his case for abolition by commissioning Ezzat Fattah, chairman of the department of criminology at Simon Fraser University, to conduct a study of public attitudes on capital punishment. While Fattah and the Solicitor General call it a study, it is anything but an objective study. It is, in fact, a prejudiced, slanted, selective presentation summing up the views not of the public but of Fattah and the Solicitor General.
Fattah states categorically that public opinion polls on capital punishment are not true indications of public sentiment. He goes on to say that the people who supported a return to capital punishment in the polls were generally right-wing bigots, usually from the older age groups, insecure, socially maladjusted, ignorant, uneducated and ethnocentric. Fattah says people themselves are not competent to decide whether or not capital punishment should be restored and that the small group of enlightened men and women in parliament should make this decision. I am not sure I could take this as a compliment. When I consider how poor Fattah's judgment is with respect to the Canadian people, I cannot place much faith in his judgment of parliamentarians. Oddly enough, Fattah seems totally unaware of the fact that the majority of members of parliament in 1967 and 1973 favoured, and today favour, a return to the noose.
The Solicitor General deceived us when he failed to tell the House that he had commissioned Fattah to write a biased report that purported to show public support for abolition. Rather than helping the Solicitor General's case, this report has had the opposite effect. Fattah had many of us fooled when he sent an abridged version of his report to the newspapers and passed it off as simply a letter from an interested observer of the capital punishment controversy. He destroyed any credibility he might once have had by making himself party to a deliberate deception. I think the Solicitor General should make a clean break from the report and from its author, Ezzat Fattah. He should admit that it was a serious mistake to try to pass off this report as an objective analysis of public opinion, and admit that it was in fact a sham and a fraud.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have not changed my views with respect to the necessity for retaining capital punishment and I was not impressed by the Solicitor General's speech at the opening of this debate. I am a retentionist because I feel it is time for us to decide once and for all whether we are going to use all the weapons in our arsenal in an all-out fight against violent crime, or whether we will continue to give the advantage to the criminals. I do not trust the government to honour any agreement to keep convicted murderers behind bars for a minimum term; so I must opt for the one method which will ensure pubic safety and which will serve notice on criminals that we have run out of patience.
Capital Punishment
In recent weeks I have received innumerable letters from constituents, the majority asking-indeed demanding-the return of capital punishment. I do not know the exact proportion in favour of a return to capital punishment, but I think at least ten favour a return for every one who does not. A good many people go so far as to say that all first degree murder should be punished by capital punishment. Some feel more strongly than I do on the subject.
I think that we should consider a more humane way than hanging of dispatching the murderer. I think others have read in Hansard the sort of questions which were submitted by the metropolitan Toronto police association on the subject of capital punishment. The association asked this question, among others; "Are you opposed to capital punishment because of the method of execution used (hanging)?" Hanging, of course, is a gruesome way of getting rid of the murderer. The public response was, 9,954 opposed; but 44,258 definitely wanted to retain hanging.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make a long speech at this time. Briefly, I want to make two points in answer to some of the contentions made by other hon. members of this House and raised in the debate. While I have served in two previous parliaments, this will be the first time I shall be called on to vote on this question.
Every elected member of a legislature, Mr. Speaker, has to answer to his or her conscience on the basic question of whether to lead or reflect public opinion. Many hon. members who have spoken in this debate-as nearly as I can tell, every one of them an abolitionist-cited Edmund Burke of a century and a half ago to the effect that it would be a matter of an individual member's conscience how he or she voted on an issue after being elected. With all due respect, I cannot accept this position in regard to capital punishment.
Over a number of years I have serious reservations about the effect of capital punishment and have never been persuaded that it is an effective deterrent. The long, statistical arguments, many of which have been reproduced, including some raised by the minister in introducing this debate, have to me been inconclusive. It seems to me that the increase or decrease of crime and violence is more related to fundamental social and economic conditions in the community than it is to absence or presence of capital punishment.
I do believe, however, that an elected representative must lead on occasion and also reflect public opinion on other occasions. Since the days of Edmund Burke, many things have changed. The electorate is much more literate, for better or for worse. Many more people follow public events and are better informed. Public opinion is now capable of being analysed and measured through the device of polling techniques. To say that the job of an elected representative is to pay no attention to public opinion, but simply to act according to his or her conscience will not, in my opinion, be good enough in this situation.
To me, sir, it is a basic principle that laws must be enacted with the consent of the governed. A law that is not
13354	COMMONS DEBATES	_______________May 10, 1976
Capital Punishment
accepted by the overwhelming majority of people to whom it must apply is not a good law. A law that is enacted to represent minority opinion, in the face of a contrary, majority public opinion, will not be respected. It will bring the entire law-making process itself into disrepute.
As a boy in the Ottawa Valley, I can remember the arguments of the prohibitionists against the use of alcohol. I can remember, also, the extent to which the law was violated, and the countless times reputable citizens in the community indicated their complete disrespect and contempt for the law. Eventually, despite the very convincing arguments of the dedicated people who were committed to the abolition of the use of alcohol, the law had to be changed. The law had to reflect the customs, attitudes and mores of the people to whom it applied.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me as the representative for Ottawa West conducted a poll and received the same kind of result that I did when I conducted a poll on this subject. In short, about 73 per cent of the 15 per cent of all households which responded in Ottawa West to a questionnaire distributed on postmen's walks were in favour of capital punishment for some situations involving, particularly, brutal and callous murder. The hon. gentleman who preceded me in office, when he faced this kind of result, said he did not care what the public thought and he would vote according to his conscience. I criticized him and said he could not, and should not, do that. I accept the consequences of the criticism I directed against him at that time when I now face, in this House, the responsibility of voting. All the evidence which I have seen from Gallup polls or any other source indicates that the majority of people in our society favour capital punishment being limited to extreme cases.
There are those who say contemptuously that an elected representative is not a mere opinion poll-taker, not a mere automatic reflection of measured public opinion. This goes without saying; there is no argument about it. But it is a long way to go from that position to the extreme argument that public opinion itself can be disregarded.
I have consulted my voters on a few basic issues of conscience-on gun control, on abortion and on capital punishment. I do not propose to consult them on day-today items of legislation because it is practically impossible to do so. It seems to me, however, that the consultation process should be applied on basic moral questions in the community, and legislators have to give careful attention to the results of this consultation process.
The second point I want to make in this debate is that I cannot accept the mandatory 25-year minimum term without hope of parole for those convicted of class one murder. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I think that the distinction between class one and class two murder is a desirable feature of the bill. I do not believe, however, that it serves the interests of rehabilitation or of developing within prison institutions the atmosphere in which rehabilitation of other prisoners is possible if we stick to these long, minimum terms. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think that the 25-year sentence was designed to make abolition palatable and acceptable to the community. Abolition, it is argued, yes; but let us make sure that people who are particularly

brutal and callous in murder are never let loose again to inflict injury on anybody else.
I find it very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to cite a study by Dr. John Huberman, a consulting psychologist. I know that authorities can be cited either one way or the other, but Dr. Huberman says quite frankly that those who have committed two or more murders are not likely to be cured; that those who have committed particularly bad crimes of violence are not likely, within the confines of the prison system, to be changed in fundamentals. If I may quote him, he says this:
I consider totally inappropriate the government-sponsored alternative of giving murderers a "real" life sentence.
Then he says:
Let us remember that so-called maximum security institutions are not "totally secure". We get almost daily reports of escapes of dangerous criminals.
And again:
While psychiatry and psychology have discovered means to change certain human behaviour, no methods have been discovered so far to cure murderous tendencies, short of brain operations or drugs which would turn the individual into a "safe vegetable".
This would seem more inhumane and degrading than death itself when administered under painless circumstances; as would seem to most of us spending our remaining total life in a penitentiary with its concomitant deprivation of friends, sex and a useful contribution to humanity.
I am even more worried about what happens in an institution when a number of long-term prisoners are incarcerated in it. It seems to me that they brutalize the whole institution itself. They brutalize other prisoners and enforce their own code of conduct upon the institution. They brutalize the guards. They brutalize the correction officers. They make the institution itself the kind of place which condemns not only the long-term prisoners who have nothing to lose but many other people who unfortunately are incarcerated in the same institution and suffer penalties that go above and beyond their ordinary prison sentences.
I should like to refer to another study I found interesting, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of March 11 of this year. Dr. Elliott Barker, developer of Ontario's treatment program for the criminally insane, and his associate, Dr. Henry Boyd, medical director of the centre, say they are opposed to capital punishment but that the death penalty is a lesser evil than mandatory sentences of up to 25 years, as proposed by the federal government. The report continues:
Forcing killers to remain in the prison subculture with no hope of parole will doom chances for rehabilitation, the two psychiatrists said in an interview. Such a move will also introduce an element which threatens all work done to date in criminal rehabilitation.
Under the present penal system, a killer sentenced to 15 years who is treated and found safe may be returned to society after five years.
"But if he knows he's going to be in for 15 or 20 years you cannot treat him," Dr. Barker said.
For these two reasons, Mr. Speaker, because I think that majority opinion is so clear and so uncompromising on the subject, and also because I cannot accept the principle of mandatory, long-term sentences without hope of parole, I am compelled to vote against this bill.
I should like to make one other short observation. The method of execution by hanging is barbaric and should be
May 10, 1976

replaced by something more humane. There are those who say that there are no humane ways of killing people, and perhaps this is true. But, again, public opinion seems to demand that hanging be replaced by something else, possibly the electric chair or the gas chamber. If this bill does fail to carry, I hope the government will immediately examine alternative means of carrying out capital punishment for a very small proportion of murderers, those responsible for perhaps 1 or 2 per cent of the murders currently committed in Canada.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, may I commence by saying that I find a lot of wisdom in the remarks of the speaker who preceded me, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). Since the bill has not yet passed third reading, we do not know at this moment whether or not there will be abolition of the death penalty in Canada. Nevertheless, I think we have to conclude that hanging is not the right method of execution, if execution be the result of the vote in the House. I do not think it takes any wisdom at all to realize that if the people who collect dogs in our streets were to hang them in the dog pound, the SPCA would soon be after them. So, obviously, hanging is not the proper method to use. I am not a happy hanger, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I think this issue can be examined from many different perspectives. We can examine statistics and various data, but I think it should be put on record in this debate that most of the data we are given are irrelevant. Such information it is meaningless in that it bears no relationship to this particular issue.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) brought forth a lot of statistical analyses dealing with capital punishment, but I would underscore the fact that such data are unimportant except if they can demonstrate valid correlation. When doing experiments or conducting research work, one soon comes to realize that data become meaningful only when the two given factors of comparison remain the same or one of them is controlled. If dependent or independent variables are controlled, you can get meaningful data. I think that the only meaningful data that are important are that the murder rate has doubled in the last decade and that there has been an increase in violent crime in this country. Those two facts are meaningful to me.
I think we must examine the way to handle this particular issue, Mr. Speaker. I take a view that is somewhat different from those I have heard speak on this subject previously. I believe that we live in the context of a cultural system in society. We do not find an individual cultural system defined in our law books, and often it is not very clearly defined at all. For example, in Egypt we know people stand much closer together when in social conversation than they do in North American countries. In Greece and Italy people practice a lot of touching, whereas we tend to be much more distant in our culture. Under our cultural system in North America we practice the concept of behaviour, punishment and reward. From its abolitionist position it appears that the government has looked at behaviour in society and said that it does not like what is happening, but it is focusing entirely upon the issue of capital punishment.
I, too, do not feel happy about people killing one another, Mr. Speaker. Whether the practices of the last 5,000 years have been right or wrong, I feel that society is focusing
Capital Punishment
more on punishment and is not doing nearly enough to focus on the behaviour of human beings, both individually and collectively, in our society today. If we look at this bill and at the whole complex pattern of behaviour, reward and punishment, we will find that we can in fact begin to do some of those things within society's obligation to decrease the rate of crime.
Another point I should like to bring out is that many of the people who argue in favour of the abolitionist stand do so on the principle that there is a higher ethic in a society that takes this stand. I would challenge that idea. Where is the higher ethic if you legislate into law an abolitionist state at a time when the vast majority of people want to retain capital punishment? I suggest you achieve no higher ethic in this way. You achieve no higher ethic when you have people who wish to retain capital punishment and you legislate abolition because of some legal policy on capital punishment. This in no way increases the ethic in society.
The focus, then, of this whole question of capital punishment ought to be along these lines: if there is to be an abolitionist state, the government must earn the right to that state. It must consider the factors which affect the behaviour of human beings in order that we can decrease stresses in our society, and by decreasing those stresses, hopefully we can then decrease the amount of violent crime. We should follow the formula that a decrease in violent crime takes place as you increase the assurance of comfort for the people in society in order that they become more and more willing to adopt a position of abolition.
Just to list some of the approaches we could be taking, to focus not on the punishment end of the question but on the behavioural end, something ought to be done about violent shows on television, something ought to be done about violence in sports, and some action obviously needs to be taken in relation to our child abuse laws. We must focus more attention on proper nutrition in this country. We can demonstrate much more clearly than in respect of other data put forward that many violent crimes take place because of poor nutrition. Something has to be done to ensure that Canadians have a proper diet.
We must do something about the state of the economy. I will come back later to some data in that regard. This government can certainly take the blame for increased violent crime in this country as a result of the way it has messed up our economy. We can see a correlation between an increase in crime and a slump in the economy. We can also see a correlation between an increase in crime and lack of work-and the government's record in this regard is not very good. It can also be pointed out that there is an effect as a result of architectural design, the design of our cities and an increase in noise levels. These all have an effect on society and they all tend to lead to an increase in violent crime. We can talk about the policies of the government as they relate to drugs and alcohol, and the list goes on and on.
Children today, as they grow up in Canadian society, have in many ways been deprived of the notion of creative play. What happens in our society today is that every child is organized. He is not only organized but is organized to
13356

May 10, 1976
Capital Punishment
compete. In hockey, football and baseball games today we have all the children competing and trying to win, pitting one against the other and against the other kids who cannot play. We have lost the situation in which we have creative play. I simply suggest that is another factor that adds to the stress level, and the stress level is the background to many of the dangerous situations we have today.
Let us look at some of these factors as they relate to the suggestion that we pay more attention to behaviour than to the punishment factor. We have the researchers Braginsky and Braginsky who have pointed out as follows:
Jobless men feel small, and talk the language of insignificance. Even if a new job patches up self-esteem, they still hurt from a gut-level cynicism about society.
The article goes on at quite some length and points out that those who are at the lower edge of the economic bracket, and those in a jobless state, suffer considerably more stress and also have a higher ratio of crime and violent crime. I simply point out that the record of our government has not been strong at all in terms of looking after the economy in order to provide meaningful employment for people. If this government took the view that it should focus more on the factors that affect behaviour, and paid less attention to other things, it would perhaps not have to focus so much attention on the question of the nature of punishment. We can review this whole situation again from the point of view of economic worry. Another article by Berkeley Rice points out:
Not surprisingly, economic fear builds a boom in mental illness, alcoholism and suicide. The news is that government planners don't worry enough about the psychic and medical cost of recession.
In this regard we find that whenever we have economic slumps or a lack of meaningful employment, or when we have high rates of inflation, the government has to take a good portion of the blame for the increase in violence that coincidentally takes place in society. That, too, is one of the factors we ought to be looking at in terms of decreasing violent crime.
The position that we have a formula involving behaviour, reward and punishment with an increase in violent crime in society, and therefore that we should focus on the punishment situation, is a completely misunderstood concept. I would suggest, again, that any government which wants to be an abolitionist government must earn that right. Obviously, the cultural system we live in that places punishment itself in relation to the shaping of behaviour is lost on a public which will never accept that until the government has earned the right through creating a state of real peace and security in our Canadian society. Another article points out the following:
When the University of Michigan's research center for group dynamics interviewed 2,000 men, they found that the traditional killers of the industrial revolution-long hours, heavy workloads, and pressing responsibilities-now produce less anxiety, stress, and physical illness than do seemingly easier work conditions.
What this really points out is simply that those who have boring jobs have a much higher rate or level of mental and physical stress. Let us look at some other aspects to which the government has failed to apply itself in terms of putting its focus on the entire area of behaviour, reward and punishment pattern as a total package rather than just focusing on the capital punishment question. Let us con-

sider television and its effect on the over-all behaviour pattern of our children.
It has long been recognized that this was a potential danger, and in recent years studies in this area have clearly indicated that violent television programs have in fact caused children to play in a more aggressive manner. The play patterns of children, in turn, effect both the skills and attitudes of the adult organism as it develops from childhood. The great French researcher, Piaget, notes that play helps the child to assimilate the world and shapes his concept of reality. In this way we find that a child's play pattern is developed and influenced by television, and as that child grows this becomes his perspective of reality and what the world in which he lives is like. Likewise, the French primatologist, Jean Claude Fady, has demonstrated the direct correlation between play and reasoned attitudes in serious behaviour. Again, Kathy Sylva and Paul Genova, at Harvard University, have very closely linked children's play patterns to the acquisition of skills and problem solving abilities. I simply put this forward because it has been clearly demonstrated that television plays a very important role in how children develop their subsequent attitudes toward adult society and life.
It is important to note here that when we are talking about violence in our society we are not simply talking about the question of whether we should have capital punishment. I suggest it may not make an iota of difference, whether or not we have capital punishment, to our rate of violence; but I believe it is important that this House should begin to recognize that if we are to have a parliamentary system that listens at all to its constituents, and if we are to recognize the mood of the nation as such and understand its demands, we must do certain things before we begin to talk about this being an abolitionist state.
To those who take the position that they can act irrespective of the views of their constituents, I simply ask: What are constituents for, if they are not to be listened to? In spite of the fact that we have the understanding and ability to provide the stimuli that would enhance a generation of free and creative children, we are content to marinate their young minds in a never-ending sea of violence. That violence, in turn, stimulates play patterns that are aggressive. How can we help but have a violent society when many of our building blocks are cemented together with a violent language and a violent art? I suggest it is the character of North America that we have a violent background to our cultural structure. In Psychology Today for April, 1976, in an article entitled "The Scarey World of TV's Heavy Viewer", researchers Gerbner and Gross made the following statement:
We have found that people who watch a lot of TV see the real world as more dangerous and frightening than those who watch very little. Heavy viewers are less trustful of their fellow citizens and more fearful of the real world.
I think that bears some review in respect of what is happening in society today. Again, in another research article they say they have demonstrated that the heavy viewing of television does influence the viewer's perception of the world and the common distortions of television become perceived as reality by the viewer. It has been
May 10,1976

noted by researchers that those who are heavy viewers of TV have a corresponding false conception about the role of women, the ratio of professionals to labour, and threat versus safety in society. When we consider that 250,000 adult people have written to Marcus Welby for medical advice, surely we must ponder on the degree that television distorts reality for our children and young people who watch television programming. Because I think this is a very important piece of data to share with members of this House, perhaps I might quote the following:
More than half of all characters on prime time TV are involved in some violence, about one-tenth in killing. To control this mayhem, the forces of law and order dominate prime time. Among those TV males with identifiable occupations, about 20 per cent are engaged in law enforcement. In the real world, the proportion runs less than one per cent. Heavy viewers of television were 18 per cent more likely than light viewers to overestimate the number of males employed in law enforcement, regardless of age, sex, education or reading habits.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit that if in prime time viewing one half of all the characters are involved in some form of violence, surely the government does not have the right or privilege at this time to be talking about reward or punishment relating to violence in our society but, rather, should be doing something about the very factors which shape the behaviour of human beings whether they be nutrition, the state of the economy or child abuse. In other words, the government should be dealing with television in some meaningful way and should be dealing with the question of housing and architecture, because all aspects of these things show that in those areas where they are poorly planned and organized or structured, the stress levels on humans increases. It is not without surprise that we learn that the murder rate in apartments is far higher than it is in individual dwelling homes.
When we begin to study something about the effect or crowding and what this does to stresses in people, we begin to recognize that all we have to do with rats is to put too many in a cage and they begin to take on violent reactions one to another. They will even go to the extreme of eating one another, which is not normal behaviour for a Norwegian rat or a white rat. Yet when there is overcrowding this happens. That certainly must be part of the perspective of why we have per 100,000 people such an increase in the violent crime rate as we go from the small rural communities to the larger cities in this country.
So I would say that on the whole question of whether or not we should have an abolitionist state, my position simply is that this is a condition that the government must earn. It is a position one earns by not focusing first on the question of what punishment. We have derived a society from 5,000 years or more which believes that punishment and behaviour are factors related together in a cultural context. Without the government first having done those things that give a sense of true peace and security-not just the words in Bill C-83 or in Bill C-84, but an earned sense of peace and security to the populace of this nation then it has no business forcing a new moral structure on Canadians.
To continue with some of the comments on violence in television, I would point out that violence on television leads viewers to perceive the real world as more dangerous than it really is. That, in turn, has shifted the thinking of children into the belief that as they gear up for adult life,
Private Members' Motions
they must in fact be prepared for violence. It is also a cultural orientation, largely because of television, that in our society it is manly to be violent; that one of the characteristics in respect of a boy proving manhood is that he be able to react and respond in an aggressive and physical manner.
The heavy viewers were 30 per cent more likely than light viewers to pick such fearful estimates as it is 50 or 100 times more likely that there would be threat of death to them than there was for those who were lighter viewers of television. I think that points out some pretty interesting data from some studies, which should give us some perspective concerning whether or not the government has earned the right to bring in capital punishment or an abolitionist state at this time.
I intend to vote against Bill C-84 because I think it is a case of ordering priorities. It is not a case of whether or not one should be an abolitionist. It is a case that the whole nation, if that is the right position, will come to that conclusion when the people have felt there is a real and true sense of peace and security in this society. The nation will come to that view when we do those 50 to 100 things governments at all levels ought to be doing which make for a more peaceful and contented society.
Mr. Speaker, I have further comments I would like to make in this discussion. However, I note that it is five o'clock. Perhaps we are at a good breaking point when I might call it five o'clock, and I will resume at 8 p.m.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Transport-Date of report of task force review of search and rescue operations; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-External Affairs- Possibility ratification of non-proliferation treaty being requirement prior to sale of nuclear reactors.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to order made on Friday, February 27, 1976, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall motion No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) stand?
95 5 68-12 Vi

May 10, 1976
Private Members' Motions


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government. Notice of motion No. 15, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan); shall the motion stand?


An hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I believe there is agreement, through the usual channels, that today we will deal with motion No. 13.


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


Mr. Herbert:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The item just referred to by the parliamentary secretary is the twelfth item on the order paper. I note that the eleven preceding items have been allowed to stand at the request of the government. I note, also, that there is a total of 63 items under private members' notices of motions that have been placed on the order paper since the start of this session.
Of the 11 items that have been allowed to stand, four date back to the start of this session on October 10, 1974, and another five are also dated 1974. The other two are dated January, 1975. As a result of some efforts I made earlier in this session to get some order into this chaos of private member's hour, we were supposed to receive notice of business that was coming before us. Now this reaches us about the middle of the week, on Wednesday or Thursday, by which time we have had two private members' hours.
In order for us to have any idea of what business is going on, I think we should revert to the original procedure when an improper argument, or no argument, is presented as to why an item should be left on the order paper. I can understand it under certain circumstances such as the absence or the illness of an hon. member, or other good reasons. But when items remain on the order paper, as they have, for almost two years, I suggest there is something wrong with our procedures. Could we not have some assurance that the government will explain to us why it is willing to pass over business in this fashion?
While I am on my feet, may I say that I intend to rise tomorrow on the matter of public bills, because so many public bills have been passed over, including three bills of mine, and nobody took the trouble to call me.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame on you guys.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Obviously, the procedure is not working satisfactorily and I think there should be an explanation from the government as to why we are following the order in this fashion, so that we can have some idea of what we are doing here during private members' hour.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay proceedings on this order of business that has been agreed upon. I should like to indicate to the hon. member that if he has complaints about the way that these matters are being
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
dealt with, I wish he would advise me prior to making his comments.
The procedures are dealt with in the usual way. The notices are dealt with in the ordinary sequence. We accommodate as many private members as we possibly can. As the hon. member has pointed out, evidently there are members who cannot be here when a matter is to be disposed of, and therefore the item is stood with the consent of all parties, so that not only hon. members but the departments are made aware of the matters that will be debated.
This is the first complaint I have had relating to any of the matters that have been disposed of during private members' business. I should like to point out to the hon. member that we are now operating under a special House order which permitted the reinstatement of an item in private members' hour, nowithstanding the fact that under the rules the item would have expired as a result of the length of this particular session. At that time there had been no complaints relating to the way in which we were disposing of these items. Neither have I received complaints from hon. members opposite. As was indicated to me by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), that is one of the more efficient procedures that we have at present.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is he?


Jean-Jacques Blais: I have listened to the hon. gentleman. I was not aware that he had been bypassed on any of the matters that he wanted to have debated in the House. If he has a matter that precedes any of the items that have been debated, and he has not been consulted, then surely there is something wrong and I undertake to look into it very seriously. However, I wish to point out to him that we are all private members attempting to dispose of as much business as we possibly can, and we hope we are dealing with these matters with complete fairness.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out, Mr. Speaker-whatever validity the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) may have with respect to his position-that a week ago today this very item was called. It was then 5.30 p.m.-we had taken some time to vote on an aspect of a certain iniquitous matter-and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) requested that the matter be stood over until the next time and that it retain its position. There could be a nice legal argument as to what position was to be retained, but it was certainly understood that the next time there was private members' hour this motion would have priority and would be called. As I say, the hon. member has an argument with respect to the general matter of private members' business, but it seems to me that today is a special case.
It is not often that I answer for the government and appear to be an advocate for the hon. member for Yukon, but I think we should proceed as indicated.


Erik Nielsen: Certainly, what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just said can be found on page 13087 of Hansard, which is tantamount to a House order that we would be on this subject today.
May 10, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I should like to point out to the hon. member that I will take his point of order under advisement. I should also like to point out that on May 3, as recorded at page 13087 of Hansard, the following exchange took place:


Mr. Speaker:: The immediate difficulty with that is that tomorrow is an opposition day. I take it the intention is that it be on the next appointed day.
The House has heard the terms suggested by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Is it agreed that motion which would ordinarily be called at this time will be put over and will retain its priority until the next appointed private members' hour, and in the interim the Chair will prepare whatever ruling was anticipated. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I can only assume that I did not properly convey my feelings in this matter. I am not objecting to the business being called before the House today. I am objecting to the fact that 11 items of business, nine of which date back to 1974, and two to January, 1975, are allowed to remain on the order paper. I am not objecting to today's business.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I do not believe the government should have the right to dictate what takes place in private members' hours. That is the right of the private member. If private members choose not to have their business come forward, that is their right. I do not believe the government should impose on the House of Commons what is to be taken up in private members' hours, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nielsen:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately introduce legislation to implement the resolutions of the Yukon Territorial Council and the Northwest Territorial Council requesting that the government apply those principles of constitutional and democratic development that will establish a fully representative and responsible system of government to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories respectively.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. When notice of motion No. 13 was being considered last February 3, 1975, the Chair expressed reservations about the procedural acceptability of a proposed amendment by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) which reads as follows:
That the subject matter of motion No. 13 be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for further study and that the committee be authorized to travel to the Yukon and Northwest Territories to hear witnesses.
Hon. members will recall that at that time the Chair took this proposed amendment under advisement. The Chair would like to point out to hon. members the provisions of the Standing Order 46 which are as follows:
The Territories
When a question is under debate, no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; to continue or extend a sitting of the House, or for the adjournment of the House.
In my opinion, the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie does not seek to achieve any of those objectives. It raises a new question not contemplated in the notice of motion of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and it seeks to increase the powers of a committee beyond those set forth in Standing Order 65(8) by allowing the committee to travel. It must be stressed that when a committee wishes its powers to be increased, it must seek that authority from the House itself through a report which requires notice of 48 hours. The same rule also applies to members of the House. In short, the hon. member is raising by way of an amendment a substantive motion which requires a different notice.
I should also like to draw the attention of the House to citation 203(5) in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads:
An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
For these reasons, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment and therefore cannot put it before the House. The hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. If the hon. member speaks now, I should point out to hon. members that he will close the debate.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Who will close the debate?


Erik Nielsen: The last time this matter was debated-


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Speaker, you have said that if the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) took the floor, he would close the debate on this motion. Are we debating today a new motion or is it the debate of February 3, 1975 that is resumed?


An hon. Member:: Yes, we are going on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding that we are resuming debate on motion No. 13.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order. It was my error that I was not listening to your comments at the time. Was there some indication that the hon. member had already begun, or had made initial remarks on this motion?


Erik Nielsen: It is in Hansard for February 3, 1975.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Yukon moved the motion. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mrs. Campagnolo) had the floor on February 3.

May 10, 1976
The Territories


Iona Campagnolo: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I must admit that this is a rather long speech because it appears to have gone on for a year and a half. However, I appreciate very much your recognizing me today so that we can once again discuss the matter of the Yukon provincial status.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where this hour has gone. So far there have been fifteen minutes spent on points of order raised by hon. members opposite. I am sure hon. members would like to see the motion disposed of. From the debate of February 3, 1975, I was under the impression-and far be it from me at any time to want to curtail the hon. lady-that she had concluded. She did not call it six o'clock on that day, and I suggest that if someone other than myself is to be recognized-and I thought I had been recognized-the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) feels pretty strongly about speaking and wants to speak. However, I really think the hon. lady had perhaps exhausted and completed her remarks last year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding that the parliamentary secretary has three minutes left in her speech.


Iona Campagnolo: I greatly appreciate the fact that the Chair has allowed me my three minutes after a delay of a year and a half, so I will be quite happy to compose myself for a three-minute speech on the matter of provincial status as proposed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). In view of the fact that such a great deal of water has gone under the bridge since our previous discussion, I think at this time it might be fair to reiterate the motion itself. The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately introduce legislation to implement the resolutions of the Yukon Territorial Council and the Northwest Territorial Council requesting that the government apply those principles of constitutional and democratic development that will establish a fully representative and responsible system of government to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories respectively.
As a matter of fact, in the intervening time we have found that indeed there has been progress made in the two territories of Canada. We have indeed seen changes in the administration which indicate that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are progressing down the road to self-realization at a rather rapid rate.


Erik Nielsen: Down the tube.


Iona Campagnolo: I did not hear the hon. member. In any event, I should like to bring to the attention of my hon. colleagues the fact that Bill C-51, the Northwest Territories Representation Act, was enacted by parliament on March 13, 1975, to be precise. This bill amended the British North America Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to provide a second seat in the House of Commons for the Northwest Territories. This is another indication of the progress which has been made in the recognition of the two northern territories. It also provided for the establishment of a boundaries commission, as is the case in the provinces, to hold hearings and to make representations with regard to the division of the two territories into constituencies.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
I am sure I do not need to list the reasons for the second seat, as the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) on several occasions in the past pointed out the difficulties of his mandate due mainly to considerations such as the size of his constituency and the important cultural, economic and geographical differences between the western and eastern areas, not to mention the communication and transportation problems involved in the extremely large expanses of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
I am sure the last thing this government would want to be accused of would be to have gambled on the future of the Territories and to have undermined their promising potential by having proceeded too fast in pushing them forward to a new status.


Erik Nielsen: Try us.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the
time.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to resume debate on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Even though over one year have elapsed since the House dealt with this matter for the last time, the hon. member does not seem to know precisely what has been done regarding the resolutions referred to in the motion. This situation is perhaps explained in part by the fact that he cannot precisely mention those resolutions.
When the motion was put forward for the last time in the House in February 1975, the hon. member referred to motion No. 1 of the Yukon territorial council, dated January 23, 1968-as recorded on page 2851 of Hansard of February 3, 1975. However, he did not refer to other resolutions.
I dare say he might have been thinking of motion No. 40, adopted by the Yukon council in April 1966. Now, the motion of 1968 is almost indentical to motion No. 40; or perhaps was he thinking of motion No. 28, agreed to by the Yukon territorial council on March 30, 1972?


Erik Nielsen: Take either one.


Alexandre Cyr: Or perhaps he was thinking of two motions that the Yukon council passed on March 27, 1974, regarding Bill C-9? We do not know precisely to what resolutions of the Northwest territorial council the motion is referring to. And now, he has just told us to take either one. It could be the one that was passed on March 28, 1974, after the council had examined the provisions of Bill C-9 to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this aspect of the motion because I think it is important, in view of the time that has elapsed since Motion No. 13 was officially introducted the last time, that is a year ago, it is important to know, as much as possible, to which resolutions the hon. member of the opposition was thinking when he presented his motion in October 1974, with a view to examining it and give it all due attention. After my remarks, doubtless my colleague
May 10,1976

for Yukon could advise the House in this regard so that, I am quite confident we will, we can better understand the scope and effects of the proposal and, therefore, have a clearer idea of what its results will be.
May I be allowed to review the resolutions I defined, in the light of the national objective of the government for the north, and the legislation passed by Parliament and put into force by the government, in order to take stock of the progress accomplished in terms of the objectives of the proposal.
Hon. members will certainly recall that a former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who is now President of the Treasury Board had defined the government's national objectives for the north, the priorities for northern development and a plan of action for the 70's when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on March 28, 1972. The minister said this, which I quote:
The statement is not a detailed blueprint for the future, nor an attempt to cover all areas of northern policy. It is in no sense a White Paper, a "grand design" or a rigid 10-year plan. It is not an announcement of brand new policy in the North. It has been anticipated in ministerial statements on numerous occasions, in speeches in the North and at many conferences-wherever northern policy was being discussed. It is a consolidation and an explication of recent policy decisions and orientations. It is a comprehensive and coherent presentation of what the government seeks to achieve in the Northern Territories, showing how the government intends to deal with opportunities and problems arising there.
The statement presents a flexible framework of policy guidance for government plans and operations in the north-those of federal departments and agencies and both territorial governments. For the first time, the Canadian people can see clearly the nature of the government's approach to northern development and the future direction of Canada's policy in the north.
With its approach based on evolution the government indeed answered the main part of the territorial councils' resolutions to the largest extent possible. During recent years, significant changes took place in both territories. The increasing rate of oil and gas operations and the growing awareness of the natives who became interested in the role they may play in northern development, partly contributed to emphasize the value of the north. To this are added the factors related to geographical situation, population, basis of taxation, economic growth and experience in managing the territories, which all relate to the realization of the objectives of political and constitutional autonomy. The Yukon and the Northwest Territories stretch over wide expanses but harbour relatively few people.
Thus, the Yukon covers 207,076 square miles and has a population of about 20,000; the Northwest Territories cover 1,304,903 square miles and have a population of about 38,000.
Fiscal revenue is low compared with general territory expenditures and, until now, the total economic growth has been limited. For instance, Mr. Speaker, I note that in 1975-76, the fiscal revenue of the Yukon, including revenue from all sources and an income tax replacement subsidy, totalled 64.8 per cent of the global territory expenditures. In the Northwest Territories, where fiscal revenue is low compared with general expenditures, the corresponding figure was 33.5 per cent. The federal government must cover the rest of these expenditures. Following a resolution passed March 17, 1976 by the Yukon Council in favor of a
The Territories
territorial income tax, negotiations on the subject are going on between federal and territorial officials. All this emphasizes the need to act cautiously in granting political and constitutional autonomy to both territories.
However, Mr. Speaker, enormous progress has been accomplished these last few years. All the members of both territorial councils are elected by general elections. This has been the situation in the Yukon since 1908, Mr. Speaker, and in the Northwest Territories, since Bill C-8 was passed in 1974. The provisions of this bill has granted the wishes of the Yukon Council to increase to eleven the number of its members-the proposed increase was from seven to twelve-and gave the councils the right to set the number of their members in the future. An executive committee responsible for advising commissioners in their duties has been established in both territories. These committees include members of both councils, appointed and recalled by commissioners on the recommendations of the councils.
The Yukon Executive Committee was formed in 1970 while that of the Northwest Territories was formed only in 1975. I also note that both territorial councils have been authorized to set themselves the amount of their indemnities and allowances under certain amendments brought in in 1970 by the Act to amend the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act.
Mr. Speaker, under motions No. 40, 1966, No. 1, 1968 and No. 28, 1972, the Yukon asked the minister then responsible for the administration of the Yukon to increase the membership of the Council, to appoint an executive committee, to put under members of the council the administration of territorial departments, to delegate to the council jurisdiction which would allow it to establish its own indemnities and allowances, to increase to 12 the membership of the council and to assign a third member to the executive committee. These changes have been achieved within the government policy which is intended to promote the constitutional and political development of the Yukon, which I mentioned earlier.
I said also that the Yukon has been electing a council for a number of years already. Progress towards a responsible government began in 1970. The expansion of the council and the appointment of a third member to the executive committee will contribute, I am sure, to the achievement of a responsible government.
But any higher objective at this point would extrapolate on the facts in respect of the territory's financial and population situation. Fully responsible government is to all practical purpose tantamount to government of a territory with provincial status. Such government would no doubt involve resource administration, which would of necessity add to the financial burden. I have serious doubts, as certainly does the hon. member opposite, whether the Canadian government can now grant fully responsible government while retaining responsibility for Yukon's viability.
The cabinet would act in an irresponsible way if they took such a position. It is the hope of the government, and hopefully that of the Yukon people, that when territory administration becomes fully responsible, it will be selfsufficient and will not have to constantly come to Ottawa to beg for funds.

May 10, 1976
The Territories
As for the Northwest Territories' Council it gave its support to Bill C-9 in the resolution already referred to. The people in that area also look forward to the day when their administration can move up to political and constitutional self-government. But I think it is desirable to give them some time to adapt to the changes involved. I realize my hon. friend from Yukon wishes this to be accomplished during his term in Parliament. He hopes to become the first premier of the province of Yukon, but I do not believe this can be done now. The government should be in a position to closely monitor developments to ensure timely changes. The ministers will above all wish to take into account the political situation in the territories when following the practice of naming councillors to the executive committee.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, the government has demonstrated its willingness to prepare the emergence to full government responsibility by both territorial administrations. I feel, as stated in the national purposes for the Canadian north, that the transition must be made in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the inhabitants of the north. Considering the increased participation of northern natives in territorial affairs and their representations to the government, it can be concluded that those wishes and aspirations are changing. Time is necessary to consider their meaning.
Mr. Speaker, even if I somewhat took the member for Yukon to task this afternoon, I must thank him for providing to the House the opportunity of considering northern development, an issue increasingly affecting almost every Canadian. I told him that if he intends to set up his own political party in the new province of Yukon, he could suggest as Lieutenant Governor a native of the Territories.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I know that some of the hon. member's ancestors went to the Yukon during the days of the gold rush. Does he not think that by what he is saying he is causing them to turn over in their graves?


Alexandre Cyr: Yes, and they also married Indians.

Today we saw and examined the progress made in this area in recent years, and we are now aware of the need to bring in other changes. I think those changes are only a matter of time. I am also convinced that the government will bring them about just as effectively as those that have already been made.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would be remiss if I did not point out that when I was chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development we had the opportunity to visit the Yukon on a number of occasions, and even the Northwest Territories, and I must say that we received a warm welcome.
I also think that my colleague for Yukon will remember that the new leader of his party, the hon. member of Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), when we went to Inuvik, Tuk-toyaktuk and Yellowknife in August 1968, was at that time on his honeymoon trip with us.

And that was in 1968. I think it is worth recalling that trip we made with the hon. member for Rocky Mountain in the north on that occasion because he was interested in those two territories. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think that concludes my remarks on motion No. 13 now before us.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity to say a few words in this debate on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I will read the motion so that it will form part of the speech I will send to my constituents in order that they will know what remarks I have made in this House. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately introduce legislation to implement the resolutions of the Yukon Territorial Council and the Northwest Territorial Council requesting that the government apply those principles of constitutional and democratic development that will establish a fully representative and responsible system of government to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories respectively.
This is a very important motion and I am happy to see it debated here. It is time that something was done to change the situation in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. We have a colonial situation. Although we have fully elected bodies, they can be overruled by an appointed civil servant. That is an intolerable situation in this day and age.
I believe, as I am sure many other northerners believe, that we can capably look after our own affairs in both territories. Many people doubt whether we can pay our own way. If we are not doing so now, we certainly could with the utilization of the natural resources in that part of the country.
We are only asking for a democratic right that most Canadians now enjoy. What kind of government would be most suitable is a point that could be debated. Certainly it should be one that is fully responsible, with full taxation powers and so on. The argument about there not being a big enough population does not hold water.
I remind the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) of a certain visit to the north. I was happy to hear him refer to a visit to the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I remind him of what took place at Whitehorse in the Yukon on December 12, 1972. At that time the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development was travelling in the north. The hon. member will recall a motion passed by that committee, which was chaired by the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan). I am sure the hon. member for Gaspe voted in favour of that resolution calling for full responsible government for the Yukon. The hon. member now seems to speak completely against what he voted for in the Yukon. He said one thing when he was in the north, and now says something else when he is here.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He speaks with forked tongue.


Walter (Wally) Firth: We are only asking for a democratic right that most Canadians enjoy. I say that we can pay our own way, considering what we have in the Northwest Territories. I will only give a partial list. There are two gold mines operating in the city of Yellowknife, and a lead-zinc mine
May 10, 1976

operating at Pine Point. We have the tungsten mines near the Yukon-Northwest Territories border. We have Imperial Oil, which has been operating for many years at Norman Wells. We have gas being syphoned out of the ground at Pointed Mountain. We have other mines near the Great Bear Lake area. We have all kind of natural resources, renewable and non-renewable. We have the fishing and fur industries. Our people pay income tax; some pay business taxes. I am quite convinced that we are capable of paying our own way.
I do not think one can put a price tag on democracy and say that you can have democracy only if you have the cash with which to pay for it. I think democracy is a basic human right which most Canadians enjoy. I do not see why we should tolerate the continuance of a colonial-type government in the north. After all, the north is one of the most important parts of Canada. In future many important decisions will need to be made about the north, decisions about which northern peoples should have the most to say.
I do not say we should instal in the north a carbon copy of any provincial government. That point was raised earlier and ought to be debated further. The question ought to be considered in northern terms and decided by northern people, whose wishes ought to be respected.
I will not take any more of the time of the House. This is an important motion and I do not wish to talk it out. I suggest that we put the motion to a vote. I conclude my remarks in the hope that this extremely important motion will be put to a vote now.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am happy for this opportunity to rise and talk on the motion presently before the House. Indeed it is my view that the motion, first introduced in 1974 by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), presents a special interest since it deals with a question debated at length both in the north and in this House over a number of years.
While reading over the debates of February 3, 1975, when the hon. gentleman introduced this motion requesting the application of principles of constitutional and democratic government in the two territories, I noted that the hon. member referred to some discussions which had previously taken place during the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which on that occasion took place in Whitehorse. In particular the hon. member for Yukon quoted the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). I raise this point as it concerns what the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) said a few moments ago.
As I said, the hon. member for Yukon quoted the words of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, who had expressed sympathy for northern residents' aspirations. The hon. member went on to remind the House that a standing committee motion calling for territorial government reform and the introduction of appropriate amendments to the Yukon Act had been adopted unanimously.


Erik Nielsen: By the committee.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I see no contradiction in what the hon. member for Yukon says. He tried
The Territories
to present a certain matter as constituting a difference of opinion between members of the Liberal caucus and the government.
In my opinion the hon. member's motion calls on the federal government to commit itself to a policy which is already being implemented, and which began to be implemented some years ago.


Erik Nielsen: Rubbish!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: In my view the fact that the standing committe motion was adopted unanimously confirms that the present government's policy has received the agreement of all parties. However, although we may all agree on the principle of constitutional development for the two territories, we may differ on the methods of arriving at the same objective.
While the hon. member for Yukon is in a hurry and appears, at least in theory, to be favouring a rather "go-go" approach leading to a sudden change, not to say a break in the continuity of the evolutionary approach, the present government has opted for a more progressive approach which will permit it to avoid the drawbacks inevitably linked to rapid change. I shall have the opportunity to develop this point later, if time permits.
For the time being I wish to concentrate on the achievements of the government in recent years regarding the constitutional development of territorial government. I said a few moments ago that the government adopted a progressive approach. Because of that the government has been accused of being colonial and paternalistic, for example, by various theorists who dream about great principles but forget about the practical aspects, the vital needs of the population concerned. We must not forget these. On the other hand it is false to say that the progressive approach we have taken has been the equivalent of maintaining the status quo. To suggest that the situation has not changed extensively in the last ten years is unfair.
I remind my colleagues in this House that only ten years ago there was no territorial government of the Northwest Territories as we know it today.


Walter (Wally) Firth: There is still no adequate government.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: At that time the Commissioner was operating from Ottawa, with the assistance of a handful of civil servants. Only in 1967 was he transferred to Yellowknife, when the government acted on the recommendation of the Carrothers Commission which, by the way, saw most of its recommendations put into practice by 1970.


Erik Nielsen: Who wrote that?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The hon. member asks who wrote this. I wrote it since the hon. member spoke. It is easy to follow the hon. member, because he tends to repeat the same thing. At the same time, it is only fair to put the facts straight, to let people know what the government has done and what it intends to do, instead of trying to make some drastic change which would not be to the advantage of the people the hon. member represents.

May 10, 1976
The Territories
Since 1967 a number of important changes have been made to the two territorial acts. I will now provide, as a reminder for the benefit of my colleagues, a brief description of what those amendments did to further the constitutional evolution of the two territories.
In June, 1970, amendments to the Yukon Act and Northwest Territories Act were passed by parliament which were in keeping with the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on the Development of Government in the Northwest Territories-the Carrothers Commission-and were designed to increase the local responsibility of the territorial governments and the councils, and to further the federal government's policy of constitutional development in the north.
Speaking on second reading of Bill C-212, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, on May 13, 1970, the previous minister of Indian affairs and northern development, now President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), described the purpose of the bill in the following way:
... it is aimed at promoting the constitutional development of both territories, in the sense that it will enable their residents to assume more responsibility in the day-to-day administration of their respective governments.
Essentially, because the amendments to both acts were passed, the life of each territorial council was increased from three to four years from the date of the return of the writs for a general election, subject to dissolution by the governor in council at an earlier date in consultation with the respective councils; the commissioners in council were authorized to prescribe the qualifications of persons who may vote or be elected in territorial council elections; the commissioners in council were empowered to legislate on matters concerning the administration of justice in the two territories; the requirements for the commissioners to seek the approval of the governor in council to lend or invest money from the territorial consolidated revenue fund were removed; the period of disallowance of territorial ordinances was reduced from two years to one year; and the commissioners in council were empowered to set the indemnities and allowances of the members of the two councils and the members of council committees.
Additional amendments to the Northwest Territories Act altered the size of the council from 12 to 14 members by increasing the elected membership from seven to ten and reducing the appointed councillors by one, from five to four. There was also a provision authorizing the commissioner in council to further reduce the number of appointed councillors, subject to the approval of the governor in council.
In the same speech on May 13, 1970, the minister further announced a major step to be taken in the constitutional development of the Yukon Territory, although it did not appear in the bill; the establishment of an executive committee. In June, 1970, he instructed Commissioner Smith to establish an executive committee comprising the commissioner, his two assistant commissioners, and two members of the council nominated by the council. The details were discussed by the council at a special session held in June and July. During debate the concept of the executive com-

mittee was endorsed by councillors who recognized its significance as an important step towards the development of an executive along provincial lines.
In 1972 the minister confirmed the government's policy when he announced before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development that the federal government had adopted seven major objectives for northern Canada. One of those national objectives is "to further the evolution of government in the northern Territories". Although those objectives were stated in general terms, they were "comprehensive in scope and closely related to Canada's national goals and interests," to use the minister's words. Then one year later, in March 1973, the minister again addressed the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and reported that:
Political development in the Northwest Territories has been one of our greatest concerns since the Carrothers Commission report in 1966 and, as I mentioned in my statement to this committee on March 28, 1972, one of our national objectives in northern development over the next ten years is to "further the evolution of government in both northern Territories". Of course, in this area much has already been achieved, both Territorial Councils are very aggressive in carrying out their responsibilities. Most of the provincial-type government services, with the exception of resource development, are now under the control of the Territorial governments and as in the past, my estimates provide for increased financial assistance to both the Yukon and Northwest Territories Governments.
Mr. Speaker, in light of what I have said before, and with all due respect to my colleague, the hon. member for the Yukon, I do not think the population of the northern territories has been considered as a second-class population, nor can I share the view that the population of the two territories has had to suffer in the past by reason of the so-called colonial status of the Territories. I would think that the hard times and the difficulties of life in the north are the result of climatic, geographic, economic and social circumstances rather than the political or constitutional arrangements. As a matter of fact, I would submit that the presence of the federal government has been a benefit rather than a handicap to the northern population. And although the government is working toward a situation of greater autonomy for the two territorial governments, it would be foolish to think that this can happen in one day. The present government's policy has been to try to balance the two notions of prudence and change; the outcome of this balance is called progressive evolution.
It is with this requirement in mind, Mr. Speaker, that in 1974 the minister introduced Bill C-9, a bill to amend the Yukon and the Northwest Territories Acts. The bill was enacted by parliament in April of the same year. I will deal first with the changes that affected the Yukon Act.
The size of the fully-elected council was increased from seven to 12. This measure was designed to reflect the increased population of the Yukon, its geographical diversity, and to allow for the formation of parties in the council. This change was given effect at the Yukon territorial general election on November 18, 1974, when Yukon voters elected a new council of 12 members to serve for the next four years.
Bill C-9 also provided for the council to increase or decrease its size in line with future changes in the Yukon's population. This will provide more flexibility especially in view of the significant population fluctuations which may occur as a result of changes in the largely resource based
May 10, 1976

territorial economy. However, the number of members cannot be fewer than 12 nor greater than 200.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: My question is more in the nature of clarification. I do not think the hon. member would want that last statement to stand. He was not on the committee, but there was a discussion between the minister, the representatives of the Yukon council, and myself during the committee proceedings on that bill, at which time an undertaking by myself and the elected representatives of the council was given the minister that the size of the council would not be increased beyond 12 until after the 1978 election. That is where we stand on the fixed undertaking, that the size of the council will not be altered. That has a bearing on the aspect of the bill to which the hon. member refers.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I do not know whether the hon. member for Yukon heard me properly, Mr. Speaker. He can read what I said in Hansard, or I can repeat it. I said that Bill C-9 also provided for the council to increase or decrease its size in line with future changes in the Yukon's population. This will provide more flexibility, especially in view of the significant population fluctuations which may occur as a result of changes in the largely resource based territorial economy. However, the number of members cannot be fewer than 12 nor greater than 20. That is what I said about Bill C-9 a moment ago.


Erik Nielsen: But my only point is that we are frozen until 1978 by our own undertaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) accept a question?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: No, Mr. Speaker, I would rather finish what I want to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for St. Boniface has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: Let's take the vote, Joe.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I should like to conclude by saying-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m. later this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Capital Punishment


[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 other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock when I was part way through my speech on Bill C-84 I had been talking about the essential cultural formula that exists in all societies where we in essence have sets of established behaviour that are either rewarded or punished. We have to view the whole concept of behaviour, reward, and punishment as a package, and in fact it is folly to think we can focus on any one aspect of this formula and create a situation in which we have a society that is well behaved or one within which we would have what you could call established societal norms.
Perhaps it is in order again to point out one of the questions which ought to have been considered prior to the discussion of Bill C-84, and that is the method of execution, should the bill happen to fail. This makes a tremendous impact on the views of many people. I think there is no doubt about it, after all the historical references that led to the very concept of execution, the practice of hanging was developed in a period of time when the sole intent of the practice was to be punitive and torturous. Its purpose originally was not simply to execute a person, taking him out of society for some ill-founded behaviour, but in fact to make him suffer as painful a death as possible. Prior to adopting the practice of execution by hanging it was the practice to draw and quarter, to burn at the stake, or to do whatever else might be deemed to effect a very miserable death.
In view of the perspective as to how society should view the practice of capital punishment in more modern times, we need to consider not only whether we do or do not retain the practice, but also what method of execution there will be if capital punishment is retained.
I did mention before, and I want to put it on the record at this time, that the statistical data in respect of this question are, by and large, irrelevant. I say that because there has not yet been established in this House an empirical relationship, in the cause and effect sense, which correlates capital punishment to an improved cultural system of human behaviour.
We are talking then about shaping and changing behaviour, which in fact what must happen. We are considering what we must do in respect of the influences and stimuli that shape and mould the behaviour of human beings. To take this position one necessarily has to believe there are only three factors that influence human beings' behaviour; one of these has to be generic heritage, another has to be the state of health at the present time, and the third has to be the sociological and physiological environment in which human beings live. It is in that latter area that we can

May 10, 1976
Capital Punishment
point to the fact that governments at all levels have been terribly negligent. I have quoted my sources in that regard.
I suggest the government has not attempted at all to create the kind of environment which removes psychological stresses that have become so apparent in what is considered to be a modern, advanced technology, but a society which in many ways has cast human beings into an environment far foreign to their original heritage. I think it is because of this that we have to begin focusing our attention on reshaping the environment, and perhaps I should list these ways once again. We have to do something very significant about violence on television. These days about 50 per cent of prime time viewing involves acts of violence. We also have violence in sports. We must do something about our child abuse laws. I should like to stop at that point and put on record a quotation from the April, 1973, edition of Psychology Today. This is a conclusion of these two gentlemen based on research. It states:
* We believe that the real frustration and violence that abound in our adult society are the major sources of children's aggression. If parents are violent, then we can expect the children to be violent. Studies of the families of aggressive children consistently show that the parents of these children are inclined to be violent themselves, particularly when they punish the children.
It continues, and reaches a further conclusion:
We must begin to modify our adult society, the real adult society in which our children are being raised, if we are to reduce aggression.
I think that makes sense. Any farm kid knows that if he has a litter of puppies and if he feeds one, gives it milk and kicks the other one, it is rather obvious which one will bite him when it is one year old. In this country, though it is largely a question of provincial legislation, we have to face the question of child abuse. Particular emphasis should be given to this.
We probably have some very archaic regulations in this country in respect to child abuse. In my home province child abuse is considered to be when a child has a broken bone, lacerations to the skin, or severe bruising. Obviously a child can be severely psychologically abused. He certainly can be abused without having broken bones. I think there is a failure in this regard on behalf of governments. So, to be talking about capital punishment with the myth that somehow that will, of itself change the violent behaviour of society, is an example of irresponsibility on the part of the government because it is not looking at the whole package of the stimuli which lead to the conditioning of a society.
To focus on punishment alone when the whole system is being ignored, I think is folly. There is another thing we might say when we talk about violence or abuse. There is an interesting observation that can be made about the people depicted as being killed on television. The first is that, generally speaking, people shown as being killed on television fall into one of two categories. First there is the person who is totally unknown or scarcely introduced to the play. The ambulance comes around the corner and finds the person dead. The stories start from there. That is when the police investigation begins. So, because the person has never been introduced as a character for which there is some empathy, obviously the very act of killing becomes something that is not offensive to the viewer.

The other characteristic in what happens on television is that the people who are killed are the bad guys. Of coursse the natural conclusion children can draw from that is that because he is the bad guy he deserves to be killed. The member opposite may chuckle, but I think an observation regarding television and how it treats the whole concept of human beings killing one another is something to which surely we must address ourselves.
If we take a look at the play Hamlet as it would have been treated in Shakespeare's day, the deaths in that play and in other Shakespearian plays were tragedies in the truest sense because they were of characters with whom one generally became well associated and involved. They were in the real sense tragedies.
I think there is another aspect of law and order upon which we need to focus if we are to talk about a society that increases its rate of violent behaviour, and then subsequently we might come to the position that the government has earned the right to bring in an abolitionist approach. This has to do with how we treat people who disobey the law.
One of the practices we have in our society is that, over and over again, judges in courts will let people off on their first offence on the grounds that they have only committed their first offence. The folly in that kind of thinking has to be that, in the conditioning process or learning behaviour, when people discover they can get away with something it is simply an enticement in respect of what they continue to do. In any other practice or training this is just the opposite of how one would use the concept of reward and punishment.
We would not allow a dog to steal eggs from the chicken coop, let him do it for three months, and then decide to train him otherwise. We would not let a child shoot a hockey puck through a picture windows several times, and then decide to train him otherwise. But we do this in respect of people who commit first offences, second offences, and third offences. I have done some research on this, Mr. Speaker, and I note the tremendous frequency with which people are committing very serious crimes and getting off a whole succession of times, until finally the judge realizes that that particular person has a bit of a record behind him and hands down long harsh sentences because he thinks he must protect society.
If we look at it from the opposite view, in the way one would train any other organism, the approach ought to be-and this can be documented by behavioural studies and behavioural psychology-that if you use the punishment system the punishment must come very close to the act itself, it must be short, and it should be harsh. That has been well demonstrated in the military situation. A person may be caught committing some offence. His sentence may be only 48 hours in length but it was not very comfortable. He may have had to scrub the whole gymnasium floor only to see the whole platoon walk through it with their muddy boots, and have to do it over again and then wax it. At the end of the 48 hours he sure recognizes that he does not want to be in there anymore. I would recommend that with first offences that is the approach we should take. The sentence should be short, it should be harsh but not inhumane, and the punishment should follow very quickly upon the criminal act committed.
May 10, 1976

If we carry on any kind of analysis or study of what is happening in respect of Canadian law and order today we see that a farce is being made of a system which should in some way be trying to shape human behaviour. Our system excuses and lets off people over and over again. Therefore people have the idea that with that kind of behaviour one can flout the law. Then what happens? Finally the judge recognizes that in order to protect society he should impose sentences of five or six years when there has been no behavioural training with regard to the person involved in the criminal act. I believe that is a most serious kind of approach, and we must readjust our whole concept.
I do not think the government of this country knows whether we have jails in order to be punitive, whether we have them for the purpose of protecting the public, or whether we have them for rehabilitation purposes. I think that if we travelled from one penal institution to another across this country we would find that the members of the prison staffs would not be able to tell us why they are there in terms of those three objectives. Until we have that clarified and crystallized, and begin to recognize that we must shape a court system that is aimed at trying to make the public behave in a certain manner, and then address all of our activities toward achieving that goal, I do not think we will ever have an adequate degree of success in terms of decreasing the violent crime rate in this country.
I wish to make some comment to those who have spoken of the inhumaneness of execution and life sentences. I would bring to the attention of those who take such a position that in West Germany where there is an extended sentence to life, but not the practice of execution, almost 50 per cent of those who were sentenced for what we would consider in this country to be capital murder committed suicide prior to the end of their term in jail. Of course that obviously leads to their terminating their jail sentence. The fact of the matter is that points out that there is a tremendous depression which takes place in respect of those who have long jail sentences. Is that more humane?
Further we know that psychologists have told us that once a person spends ten years within prison walls he really acquires the kind of psychic mind that cannot adjust to the full practice of a normal life as it was known before. I think that has to be borne in mind, and one should ask the question again: are we being any more humane in sentencing someone to 25 years in prison or in jail and assuming that somehow that is treating that person in an advanced and mature way?
Finally I should like to mention again that I challenge those who take the abolitionist stand on the pretext that this is the higher ethic. Wherein does the higher ethic lie if we as a group of legislators legislate to do away with something that almost the whole of the nation wants? Where is the higher ethic in abolishing capital punishment when the citizenry want to retain it? Far better be it for us that we focus our attention on all these things-and we can list them from 50 to 100 different kinds of concepts that I was trying to enumerate before five o'clock today-which would decrease the violent crime rate in the country. What the government ought to do is to bear the burden of decreasing violent crime so that the public would give due consideration to the notion that it could get along without
Capital Punishment
capital punishment. It is not a question of whether or not we are abolitionists, but a question of priority.
This bill is called the bill on peace and security, I wish it meant that. If it did, it would have the courage to focus on the stimuli that affect human behaviour. The focus is on the punishment or reward system without including the whole cultural context of behaviour development. It must be treated as a package if it is to be effective. If this bill passes, it will not make a bit of difference in the crime rate of this country because that is not what is affecting violent crime. It is a myth to call it peace and security because nothing will happen to the crime rate unless we do something to the rapid growth of cities, the bad design of apartments, the noise levels in urban centres, child abuse, television, nutritional aspects as they affect this country, our economics, boring jobs, the lack of employment for many people in various parts of the country, stronger regulations in dealing with alcohol and drugs, children, sports and violence in sports, and the creativity of play.
I could go on and on dealing with the various aspects but I will simply conclude by saying that it is not enough to focus just on punishment. If we are going to address ourselves to peace and security we must focus on those stimuli that affect human behaviour. That should have been the first priority of the government. Had it earned that right, then perhaps in due course somewhere down the road, with a more satisfied populace, it would have earned the privilege to talk about abolition. At this time in history it has no right to bring that position before the country, and I think peace and security cannot fall from this bill. I only hope that the bill will fall.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-84 one is very much aware of taking part in a debate that has been going on for a long time.
The first bill concerning abolition of the death penalty to be introduced in the Parliament of Canada was presented in 1914, during the Borden government, by an opposition member. The bill did not pass. Forty-two years later, that is, in 1956, a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons reported that it was in favour of retention of the death penalty for murder, piracy and treason; it did not recommend any change in the definition of murder and, in particular, advised against introduction of various degrees of murder. The committee, however, recommended that appeal procedures be improved.
Until September, 1961, all persons convicted of murder were sentenced to death and executed unless the Governor General, on the advice of ministers, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.
From September 1, 1961, to December 28, 1967, the crime of murder was divided into "capital" and "non-capital" murder. The Governor General continued to review each case and to decide whether or not the sentence should be carried out. Section 202A of the Criminal Code defined capital murder as "planned or deliberate" murder during certain crimes of violence, or the murder of a police or corrections officer who was on duty.
On March 21, 1966, the then government House leader, Hon. George Mcllraith, moved debate on the abolition of the death penalty based on a resolution put before the House of Commons by four members-two Liberals, one

May 10, 1976
Capital Punishment
Progressive Conservative, and one NDP. It was agreed that the resolution, moved in a non-partisan way, would be decided on a free vote. The resolution read as follows:
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for the purposes of
(a)	Abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under that act
(b)	Substituting a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in those cases where the death penalty is now mandatory
(c)	Providing that no person upon whom a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is imposed shall be released from imprisonment without prior approval of the governor in council.
An amendment to the motion whereby the death penalty would be abolished on a five-year basis only was rejected on April 5 by a vote of 138 to 113 and, at the end of the debate, the main motion was rejected by a vote of 143 to 112.
In 1967 the government of Prime Minister Lester Pearson introduced, and parliament enacted, Bill C-168 to abolish the death penalty for a five-year trial period, except in cases of capital murder which, as defined under Bill C-168, related to murder of policemen and custodial staff. Bill C-168 did not amend the sections of the Criminal Code relating to treason and piracy, so that these two offences continued to be punishable by death.
Bill C-168 differed from the resolution of 1966 in that it allowed for the retention of the death penalty for capital murder, and that the period of partial abolition would be limited to a trial span of five years. Debate on second reading concluded November 30, 1967, and the bill was referred to committee by a vote of 105 to 70. Among the amendments introduced during consideration in committee of the whole was one to abolish capital punishment completely and replace it by mandatory life imprisonment; this was defeated by a vote of 106 to 37. Bill C-168 received Royal Assent in December, 1967, thus abolishing the death penalty for five years except for treason, piracy, and murders of police and custodial staff.
With expiration of the partial moratorium on capital punishment in 1972 parliament was faced with the options of extending the partial moratorium or returning to the death penalty.
On January 26, 1973, the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) introduced Bill C-2 providing for a further five year extension of the trial period for the abolition of the death penalty, except for cases of capital murder. This debate was again conducted on a non-partisan basis.
On May 29, 1973, Bill C-2 was given second reading and was sent to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. The vote was 138 to 114. A proposed amendment to eliminate the death penalty entirely was ruled out of order in the committee on June 21, 1973. Parliament gave the bill final approval in October of 1973 by a vote of 111 to 106. This legislation abolished the death penalty in all cases except those dealing with capital murder-murder of police and prison guards-for a trial period until 1977. The bill did not amend the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with piracy and treason, two crimes which still carry a maximum sentence of death.

Since December of 1962 there have been no executions in Canada. It is difficult to understand the position of those who have criticized the five commutations of the death penalty which have taken place since 1968 as "breaking the law" or "flouting the will of parliament". The authority to commute sentences, including sentences of death, has existed since Confederation in two ways: first, the ancient right of the Crown to grant mercy, a right which was transferred to the Governor General by letters patent in 1947; and second, the statutory power of the Government of Canada.
The statutes of Canada in 1869 contained provisions for statutory commutation of sentences. Section 129 of the statute of 1869 reads, and I quote:
Nothing in this Act shall or doth in any manner limit or affect Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy.
Section 684 of our present Criminal Code deals with statutory commutation and section 686 with royal prerogative. Section 684(1) reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may commute a sentence of death to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, or for any term of years not less than two years, or to imprisonment in a prison other than a penitentiary for a period of less than two years.
Section 686 reads as follows:
Nothing in this Act in any manner limits or affects Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy.
For a description of the royal prerogative of mercy I am indebted to the report published in 1956 of a committee which was appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Fauteux to inquire into the principles and procedures followed in the remission service of the Department of Justice of Canada, part of which reads as follows:
The prerogative powers consist of all the special dignities, liberties, privileges, powers and royalties allowed by the common law to the Crown, which have not been taken away by statute. One of the important prerogatives that remains vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada is the royal prerogative of mercy. Under it a pardon may be granted to any person convicted of a criminal offence or the punishment imposed by the court in respect of the offence may be commuted or remitted.
In Canada the power is exercised by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen. The Letters Patent that constitute the office of Governor General of Canada direct, in effect, that the Governor General shall not exercise the royal prerogative of mercy without first receiving the advice of the Privy Council for Canada in capital cases ...
In addition to this all-embracing prerogative power, there are several Acts of Parliament that authorize the granting of similar relief to offenders .. .
... this combination of prerogative and statutory powers provides a useful flexibility which assures that relief can be granted in all deserving cases. Such a combination of sources of relief existing under the British system of government is also to be found in other countries.
Senator Neiman pointed out in her speech on May 20, 1975, that:
The government's rights to commute a sentence of death, as well as the ancient prerogative of mercy, have been part of the statute law of Canada at least since we became a nation. They reflect the will of parliament as much as any other federal statute or enactment, including those which empower the government to direct that a person shall be sentenced to death for certain offences.
As one looks at the history of capital punishment in our country, one is impressed with the procedural safeguards which exist all through the process of charging an
May 10, 1976

individual with murder, the hearings and appeal system, before the final sentence is passed. The meticulous carefulness of the procedures, together with the use of commutation, make it clear that from the time of Confederation on, Canadians have regarded the taking of life-even the life of a criminal-as a serious and awesome responsibility, and certainly not as a sentence or sanction to be applied routinely.
Professor Black, professor of jurisprudence at Yale, in his book "Capital Punishment: the Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake" states:
The Law of Moses is full of the death penalty. But as time went on the Court in ancient Jerusalem, without of course touching one syllable of this law, devised procedural safeguards so refined, so difficult of satisfying, that the penalty of death could only very rarely be exacted.
Professor Black also states that the English judges of about 1800, administering capital punishment for some 250 crimes, became "terribly fussy about the exact wording of indictments." Professor Black interprets this pattern of surrounding the death punishment with procedural safeguards as saying, in effect, and I quote:
Though the justice of God may indeed ordain that some should die, the justice of man is altogether and always insufficient for saying who these may be.
This sentiment has been expressed in different words by many of the constituents who wrote me individual letters or who, as a group, signed letters with other members of churches in my constituency. In addition, in their letters many people raised the point that a sentence of death is the only final and irreversible sentence for which there can be no redress if an error is made.
In conversations with constituents who initially represented themselves as being in favour of retention of the death penalty, I have found that many of them also had some misgivings about the taking of life. Their position was less one of wanting retribution than one of wanting protection for society from dangerous, callous murderers, and on reflection they were often satisfied that the sentences proposed under Bill C-84, together with the measures proposed under Bill C-83 and the measures enacted under Bill C-71, will provide that protection.
Capital punishment was considered as a last resort in the defence of society before we had statistical evidence to show that it is not a deterrent.
Most murders in Canada are family murders, or murders between people who have some kind of emotional attachment to each other. Statistics Canada figures show that of a total of 4,658 murders over the 14 years from 1961 to 1974, 1,842, or 39.5 per cent, were domestic murders, a further 247, or 5.3 per cent, were described as "love triangles or lovers quarrels," and a further 364, or 8.6 per cent were "close friends." Many of these murders occur in association with misuse of alcohol or drugs or in cases of mental illness. They are sudden and unplanned, and it seems highly unlikely that people who kill in those situations take into account the existence or otherwise of capital punishment.
Family murders are tragic for the people concerned, and it is urgent that society address itself to the problem. However, those who consider seriously the retention of capital punishment do not advocate it for family murders but for contract murders or murders committed in the
Capital Punishment
course of a criminal act; in other words, the calculated, deliberate act which threatens society in general rather than a family.
Does capital punishment serve as a deterrent to hired killers or those who carry out planned and deliberate murder? The evidence so far is that it does not, that these are people whose life style includes acceptance of the risk of being killed by police if they resist arrest during commission of a crime or being killed by their criminal associates during disputes.
A 1968 United Nations document assessing international data on capital punishment reads:
With respect to the influence of the abolition of capital punishment upon the incidence of murder, all the available data suggests that where the murder rate is increasing, abolition does not appear to hasten the increase; where the murder rate is decreasing, abolition does not appear to interrupt that decrease; where the rate is stable, the presence or absence of capital punishment does not appear to affect it.
I am convinced that, in the short term, the most practical and effective deterrent is the certainty of detection and conviction.
Sir Robert Mark, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police, London, has reasoned as follows:
1.	To prevent the "awful possibility" of putting an innocent man to death, procedural rules of interrogation and trial require an exceptionally high standard of proof of guilt and it naturally makes the task of prosecution difficult;
2.	One cannot have two systems of investigation and trial, one for the handful of capital murders, and another for the other two million offences recorded in England and Wales each year, and
3.	Accordingly, the practical effect is inevitably to lessen extensively the effectiveness of the criminal law as a deterrent to crime or as a means of catching and, most important of all, of convicting criminals.
The commissioner also provided the following quote from Lord Devlin:
If the success of a criminal prosecution is to be measured by the proportion of criminals whom it convicts and punishes, the English system must be regarded as a failure. Far too many people who have in fact committed crimes escape punishment. When a criminal goes free it is as much a failure of abstract justice as when an innocent man is convicted.
It is my considered view that, since there is no evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent, and some evidence that, in fact, its existence creates difficulties in convicting criminals, not only in cases of homicide but in other criminal acts, there is no logical reason to retain it.
Sir Robert Mark also said:
I am opposed to the death penalty and so are most of my senior and most experienced colleagues simply because its continuance prevents the reforms necessary to increase the effectiveness of criminal justice.
The establishment of the truth rather than the determination of technical guilt ought, in my view, to be required of everyone involved in a criminal inquiry once irrevocable punishment has been removed from the statute book. If, as our lawyers in Britain, maintain, the objectives of justice are now the protection of society, the deterrence of crime, the rehabilitation of the offender and the compensation of the victim-with punishment or retribution playing only a secondary part-it seems not unreasonable to suggest that the credibility of the suspected or accused person should be related at least to some extent to his spontaneity rather than to that period of reflection and consultation between interrogation, arrest and trial which continually produces some of the most ingenious, plausible and highly paid forensic fiction of our time.

May 10, 1976
Capital Punishment
Finally, I would like to associate myself with the members of all parties who, in response to the question, "Will you vote according to your conscience or the views of your constituents?" have pointed out that a member of parliament owes his or her constituents both industry and judgment, as well as attentiveness. The views of constituents are important and deserve careful consideration, along with all other information one can examine and assess.
The final responsibility of the parliamentarian is to legislate effective measures to protect the public and this responsibility is taken seriously by parliamentarians. To suggest that we vote on a basis of "conscience", "instinct" or "gut feeling" only, rather than on a basis of painstakingly acquired knowledge, carefully assessed and rationally applied to the best of our ability, is to ascribe to us a degree of moral and intellectual laziness which is not typical of members of the House. Hon. members may examine the same data and reach different conclusions, but that is a very different situation from one of failing to examine data and having the kind of arrogance in ignorance that lets one cast an uninformed vote. I repeat that I know of no member of this House who operates in such an irresponsible fashion.
Because the question of capital punishment is literally a question of life and death, it is generally seen by the media as a vote of conscience, but every vote we cast in this House or in committee, every policy we advocate in caucus affects people's lives and is a matter of conscience as well as judgment. And one important function of a conscientious member of parliament is to be well informed, to appraise information, and to try honestly to take positions that are in the national interest.
I think the provisions of Bill C-84 offer an improved measure of security and protection to the Canadian people and, therefore, I intend to vote in favour of the bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should say I am delighted to have the opportunity of taking part in this most important debate or whether I should say that I feel it necessary that I take part in this very important debate.
I listened to the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) and was extremely impressed with his sentiments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear the government whip saying "hear, hear", Mr. Speaker. I would think that all hon. members could agree that it was a speech of some significance.
The part I appreciated was when the hon. member indicated that governments should earn the right to an abolitionist state. They have not earned that right. The hon. member went on to speak of environmental malaise and what it would mean to both urban and rural dwellers. He said the government had not paid attention to this and was concentrating on punishment alone because it had not earned the right to abolition. My hon. friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect, indicated that he will not vote for the bill. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what my position is on this subject.

I have listened to other hon. members speak and have been extremely impressed with their remarks. I have been fortunate enough to have taken part in many debates in this House, but this is a debate without rancour, a debate that is sensitive and allows members to give concrete reasons for their views, whether they be abolitionist or retentionist. I appreciate that.
How easy things would be for us at this time if easy bail were not a thing of the past as is early parole. If I have received one letter on those subjects I have received hundreds. These two matters account for a considerable amount of fear and frustration felt by the Canadian people. They are concerned about easy bail and early parole, but now we have taken steps to counter this so perhaps their fears will be allayed somewhat. How much easier would our task have been if we had moved in those two directions earlier.
Let me not hesitate in bringing into focus my position on this bill. In doing so I would like to read the preamble of a notice in the Ottawa Citizen of April 27, 1976. I suppose it was part of blanket newspaper coverage throughout this land. This is a statement by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. That is an organization of some significance composed of men and women from all professions, of the cloth, law, people who are concerned about justice and civil liberties. I want to read it because I accept this statement. It is part and parcel of my argument. It says, and I quote:
Capital punishment is an exercise in senseless violence.
The killing of even the worst killers will gain nothing for society that could not be gained by less violent means, for example, by imprisonment. Scores of studies in many countries over long periods of time fail to show that capital punishment reduces the number of murders.
This is also true of the killing of policemen. A 25-year comparison of more than 80 similar American cities showed that the death penalty made little difference to the rate of policemen killed. In fact, in places using the death penalty, the rate of police homicides was slightly higher.
We share the grief of those whose dear ones have been murdered. We share the anxiety about the innocent victims of brutal crimes. But understandable distress must not divert us from facing facts.
The death penalty cannot help yesterday's victims and it is unlikely to save tomorrow's targets. What it is certain to accomplish, however, is the legitimation of useless killing. That is a result we must strive to avoid.
I am an abolitionist, Mr. Speaker, and will vote for the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I say this not in an arrogant and self-centered way, but with every concern, respect, and sympathy for the opposite view, particularly as expressed by many of my constituents who have asked that I vote against this bill.
As members of parliament we are placed in a very peculiar position. Why? Because there is some question as to what is a representative. I believe with all my soul and heart that I was elected in 1968, 1972, and 1974 to discharge my duties and responsibilities as best I can under the circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 10, 1976


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If my leadership is wanting, if my attitudes are inconsistent with those of my constituents, then surely I must face the penalty. What is the penalty, Mr. Speaker? The penalty is the possibility of defeat at the next election.
If my constituents on an over-all assessment of my contribution to this House, not only with respect to capital punishment but with respect to my role as opposition critic-I am not bragging about that, I happen to be fortunate-with respect to unemployment insurance, Manpower, welfare, urban affairs, labour, the many questions I have asked, the many concerns I have registered-


An hon. Member:: The many you have created.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am not in as much trouble as you are, sitting as a government member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Will the hon. member please address the Chair.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for admonishing that member who spoke out of turn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: After that over-all assessment of my role as a representative, I will face that penalty. However, there is one thing that I have found out about my constituents. Many of them dislike my position on this bill, but they respect the intestinal fortitude that I have portrayed.
I am the one who has to face myself in the morning. I am the one who has to live with this decision. I am the one who, after many years of studied concern, had to reach this conclusion. I did not reach it overnight. I do not think any member reached this conclusion overnight. This has been a burning issue for all of us. However, every now and again a person must stand up for what he believes, regardless of what the penalty may be, as long as it is in a legitimate way.
My constituents know that I am an abolitionist. They knew that in 1968, 1972, and 1974. I mentioned it over television. I mentioned it by way of a newsletter. I have stated it in speeches. However, they re-elected me, and for that I am very grateful. And I will go to them again whenever that gang over there has the guts to pull the plug.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I had better not get partisan. That is usually not my role. I will withdraw that remark if it will allow members to listen to me and accept the proposition which I place before them.
Capital punishment is foreign to my makeup in that I feel it is dangerous, ineffective, and barbaric. To elaborate further on that statement, I wish to make the following comments.
First, I am concerned about and question the morale related to capital punishment. Second, I believe that a mistake is possible through capital punishment, and thus an innocent person can be put to death. Third, I have concluded after much soul-searching and study that capital punishment can be justified only if it has a real deterrent
Capital Punishment
value. However, I am unconvinced that capital punishment does deter murder.
Fourth, although I have concluded that capital punishment does not deter murder, I feel that the doubt created in many, including the experts by their findings, as to whether there is a deterrent value to capital punishment must be resolved because of the doubt in favour of the right to and the sanctity of life. Fifth, I believe that capital punishment dismisses too easily the cause of violence and the need to bring into focus and effect possible cures. This is where the emphasis should be.
We are living in a sick, violent society. We note the disrespect for the home, the family, the church, the schools, law and order, and our basic institutions. I do not believe that capital punishment will reduce or eradicate the disrespect which is the cornerstone of violence which concerns all of us. It is incumbent upon all of us to find out why there is this disrespect and increased violence. We must ascertain the causes and find the cure.
I shall spend some time on the next subject for discussion as it is extremely important and gives me some reason to hope. The United States authorities directed their attention to this matter back in 1968. A commission was appointed; it made certain recommendations which are still valid, and which still show how we are to attack the present malaise of society and what we must do to cure it. It suggested how we could reduce the increase in violence. Many of the recommendations the commission made apply to present day Canada and Canadians.
The President of the United States in June, 1968, ordered the establishment of a National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. I subscribe to the findings of the commission. They are still valid and apply to this debate. The commission was authorized to investigate and make recommendations with respect to (a) the causes and prevention of lawless acts of violence in our society, including assassination, murder and assault; (b) the causes and prevention of disrespect for law and order, of disrespect for public officials, and violent disruption of public order by individuals and groups.
The commission was composed of a cross section of many groups of citizens, black and white, male and female, young and old, of Republicans, Democrats, persons from the fields of education, law, religion, politics, psychology, history, labour and philosophy. The commission laboured for a year and a half and published its report on December 13, 1969. To me it was a work of monumental significance. Its impact was significant. I recommend its reading to hon. members and to the public at large. The final report of the U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence is available as a thick book. The conclusions are excellent.
The commission emphasized that two thirds of the American people lived in urban areas where violence thrives. Individual and group specialization have intensified our dependence on one another. Men are no longer capable of solitary living and individual self-defence. Men must live together and depend on one another to observe the laws and keep the peace. I suggest that those words

May 10, 1976
Capital Punishment
apply equally to this country and should be noted in this debate.
Expressing a view which applies currently to Canada, the commission said that violence must be brought under control to safeguard life and property, and to make possible the creation of the understanding and co-operation needed to remedy underlying causes. No society can remain free, much less deal effectively with fundamental problems, if its people live in fear of their fellow citizens. It is ancient wisdom that a House divided against itself cannot stand. I subscribe to these views, Mr. Speaker. I support measures which would eliminate violence in our free society. In my view, the better control of illegitimate violence, such as violent crime in our society is an urgent imperative. It is within our means to achieve this end.
Many studies have identified the basic causes of violent crime. Those basic causes apply to people in this country as well as to those in the United States. How are we to cure violent crime? It is suggested that warring on poverty, unemployment and inadequate housing, is warring on crime. Civil rights laws are laws against crime. Money for schools is money used against crime. Medical, psychiatric and family counselling services are services which fight crime. Most important of all, every effort to improve life in Canada's cities and ghettos is an effort in the war against crime.
We have not taken seriously the impact of such measures on our war against crime. For this reason I wish to place on record several findings of the commission to which I referred. These findings are most important and should be taken seriously if we are to attack root causes of violent crime and the unacceptable increase in the incidence of crime. The commission reported:
... we have identified certain themes of challenge for the leader and people of America. Among these are the following:
First: As we have noted, not all violence in our society is illegitimate. Indeed, a major function of society is the organization and legitimation of violence in the interest of maintaining society itself. Unfortunately, however, the existence of legitimate violence-from a shooting in lawful self-defense through international violence in the form of warfare-sometimes provides rationalization for those who would achieve ends or express grievances through illegitimate violence.
Second: Violence by some individuals may result in part from a deranged mind or abnormal biological make-up. Experts agree, however, that most persons who commit violence-criminal or noncriminal-are basically no different from others, and their behavior is the result of the complex interaction of their biology and life experience. Scholars observe that man has no instinct or trait born within that directs aggression in a specific way. He does have, from birth, the potential for violence. He also has the capacity for creative, constructive activity and for the rejection of violence. Insofar as life experience teaches individuals violence, the incidence of violence is subject to modification, control, and prevention through conscious changes in man's environment.
Third: Historically, when groups or individuals have been unable to attain the quality of life to which they believe they are entitled, the resulting discontent and anger have often culminated in violence. Violent protest today-from middle-class students to the inhabitants of the black ghettos and the white ghettos-has occurred in part because the protesters believe that they cannot make their demands felt effectively through normal, approved channels and that "the system," for whatever reasons, has become unresponsive to them.
Fourth: Progress in meeting the demands of those seeking social change does not always reduce the level of violence. It may cause those who feel threatened by change to engage in counter-violence against those seeking to shift the balance. And the pace of change may be slower and more uneven than the challenging group is willing to 
tolerate. We see these social forces at work in our country today. After several decades of rapid social change, we have better housing, education, medical care and career opportunities for most groups in our society than at any time in the past. Nonetheless, these advances have been uneven, and what we have so far achieved falls short of the needs or expectations of many. Impatience is felt on all sides, and our social order is subject to escalated demand both from those who desire greater stability and from those who desire greater social change.
Fifth: The key to much of the violence in our society seems to lie with the young.
Remember, this report was made in 1969. It is still valid today. I continue quoting:
Our youth account for an ever-increasing percentage of crime, greater than their increasing percentage of the population. The thrust of much of the group protest and collective violence-on the campus, in the ghettos, in the streets-is provided by our young people. It may be here, with tomorrow's generation, that much of the emphasis of our studies and the national response should lie.
Sixth: The existence of a large number of firearms in private hands and a deep-seated tradition of private firearms ownership are complicating factors in the task of social control of violence.
Does that sound familiar, Mr. Speaker?
Seventh: Additional complications arise from the high visibility of both violence and social inequalities, resulting from the widespread impact of mass communications media. The power impact of the media may aggravate the problems of controlling violence; on the other hand, the media may be one of our most useful social agents for explaining all elements of our society to another and achieving a consensus as to the need for social change that may help to reduce levels of violence.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has continually tried to impress upon the government that it should move in the direction of controlling violence on TV. This has also been referred to by my hon. friend from Battle River and others.
Eighth: Social control of violence through law depends in large measure on the perceived legitimacy of the law and the society it supports. Persons tend to obey the law when the groups with which they identify disapprove those who violate it. Group attitudes about lawful behavior depend, in turn, on the group's views of the justice provided by the legal order and of the society which created it. The justice and decency of the social order thus are not simply desirable embellishments. On the contrary, a widespread conviction of the essential justice and decency of the social order is an indispensable condition of civil peace in a free society.
Ninth: Our system of criminal justice suffers from an under-investment of resources at every level-police, courts and corrections. Partly because of this accumulated deficit, the criminal justice system is neither as strong nor as fair as it should be-and consequently it has failed to control illegitimate violence as well as it should.
Does that sound familiar, Mr. Speaker? I repeat that these words were written in 1969.
Tenth: The social control of violence does not depend merely on the conduct of those who attack or defend the social order. It depends also on the attitudes, co-operation, and commitments of the community-of our political, religious, educational, and other social institutions and of citizens in every walk of life. Violence in our society affects us all. Its more effective control requires the active engagement and commitment of every citizen.
I want to emphasize "every citizen". Let the government not simply say to members of parliament, "Pass this bill on capital punishment or defeat it", and that is an end to it. There will have to be a commitment from every citizen to accept the themes of challenge that I have just put before the House. But if those challenges are accepted, Mr. Speaker, do we not then have hope for and faith in the future? It seems to me those challenges should be accepted. They
May 10,1976

should be pursued as closely as possible. Not until they are found impossible to accept should this nation subscribe to capital punishment.
If all of us gave a total commitment in this regard, Mr. Speaker, if all of us gave a total commitment toward solutions that those ten themes beg, then would we be faced with this bill on capital punishment? Would members of parliament be concerned about whether or not we will be returned if we vote either for or against the bill? We would not have had to bother with such a measure as this.
We have received letters which can be counted by the hundreds from our constituents, Mr. Speaker. Statistics and other material do not mean a thing in deciding this issue. All we know is that there has been an increase in violence, the blame for which lies in the home, the school, the church, our political system, television-I could go on and on. Yet I am asked to vote against this bill.
Let me quote a letter written by a man whom I do not know, but I will put his name on record. All of my colleagues have received letters both pro and con. These letters allow us the opportunity of forming an opinion. Putting aside rhetoric, passion, and questionable motives, we look for letters that are responsible and sincere in order to assist us either up to make up our minds or to maintain the position we took some time ago. I wish to refer to a letter from Thomas David Birmingham, from R.R. 3, Courtenay, B.C. He writes:
Proponents of the death penalty accuse abolitionists of undue sympathy for the murderer, and have spent long happy hours thinking up such terms of "bleeding hearts", "sob sisters", and even "monkey-faced religionists" to describe all who disagree with them. The truth is that many of us seek nothing but a better Canadian society; and concern for the murderer, while real and genuine, is far down on our list of priorities. But we have become convinced, after long and careful consideration of all factors, that executions, far from preventing murder, are actually a contributing cause both of murder and violence ...
A point often overlooked is that, because capital punishment is irrevocable-the prisoner cannot be freed if further evidence turns up that proves him innocent-many jurors will not convict while even a shadow of doubt remains. The result is that dangerous men are turned loose who would otherwise be in jail.
Did we not hear the Solicitor General make a similar statement? I do not want to give the Solicitor General all the credit; he, together with other members of the government, has helped frustrate this whole issue. But let me stop there, Mr. Speaker, since I said I would not become partisan. This debate should be beyond partisanship. Let me quote another important statement in this letter:
All studies based on fact have proved time and again that hanging is not an effective deterrent to murder. Why, then, the demand for a return to capital punishment? My first reaction, and that of many Canadians, on learning of some senseless murder is a desire to hurt the killer as he has hurt society. Our sense of outrage demands that they hang someone to make us feel better! This, then, is a revenge reaction to which the light of sober second thought has never been applied. The vital question here is: are we mature enough to base our decisions on fact and reason, or will they spring from motives of hate and revenge? Are we, in short, capable of building a civilized society?
There are problems and dangers in today's world that can only be overcome by a society that is no longer ruled by emotions of hate or fear. So it is that I hope we abolish the death penalty; for what would indicate at least a future, and even the possibility that we have the character and intelligence to make that future bright.
I want to thank Your Honour for your indulgence, and I want to thank all hon. members for giving me so much of
Capital Punishment
their time. I hope I have raised some question in their minds and cast some little doubt. If I have, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that that doubt should be cast in favour of respect for life and the sanctity of life.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker,
I enter this debate in opposition to Bill C-84. My position is that capital punishment must remain in the Criminal Code so that society, and society's agents, have the basis on which to move against killers who plan and carry out ruthless murder.
We as a parliament must make it clear to Canadians what our priorities in justice are. We must make it clear that we care about our law-abiding citizens above all else. Victims and their families-families often permanently injured emotionally, economically and spiritually by the brutalization of the murder of a loved one-must be assured that the state will put their right to life above that of their killers. The survivors of murder in a family have a right to expect, not only protection, but knowledge that the punishment of the killer was equal to the crime. We must decide quickly whose priorities to safety and life in this nation must be first.
I have fought for the lives and paroles of killers, have been deeply involved with many of them during the death watch, and in commutation or execution. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, I still put the rights of these people second to that of society and to their victims' families.
The public mood should also dictate to all of us-on both sides of this House-our duty. It may be that the anger, the fear, even a seeming disillusionment with parliament is over the public impression that members of parliament seem to disregard their wishes. Some quote Edmund Burke, an arch-Tory who lived 200 years ago, before teletype, television, Xerox, space and jet travel, who could not get to his constituency because it was too far, 100 miles away, and who was elected by only a few upper class males. We live in a different age-one of universal suffrage, universal education; a quickly informed nation. Yet we use Burke's principle to pretend that we have the right to superimpose our consciences over those of the Canadian people. It is sheer folly, snobbery, elitism-and the public, our constituents, rightly resent this. Certainly we must make decisions. We cannot have them here to help us make decisions, but when their view has been so clear on this issue certainly we must not treat that view with contempt.
Confidence in parliament is already being sorely tried. It does not matter who leads it, what party is in power, there is a deliberate campaign abroad to assure contempt for all established authority. It began among students and academics in the late 1960's. It was against authority-parents, police and everybody over 30. Now it is parliament itself. We should not aggravate the situation by pretending somehow that we 262 people here, common people elected by common people, have superior wisdom, superior judgment, and the right to act against the expressed wishes of the public.
The fabric of our entire community, of the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed, can be in jeopardy if we ignore the 80 per cent who

May 10, 1976
Capital Punishment
demand the restoration of capital punishment. They possibly are more humane and/or knowledgeable than those who accept the 25-year prison-without-hope as an alternative for capital punishment.
It may well be that if the public is not permitted a catharsis in its present anger and fear, perhaps even revenge-which so many of us do not like to discuss, but which I dare to express, if the public is not allowed the opportunity to express its disapproval at indiscriminate killing and maiming, we could seriously rupture the basic order of society and make violence an acceptable way of life, with the law-abiding citizen its tormented pawn.
The impression is that the lawbreakers, wrongly, of course, seem to be receiving the state's protection and succor, while those who live within the law and want to be safe and decent are left to fend for themselves; that the underworld is taking the controls from those assigned to set and administer the law. This is a reality. Just recently an undercover worker, a stool pigeon for the police in Vancouver, said he could no longer help them in drug cases. He said to the police they had only seven year sentences for murder, but-out there-on the street-they have capital punishment. He was killed within two hours after telling them what was happening on the street.
Julien Critchley, member of parliament for Aldershot in the British House of Commons, an abolitionist throughout his ten years in parliament, reversed his position because he said, and I quote:
We may rupture the link between people and parliament, bonds that have already loosened.
There is no doubt that the Critchley statement is applicable here today. Those who can rely on Edmund Burke of the 1770's, here in the 1970's, will no doubt meet the same fate at the polls as he did. The voters of Burke's time, in the 1770's, and those who have elected us, have the right to be represented and not to have a member of parliament's conscience superimposed on the majority.
Fortunately I have long been of the same opinion as my constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway in the matter of capital punishment. I know them to be good, just, fair, and humane people. They are people of a wide range of eduction, knowledge, and experience. They are professionals, tradesmen and tradeswomen, and labourers. They are stable people who, in the main, own their own homes, and many were born in the homes in which they still live. These people have seen what every Canadian can soon expect to see, unfortunately, and that is their quiet, peaceful neighbourhood turned into one of the most violent areas in Canada.
My constituents may be losing their cool over the issue before us now, and I understand how the unwarranted, unnecessary statements by one man could have caused so much anger. A total of 79.3 per cent of these people indicated they want capital punishment restored. Since then, and that was a year ago, they have let me know that they feel even more strongly about this matter in hundreds of letters, phone calls, visits to my office, and petitions, and in cold anger at the fact that a member of the cabinet has threatened to resign if he did not win his bid for abolition. They are angry, not in a partisan way, but at all of us who sit in this House and act as though their wishes are irrelevant.

I consider my constituency an all-people riding, variegated with many economic, social, and cultural factors; a microcosm of Canada. The day I cannot act for them I will leave this place. I can assure all of you here that if you do not act for the majority Canadian constituency, all of us as well as the job we do here will be irrelevant.
I oppose every aspect of Bill C-84, both within my own conscience and on behalf of my constituents. First, I oppose the abolition of capital punishment in cases of premeditated, deliberate murder, not only for the killers of policemen and prison guards, but also for those who cause death in the commission of such ruthless crimes as kidnapping, rape, highjacking, armed robbery, and assault.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I would also like to add the worst and crudest murderers of all to the list who should face the possibility of death for his or her horrendous crime; those who commit mass murders, maiming and inflicting extreme, if not excruciating pain-the drug trafficker, the non-using drug trafficker, who has not one single decent motive or shred of kindness and whose only objective is a huge income out of the sale of torture and death.
Besides drug deaths, these people are responsible for ordering or contracting murder by others of anyone daring to compete for even the smallest share in a vast market. They also murder anyone who might be a problem, even for crying out too loudly with the cramps and excruciating pain that comes when deprivation of the drug begins. Capital punishment could certainly be a deterrant in these business crimes, and this would certainly stop many who merchandise narcotics. I challenge anyone who says it would not be a deterrent in that area.
Secondly, I am opposed to this bill because the alternative, what is seen as a trade-off for abolition, is even more cruel than anything the hangman can do. This is day-byday torture, human waste, and anyone who has spent any time watching a man in prison knows what I mean. This is torture for 25 years or 9,125 days without hope. Approach your own life in this way. Think of that time in relation to your own life, or your child's life. It is also a licence to kill others trapped in the same prison; the inmates and guards.
The sentence of 25 years to someone 20 or even 25 really means living life out in a prison. To the 20-year old, age 30 seems like senility. Remember, to them, everyone over 30 seems old and nearly dead. He sees himself in prison until he is 45. The 25-year old sees 30 as old, 40 or 45 as near death, even the end of life. He will be there until he is 50 years of age. His years of love, marriage, family, and productivity will be lost. There is no reason to live. He can see it.
I should like to refer to a man I know and for whom I have been fighting for years. He went in at age 21. He is still there in the penitentiary at 42. He went to prison for shooting a man who called his wife a whore in a nightclub. He said, "They will not hang me and will not let me hang myself." He tried repeatedly. He had no reason to live and now they have extended the time of parole eligibility for two years more-as if two more years of his life were nothing. The younger men will be more dangerous, but
May 10, 1976

whether 20 or 30 they are well aware that they have nothing to lose.
"Nothing to lose" is the phrase we hear over and over again from the lifers. Andy Bruce is the example that comes to mind because it is the most current of many over the years. Andy Bruce was about 20 when he deliberately went on his job to kill a young go-go dancer. He did it coolly, without any compassion, in front of the woman's nine-year daughter. He was involved in the hostage taking in the B. C. penitentiary where Mary Steinhauser was killed. He was recently in a second hostage-taking incident. He has constantly said that if he is killed he has nothing to lose. In fact he has invited people to kill him in every way possible because he does not want to live.
Third, I am also opposed to the bill which maps alternatives to buy the abolition vote here and in the community, because people will be sent to prison for long terms who should not be imprisoned. Those who commit second degree murder also will receive excessive sentences of 10, 15 or 20 years. Some of these people will be scooped up in this because of one second of anger or passion, a moment of wildness, perhaps trapped in a love triangle or because of being involved in a drunken party. They will go to prison for 15 years and their children will be destroyed by this imprisonment when probation would serve them and society better. They are people who never before, or after, commit a crime. They could stay out and be productive citizens, paying taxes and sustaining their families instead of having their families forced to go on the welfare rolls, often with the result that their children are damaged or placed on the road to crime or madness.
Society is not served at all. These people usually need neither excessive punishment nor rehabilitation. Certainly no prison rehabilitates. Long sentences, and even sentences of four or five years without parole can only make a person worse than when he entered prison.
Perhaps I should make it clear that in seeking to keep capital punishment on the books I do so because this means that only few will face the charge. It could be only one in 500 or one in every 200. The courts are meticulous in these cases. Some people here seem to think that it is wrong if some go free. I think it is an advantage that the courts take such care. I have attended many murder trials and have seen the care with which juries hear evidence. I have observed the care with which the judges instruct on the evidence. Not only are the many alternatives in the defence listed and the evidence reiterated by the judge even after it is given under oath, but the jury is exhorted to consider the alternatives to capital murder such as second degree, manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, assault, and acquittal. They are also instructed in great detail about reasonable doubt-the doubt always goes to the accused.
As for the expressed fear of the abolitionists that innocent men might die, there is only one known such case, the Evans case in Britain. On the contrary, I have had personal experience in respect of a man who had 59 crimes on his record, and I have reason to believe a good number of murders that were not shown. He was acquitted of the murder of a ten-year old paper boy, Donald Ottley, in Vernon. He has two jury trials on the Ottley murder. The first jury convicted him and the court of appeal of British
Capital Punishment
Columbia ordered a new trial. During the second trial he was again convicted. This time the court of appeal released him on the Hodges Rule, the rule that states that the evidece is consistent with the fact that somebody else could have committed the offence.
Nothing proved to me more the accuracy of the jury system than what happened afterward in this case. Three months after his release he confessed to me that he had killed the paper boy, that he had strangled him. Even as the boy was dying, the killer admitted he released his hold on the boy's throat long enough to hear the last gasped plea for his life. This killer confessed to me that it gave him his orgasm. He told me that he finished it off and threw the boy, in his words, "like an old rag over the fence."
He told this to me privately on Good Friday night, 1962, and the next day before a witness, Jack Brooks, the editor of the Vancouver Sun. He told me, "Every time I drink I go on the prowl to kill and I enjoy killing". He confessed to me that he was interrupted in two murder attempts, one on a 16-year-old boy, the other on a homosexual in a Vancouver hotel room. He knew in both cases that I could not trace the victim.
After his confession he fled to the World Fair in Seattle. There he was picked up and confessed again to the Seattle police, this time referring to a young female. The Seattle police were convinced this was a case of another killing, but the killer was too sly to give them the lead to prove another case against him. The point of all this is that they could not charge him under the law of double jeopardy, so they picked him up under the Mental Hospitals Act, and one year after he was put in Riverview Mental Hospital he was released on a loose probation.
Shortly afterward he turned up in Winnipeg. He picked up a nine-year old girl and molested her. If he followed his modus operandi he was minutes away from killing her. The difference between this case and the one in Vernon was that the paper boy was not expected home. The family of this child missed her and a search began quickly. He got ten years, and was out in about six. He again picked up a tiny girl, again molested her, and could have committed another murder if he had not been interrupted. Who's right to life is more important? Those children who might have died and the one who did die, or this man?
There are other cases. There is the case of Leopold Dion in Quebec who killed four small children. He was executed by the prisoners in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, but four innocent children were forced, first to pray, and then to die violently before jungle justice was done, because we were too afraid to administer our laws. Whose life is more precious?
Regarding the fear of the abolitionists that innocent people could be executed by the state, again may I say I believe society can, and must, trust its courts. From what I have experienced I am confident that they will convict in cases in which there is absolute certainty. The use of science provides a type of positive corroboration in most cases, and the demand for corroborating witnesses in all cases of circumstantial evidence is part of the certainty that justice is done.
Certainly, after all, if there is doubt, cabinet would commute and would begin the search for proof of inno-

May 10, 1976
Capital Punishment
cence or guilt. Many times I have gone out to prison at the request of inmates who claimed that they were innocent, that they were in on a "bum-beef", that is, wrongfully in prison. Every time I checked out these complaints it ended with these people admitting that they had committed the offence, but that they should have got off on some technicality or that their lawyer did a rotten job, he was a bum.
My experience has been that more guilty men go free than innocent men convicted. That is not all bad, unless they are dangerous. I have known a good number of the former, and not the latter. Had I found one innocent man I would have fought for his release. I was involved in a case in Seattle involving a Vancouver man. We did get the evidence and he was acquitted of the charge.
Back to the issue of public opinion. We have an informed public. There are those who, as abolitionists, like to pretend they are somehow more tolerant, wiser, and better people than those of the public who want retention. Some even crudely, childishly, resort to labelling those who seek to restore capital punishment as rednecks. I suggest that if that were true, and I reject it, 80 per cent of Canadians, 17,600,000 Canadians, are rednecks. If it were necessary to engage in this childish name calling, I would suggest the antonym for rednecks would be yellow bellies, and I reject that too. But I throw it in as a reminder of the ridiculousness of labelling people with valid opinions based on knowledge, experience, and involvement in the reality of their own neighbourhood and their own friends and families who have been participants in these horrendous incidents.
In many cases they are forced to see and live reality rather than the illusion, as those whose greatest influence and knowledge of crime is from Kojak or Harry O, or imagined ideas of what crime is about, illusions of utopia which they have because of isolation from the harshness of the violence people know in cities such as Vancouver and Montreal.
Perhaps the difference between those influenced by illusion, protected within a peaceful community, and those by reality are contained in two communications which I received from student groups in two different parts of Canada-one from Ottawa which is hardly touched by crime, comparatively speaking, where people walk the streets without being threatened by muggers or assaulted or raped, and Vancouver, a school in my constituency where children live the reality; they are surrounded by violence and crime, Killarney Secondary school.
Three hundred students in nice, safe, comfortable Ottawa, Lisgar Collegiate, signed a petition favouring abolition with a simplistic list of reasons, using almost the cliches of every abolotionist. They said that "innocent people have been executed; cruel and inhuman punishment; violence brutalizes society; it is a morally regressive step; and it has not proven to be a deterrent to murder."
The communication from Vancouver sent by John B. Tyrrell of Killarney Secondary school, a questionnaire given to three of his social studies classes, touched on several areas of concern in British Columbia. But in the segment on capital punishment these were responses to carefully prepared questions. Do you support the govern-
[Mrs. Holt.)
ment proposal to replace capital punishment with a mandatory 25 year term in prison? None were in favour of it; 41 were opposed; 12 undecided.
The next question was: If you support capital punishment, do you believe the present method of hanging should be replaced by another? Thirteen said yes; 15 no; 24 undecided. Are you in favour of capital punishment (a) for all persons convicted of murder? Nine said yes; 28 no; 16 undecided; (b) are you in favour of capital punishment only when mercy is not recommended? Thirty-five said yes; 12 no; 16 undecided; (c) for the murder of police officers and prison guards? Forty-seven said yes; one no; and five undecided; (d) do you favour it under any circumstances? Only one said yes; 48 no; and four undecided. Regarding impirsonment, are you satisfied with the present system of parole for convicted murders, rapists and child molesters? None of them said yes; none were undecided; all said no. Do you feel that there are some convictions for which there should be no parole? Forty-five said yes; none said no; eight were undecided.
Regarding deterrents: there is a mistaken belief that murder is inevitably an irrational act. That maybe so in some cases, but there are indications that 50 per cent or more are not irrational acts, but are deliberate, calculated, even businesslike. It is used as the law of the underworld which'retains capital punishment as one of its main controls; it is used often and in some cases, inappropriately, for slight provocation; it is used by young people who place no value whatsoever on another person's life; it is used for kicks, and I have been involved in cases where a motorcycle gang member did it partly to show off and partly-in his words-to find out "what it would feel like to take a life"-"what powers I would feel in killing a man". He got ten years in 1968. He has been out for about four.
Our system of punishment is based not on deterrence alone, but on what is called justice-a person who has committed a crime must be punished in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. Since the crime that takes a life is irrevocable, so must the punishment. Ernest Van Den Haag, author of "Punishing Criminals", psychoanalyst, and adjunct professor of New York University, adds that, "Since the crime that takes a life is irrevocable, so must be the punishment".
Only those in the grip of passion could not be deterred. Certainly some are deterred. If only a few lives were saved by fear of execution, it is worth while to keep capital punishment on the books. Obviously though, if there is a deterrent, and nobody was killed or there was no attempt to kill, we have nothing on which to compile a statistic. So it is ridiculous to say it is not a deterrent. When nothing happens they cannot have a statistic.
Perhaps the abolitionists are right; there are no statistics to prove it was a deterrent. There could be no statistics if the person was deterred and nothing happened.
Those who are not in the grip of passion, who were out merely for gain or to engage in a planned murder, or murder for kicks of for vengeance of their own, would be deterred.
I can cite numerous cases that prove it is a deterrent. A friend, John Waslynchuk, my "consultant" on crime-an aristocrat among western bank robbers and safecrackers-
May 10, 1976

told me when the modified law on capital punishment for killers of police officers and guards came into force, that if he were still in business he would now shoot to kill because he would not hang for murder. In the past, when holding up a bank, he never carried bullets in his gun. But with the end to the old law on murder, he and his associates would shoot a pursuer in the hope of escape, and at the same time eliminate one who could identify him in court. Even if caught and convicted, he would get exactly the same sentence for the robbery as he would for murder. "It would be a good gamble to shoot and kill", he said. "Don't you think so?".
I was advised by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) of another case of a girl who survived because of capital punishment. Leopold Dion and his brother raped a girl on the railway tracks in Quebec, in 1940. Leopold began strangling their victim to death. His brother shouted, "If you kill her, Leo, you will hang". He released her. They were, of course, captured, imprisoned, sentenced to life on November 21, 1940. When he was released on parole in 1962 he again assaulted innocent people, four small boys whom he strangled. Then murder was committed against him. He was killed in prison, because his sentence was commuted. I presume he killed the boys because this time he wanted to be sure there would be nobody to testify against him.
I can assure you that street violence today is more brutalizing than the brutality that people suggest will occur as a result of capital punishment. I was around when they hanged people and I never saw society brutalized-it was a one day news story. The people who are brutalized are the victims, their families and their relatives who, to this day, have never got over it. Street violence is growing virtually out of control and we are so desensitized that when an 11 year old shoots a four year old, the story is nothing more than a newspaper filler. We will soon have a situation similar to that in Washington, D.C. where murder, rape, and robbery are listed in six point type-the print size used for classified ads.
Will a man in prison for 25 years have any reason not to kill again? In fact he has a licence to murder. He can become a hero if he rids the prison of an unpopular guard or unpopular inmate. He can get attention-which most of these people crave. He pays for the first murder; the second, third, etc. are free.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) claims that long prison terms are a greater deterrent than capital punishment. The logic of that eludes me. The person is alive, with a licence that says he already has life in prison. Another murder or two will not make any difference. Guards need not put their lives on the line to protect us when prisoners try to escape. Why should they risk their lives?
I hold life sacred, that is, the lives of law abiding citizens and those trapped in prison with a killer with nothing to lose.
I have seen the victims of crimes and families broken up after a loved one was murdered. The argument for abolition is made around one case in which I was deeply involved, the case of James Carey. He is the man who was sentenced to hang in 1956. I do not think it is an appropri-
Capital Punishment
ate case for arguing abolition because at that time everyone who committed homicide was sentenced to hang, or faced the death penalty. Today Jimmy Carey is raising a family of adopted children and heads an orphanage in New Brunswick. A book is being written by Paul King about his case as an argument for abolition.
James Carey was charged at a time when all homicide was capital murder. He was sentenced to hang as an accessory in the pre-Christmas slaying of a police officer named Gordon Sinclair in 1955. Carey did not fire a shot. He was a petty criminal working as a stool pigeon for the RCMP during the drug wars in Vancouver. He was collecting guns for ballistic tests, and during the course of this, one of the people who had been-unknowingly-helping him with this, Joe Gordon, shot and killed a policeman. Carey was with him. Carey had a young friend, a lawyer without experience or talent, who defended him. The life-saving evidence he could have given in court, and that which the police were willing to give, was never entered.
I visited Mr. Carey frequently on death row. I helped raise finances for appeals. But more important, I learned his whole story. I wrote to the then justice minister, Stuart Garson, and I fought for his life right into the Parliament of Canada. A two week stay of execution was given to both Jimmy Carey and Gordon while the director of remissions, A. J. MacLeod, Q.C., came to B.C. to study this new evidence.
Carey's sentence was commuted eleven hours before his scheduled meeting with the hangman. However, I am certain the reasons Carey succeeded were that he was a good human being, a mere petty criminal and that many people were involved in getting his parole early enough, before he was destroyed by prison. He had a woman who loved him. She was a straight woman, and she married him. He suceeded because she shared his dream of helping unwanted children. They have done wonderful work together. They adopted children, and this is the case abolitionists are using. Yes, I say Carey's life was well worth saving. I knew it then, and I know it now. Carey was not and never would have been a killer, despite any of the big talk he indulged in as a young man.
However, the policeman, Gordon Sinclair, had an even greater right to life. Police Officer Sinclair was a good man, probably a better and stronger man than Carey. He would have done good things for his family, then three orphaned teenagers, and his wife. He would have done good things for many others because he was already doing good things up to his death. But no one to this day, with the exception of a few friends and policemen, seem to care as much about the Sinclairs as they do about Carey and Gordon. It would be hard to prove to the family, because I fought so hard to save Carey, but I care very much about what happened to Gordon Sinclair. He was my friend when I was a police reporter. He helped me, and I despised the crime which caused his death.
Sergeant Ron McKay, 46 of Delta, B.C. was threatened with death by a man named Ellery Stephen Long. Long's gun was seized because he was so dangerous, but under the law it was returned to him by a judge, even though it was known he was determined to kill. On November 2, 1975, he carried out his threat. Staff Sergeant McKay, with three other officers, answered a complaint at Long's house.

May 10, 1976
Capital Punishment
McKay was the first to the door. Long used a pump action sawed off shotgun and killed McKay. McKay's parents, in their late seventies, are magnificent people who enjoyed their retirement. They were on a trip in California with their motor home when this happened. They were finally found-after the funeral. They tell me that they sold their trailer because they know that if they get sick or into trouble somewhere in their travels, Ron will not be around, as he once was when his father fell ill. At that time he brought them home. They now sit in their rooms, these beautiful gentle people, saddened, their life over and their pleasure over because their son is gone.
Mrs. McKay, the man's mother, a gentle, elegant, grey haired lady, said to me:
I favour capital punishment. My son died needlessly. I would have no hesitation, if someone challenged me, to pull the lever that dropped the trap on my son's killer. Yes, it is revenge. But there is Long in prison, living off society for the rest of his life, mean vicious man who hates authority, who hates policemen. No doubt he will learn to hate guards more. Is he saying: 'I have nothing to lose'?
Constable Roger Pierlet, 23, stationed in Surrey, B.C., was expecting his parents to arrive from Quebec on March 29, 1974, to share the celebration of his engagement. When they arrived, they were told their son had been murdered. Even as they were flying west, John Miller, 29, of Langley and Vincent Cockriell, 19, of Powell River, had set out to kill a policeman. They pulled Pierlet into a chase. Cockriell described the rest. The policeman pulled them over, walked up to the car, and, bang, the young policeman was dead.
Miller, Cockriell, and Long are under sentence of death and no doubt among those waiting for the decision of this House on capital murder. Perhaps they, more than any others, are responsible for the public outcry for the restoration of capital punishment.
Some will say I should not cite cases as proof because they are just one or two instances. However, what greater proof can there be than the innocent dying at the hands of relentless killers who do not fear prison but who might fear execution?
I can list many, many more. On March 2, Ian Wood, then 23, who had bought a Swiss FN automatic by mail, went into a Jericho hostel, occupied by young travellers from all across Canada, sprayed gunfire all over the place hitting four people, and a fifth was injured jumping out of the window.
Richard Smith, 22, of North Bay, Ontario was shot in the face and required intensive care for two months and massive plastic surgery to repair his jaw and face. He was also shot in the left side of his chest and left shoulder, and his right index finger was knocked off. This was not murder, only because the medical care was intensive and excellent. However, he is maimed for life. Christopher Dilly, 22, of Toronto was shot in the right thigh and right femur. He required extensive hospital care and is still using crutches. Arthur Skolnik, 22, of Sillery, Quebec, was injured in the left thigh and shoulder and has still not fully recovered. Paul Alexander Visosky, 20, of Toronto was shot in the right chest and had a collapsed lung. Finally, Yves Pierre Dion, of Moncton, jumped out of the window and was injured. At 3.45 p.m. on June 24, 1975, Mrs. Frieda Bux-baum, 42, parked her car in Eaton's parking lot, in the

centre of downtown Vancouver. She was planning to shop for her daughter's wedding the following week. A sex offender on day parole grabbed her before she got out of her car, bound her hands behind her back with a nylon stocking and strangled her. Her body was found there 12 hours later. This was the fourth assault on women in parking lots in that area. Her killer, when captured, complained that she should not have made so much noise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is ten o'clock.


Simma Holt: May I finish tomorrow?


An hon. Member:: Just call it ten o'clock.


Simma Holt: May I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, on March 22 I brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) the fact that this matter came to my attention as a result of an answer I received to a question I placed on the order paper. It appears that the lifeboats for air and sea rescue which are provided at certain bases in the Atlantic region, those 44 foot rescue boats which are supposed to provide a patrol and rescue capability, can only operate in a few inches of ice.
I pointed out in the House previously, Mr. Speaker, as a result of an announcement by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand), who was then minister of transport, that a news release he had issued proclaiming the provision of four new lifeboat bases left and obvious void. This included, for some reason that defies understanding, the whole west coast of Newfoundland, stretching some 400 miles between two bases CGI 14 in Burgeo on the southwest coast and CG109 on the northwest coast.
A map of the area would show this place two of the lifeboat bases on the east coast and the other two on the south and southwest coasts. There are six lifeboat bases in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which hopefully provide adequate support and protection for Canadian fishermen.
It is impossible to reconcile how supposed marine experts can determine the future needs and announce that four new lifeboat bases will be established. A Transport Canada news release No. 3875 stated that these four bases would be established in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and two in Nova Scotia to provide greater safety to
May 10, 1976

all mariners within the radius of each boat, which means within 50 miles.
The release stated that the new three man lifeboats to join the Canadian coastguard would incorporate the latest technology and electronic aids to navigation and had been fitted with a complete range of life saving and rescue equipment.
When two fishermen are lost in the immediate vicinity of one of the bases, however, I must ask-and I put a question on the order paper-what action did the base in the locality take when that incident occurred? I am told that the lifeboat could not react because it could not operate except under conditions when the ice was less than a couple of inches thick. This is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. What in the name of heaven is the purpose in having the bases and/or the lifeboats if they cannot react other than when conditions are perfect-when they are not needed.
How was the decision made to add new locations to an already concentrated area when some 300 to 400 miles of coastline in western Newfoundland were completely ignored? To my mind this shows complete inefficiency or lack of knowledge on the part of those who are supposed to know the situation.
Today I proposed a motion to focus attention on the fact that within the space of one week three fishermen were lost on the west coast of Newfoundland, two of them were lost just yesterday. Months ago I pointed out that this area would not be covered by the establishment of the four new bases. The only answer I ever received to my representations was that this would be taken into consideration in the review of national search and rescue policy and that the necessary documents for implementation are being prepared in consultation with the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence and would be submitted to the cabinet with the policy.
In the meantime, however, we continue to lose fishermen. The latest figures indicate that the average rescue is one out of seven. No one seems to care or pay any attention to the fact that realistic representations are being made by members from Newfoundland who have sensible solutions to the problem.
The activity of the fishing season dictates that, unfortunately, more losses will occur, but it seems impossible to convince the government of the need for immediate action. The deployment of lifeboat bases must be reconsidered and action taken to cover areas not presently provided for. There must be a review of the location of new bases and a review of the capability of the present lifeboats to ensure that they can perform their mission, and that further losses can be avoided. I hope that whoever is going to answer will give me obvious, fundamental, and reasonable answers.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations resulting from an MOT task force report on marine search and rescue are now being finalized. The matter has been given high priority and I hope that it will be possible for the minister to make a detailed announcement shortly.
With regard to the lifeboat bases in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, 11 44-foot self-righting lifeboats have been in service with the Canadian coast guard since 1967, of
Adjournment Debate
which three are based in Newfoundland with one each in Burgeo, Twillingate, and St. Anthony. These self-righting craft were designed in the United States and adapted for use in Canada, and are now widely in use by the Royal National Lifeboat Institute in the United Kingdom.
These craft are tasked to operate as a shore based rescue craft to save life at sea and render aid to craft in distress in inshore coastal waters. They are kept either afloat, in a sheltered haven, or under cover on a slip. Their operation involves launching the boat, proceeding to the scene of an incident, probably not more than at a range of 30 to 40 miles, rescuing survivors from the sea or from another craft, some of whom may be injured, going alongside a broken down or stranded vessel, giving shelter and elementary care to injured people on board, taking in two and towing small craft, returning to base, and being hauled out. These close inshore operations can take place under most adverse weather conditions of wind and sea to be found on our coasts and in shallow water conditions of very heavy surf.
They have no secondary function and incorporate no features to interfere with the effective conduct of their primary mission for which they are eminently successful and suitable, and I would like to emphasize that the major characteristic which makes this craft so suitable operationally is the exceptional seaworthiness expected of a lifeboat. With a speed of 16 knots and an endurance of 20 hours, these craft are able to maintain way and perform their mission in extreme weather conditions, which is of overriding importance.
Manned by a crew of three men and capable of sheltering at least ten survivors, these craft are also fitted with fire-fighting equipment and towing bitts to meet emergencies at sea.
An examination of marine search and rescue incidents reported through the rescue co-ordination centres in Canada for 1974 may be of interest. Out of a total of 2,588 incidents across Canada, 122 were mercy and medical evacuation matters, 517 were in answer to distress calls, and 1,949 for other purposes such as towing.
Of the above figures, the number of incidents on the east coast in 1974 were 500, of which 28 were mercy and medical evacuation matters, 67 were in answer to distress calls, and 405 for other purposes. The number of incidents on the Newfoundland coast form part of the above, with two mercy and medical evaculation matters, 18 in response to distress calls, and 22 for other purposes.
We believe that these vessels are both successful and suitable for the task for which they are intended, that is, to aid fishermen during the fishing season.
However, Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned before, we are not satisfied with our over-all marine search and rescue capacity in Canada, and we are hopeful that the task force recommendations will lead us quickly to a more satisfactory situation.
13380

May 10, 1976
Adjournment Debate


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-POSSIBILITY RATIFICATION OF NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY BEING REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last I raised with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) questions with respect to the sale of nuclear materials and technology to four of the major recipient countries that are presently prospective customers or former customers of ours.
I raised the whole issue of whether our government would require as a basic requirement with respect to a further or future sale of nuclear materials and technology ratification of the non-proliferation treaty. I do not think the Prime Minister fully understood the implications of the question because in his first response to me he seemed to suggest in one instance at least one had already taken place. I trust that the parliamentary secretary has since confirmed that there has been no ratification by any of the four recipient countries.


Monique Bégin: I have news for you.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I shall be delighted to hear the news from the parliamentary secretary. The last word we had with respect to the four countries, India, Pakistan, South Korea, and Argentina, was that not one ratification had taken place. There appeared to be some preliminary signing by the government of South Korea, but I do not think this has constituted ratification. With respect to the Americans, something approaching 50 per cent of their customers have ratified the non-proliferation treaty. Certainly in this specific instance they are in much better shape than we are.
I am very much concerned, in addition, about the situation with respect to the so-called London Agreement, because o,f the fact that the London Agreement has never been madq public, certainly not by our government. We are getting dribs and drabs of communication with respect to the situation concerning the agreement which has been reached by the seven supplier nations. I think it is terribly important that we get some idea as to the possible action which might be taken with respect to those seven supplier nations; we must know about future policies and what kind of public censure might arise. I say this particularly in view of recent reports in last week's New York Times with respect to the growing resentment on the part of the Common Market countries which make up Euratom with regard to the London Agreement.
As I say, we do not know the exact details of that agreement but we are concerned about changes in domestic nuclear policy in the United Kingdom. For some 20 years the government of the United Kingdom has depended for the supply of some basic nuclear materials on the United States. It has depended on that country particularly for the supply of one material, that of tritium, which is a component of H-bombs which is, in turn, derived from many ores although often associated with aluminum.
The speculation in the New York Times last week was that there may be some agreement between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of France with respect to the possibility of the development 
of some new nuclear weapons capability. Certainly the apparent action of the London club in blocking any direct information going to fellow Common Market countries has upset the remaining six. Apparently only late last week were the remaining six European countries informed of the agreement which was reached late last year by the so-called London club.
The essence, I think, of the reason for raising this question has to do with the way in which there will be effective imposition of sanctions. There is no doubt that, as a result of the London meetings, new and stiffer anti-proliferation provisions are to be applied to most nuclear sales agreements around the world. Apparently safeguards are now extended to cover the entire useful life of any nuclear fuel by-product. I believe, however, that tougher standards are still possible, since the London club agreement fell short, I believe, of including the entire nuclear program of recipient nations.
The point which I have made in previous speeches, and will make again tonight, is that the whole question of safeguards does not in any way mean that sanctions will in fact function. Or, as I said in a previous speech outside this House, detection is not prevention. I believe that although safeguard agreements may make reference to the possibility that sanctions may be applied if a nation is caught circumventing agreement provisions, there is no indication from our government as to what sanctions might be enforced, by whom they will be enforced, what the sanctions themselves would be, and what verification procedures beyond those which presently exist would be operable.
We are well aware, I think, that the International Atomic Energy Agency in no way possesses sufficient resources of manpower and operating procedures to achieve the kind of verification which seems to be implied in the London Agreement. If ever there was an instance in which the justification of secrecy was unwarranted, this has to be the clearest example of it. When we think of the immediate and long term implications of the expansion of nuclear information and technology, the great jeopardy occasioned by the growth of nuclear weapons systems, and even the peaceful expansion of nuclear capability, we think there is a definite right for the public to know. I think that both present and future generations of citizens in this world will require that these seven nations, of which Canada is one, must assume a direct and immediate responsibility to make the details of these agreements public.
I have not yet been convinced by any argument so far put forward by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) that there is sufficient justification to maintain the kind of secrecy which has existed with respect to the so-called London Agreement. In fact I think secrecy only weakens the capability of our government and other governments to enforce any useful or responsible sanctions. I look forward to hearing from the parliamentary secretary with respect to the questions that I put to the Prime Minister last week.

Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to
Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
May 10, 1976

am pleased to answer the questions put to the right hon. Prime Minister by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) last Tuesday, May 4, all the more so because I noted three major errors in his questions and in his presentation this evening.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, Canada is not in the process of supplying nuclear reactors to Pakistan and India. The matter of pursuing nuclear co-operation further in ways other than through the sale of reactors, study launched way before a non-proliferation treaty was signed with those countries, is now still under consideration.
Here is the second error: the Republic of Korea ratified the non-proliferation treaty on April 23, 1975. Argentina, for its part, did not sign or ratify the treaty, but is aware of our views and wishes in the matter.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: What date?


Monique Bégin: I have just said Korea ratified the treaty on April 23-

I will repeat it in English if that suits my colleague opposite the better. On April 23, 1975, Korea ratified the treaty.

Signing the NPT is not a prerequisite for nuclear cooperation on a strictly commercial basis with other countries. Still, the implementation of international guarantees under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which conform with Canada's own very strict criteria, is a prerequisite for such transactions. Argentine and the Republic of Korea accepted these safeguards. I would add, and I think it is very important that my colleague takes a note of this, that the Secretary of State
Adjournment Debate
for External Affairs tabled the text of the agreements with both countries in this House of January 30, 1976.
Endorsing the NPT is a prerequirement for help for bilateral nuclear development; there is a difference here, and I have already said so on the late show: from now on Canada will offer bilateral help only to those countries which adhere to the treaty. Furthermore, ratification of the treaty will be an important consideration in the financing of Canadian nuclear exports.
Before concluding my remarks, I would add, Mr. Speaker, that, contrary to what my colleague has just said, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has clearly outlined in this House, on March 23, the seven substantial points of the safeguards required on the initiative of Canada by the main supplier countries as far as nuclear co-operation and transaction are concerned; they are called London Club.
I would also add that we are deeply interested in the possibility that other suppliers could join the countries which already have held, as a result of the action taken by this country, many diplomatic talks. Those points are stated in the French official report of our proceedings, page 12064, March 23. I also think, Speaker, that it is important to note the House was regularly informed of the statements regulating our sales and our nuclear assistance and that the department is always ready to distribute additional copies. I also was pleased to discuss with several groups, among which some representatives of churches and others who came to meet the experts of the department.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.
95568-13%



Tuesday, May 11, 1976